cloche

I watched a video of Geoffrey Canada[1] explaining that when parents would ask them what they could do for themselves he would respond with something like "Unfortunately, there's not much you can do to change your situation. Which is why it's so important to place a high priority on your kids." I'm paraphrasing and don't remember the exact words but that really had an impact on me. The platitudes that Americans grow up - "Be who you want to be" and "You can do anything you want" - really start to fall away once you're older and have responsibilities and don't have the time anymore to take risks.

[1] https://hcz.org/about-us/leadership/geoffrey-canada/

That's because it's made up. The study never happened yet it keeps getting repeated in numerous self-help books.

https://ask.library.yale.edu/faq/175224

I try to spend the first 10 minutes of my day reviewing my calendar for the day and write out my priorities for the day. I may have 1 priority or I may have 3 or 4. I've definitely noticed myself getting more things done when I've done this vs the days where I've skipped it.

I also keep a document with future ideas or improvements that I can pick from if it's a slow period at work.

*Pink Floyd

While I'm not a manager I can relate to a past position where I was technical lead. I had a person on my team who was the same - friendly, enthusiastic. In conversations he would give you the impression that he's a person who knows what he's talking about. But when it came time to do the work it seemed he was interested in any distraction that would prevent him from programming. I tried to help him focus and spent a lot of time on coaching. Now I wonder if that was a waste of time.

Earlier on in my career I would read stories from tech companies that said something like "if you don't get promoted to a certain level within 2 years then you get fired." Initially I thought that was pretty harsh. Now, I understand where it comes from. If someone hasn't shown progress in 2 years, assuming proper feedback, it's doubtful that they'll ever improve much.

On the other hand, I believe there are places for average engineers. Part of the issue with this person is that they wanted to keep trying to do more complex work even though they struggled with easier tasks and it was a constant struggle to try to balance that.

I think in retrospect, had I been the person's manager, the best option would have been to restrict their work to the easy tasks. If they didn't like it then they could always leave. I now also understand why some people are "managed out". Maybe they can stay in their role but if they don't have the ability to progress then I don't think it's a manager's duty to help them beyond a certain point.

Don't they end up paying more though? Modis must be making a profit on the workers so Google could, in theory, hire them directly and save money.

I know someone who works as a contractor for Google (not through Modis). It's quite odd. They had to go through a lot of Google specified training, they only work for Google, their manager is someone from Google, the computer was supplied from Google, they're doing work that is directed by Google, they receive performance feedback from Google. But at the day, they're officially employed by this vendor company. I just don't see how it can be argued that people like this are not really employed by Google. If Google doesn't need this job anymore, this staffing company isn't going to retain them. It's not like they have other clients where they can redirect the person to as far as I can tell.

Why is it that Google uses these staffing firms? I get that they don't want to provide the same benefits to lower skilled workers but then why not just have 2 sets of benefits? One for higher skilled employees and one for lower skilled employees? I suppose the other answer is when it comes to layoffs, it won't be in the news because these types of workers are not officially employed by Google.