Hacker News Reader

Comment by HWR_14 | Hacker News Reader

Google deciding to give everyone literally 100x or 66x more free space than their competitors did manage to acquire a lot of the email market, which meant non-negligible hardware costs. It spent three years in internal development of Gmail. I have no idea why you think managers weren't involved in those decisions.

Meanwhile, I have no idea if battery life impact is worth measuring in your use-case. My assumption would be "no" because I would imagine the battery life impact would vary too widely to yield useful data and I don't see what I could do with that information anyway other than recommend some people not use the app. But I'm not really thinking deeply about it now, so I'd love to be enlightened. Meanwhile, trying to get more customers is a good thing, even if it fails.

View on HN

It's probably important to put this into context of Google's views towards management, especially back then. At one point they even experimented (briefly) with having no middle management. My understanding is that they still try to limit the number of managers and their ability to harm the organization by using tactics like higher ratios of developers for each manager. They actively try to reduce negative behaviors like micro-management by middle managers.

It's not exactly common for an organization to actively attempt to mitigate the negative aspects of middle management so it's almost an apples to oranges comparison. But since we're on the topic of Google, maybe making management reduction one of an organization's goals is the correct strategy to reduce the bloat and increase the productivity of ICs.

>My understanding is that they still try to limit the number of managers

IMHO this is really the point. Somebody has to hire devs, run the evaluation/promotion stuff, facilitate communication to/from upper management, and so on.

I've just never been to a place that couldn't do that with 1/2 to 1/3 of the EMs they have. For whatever reason the standard is one EM per team. A better ratio is on EM per 2-4 teams.

Then don't be surprised when you don't get promo's because the manager responsible isn't familiar with your work.

From what I've been told, you need to "change something" in order to get promoted at Google. Doesn't much matter what, as long as it's a visible change, presumably at least marginally improving things.

And that illustrates what releasing half-baked stuff and not caring much about tech debt is all about - visibility. This seems to be true across industries. Not releasing something, even if it's not ready gives impression of not doing enough, not delivering, always being late, etc. Releasing stuff shows you (the manager) are the person who delivers. If it's crap, you'll get even more resources to throw at fixing stuff that's already delivered. And you're the hero again (even if it's "techies" who did 80-hour weeks to make it happen).

This doesn't even break down too much in physical product world. "Deliver" could mean sales, first to the market, we'll add copy&paste in 3.0, and so on...

I feel like this happens at every tech company I've worked for. The management in charge of promotions is not tech savvy, so 'under the hood' improvements and general maintenance goes completely unappreciated, while flashy, superficial UI updates are bestowed with gold medals and promotions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com