Google Tells Employees That Fewer of Them Will Get Promotions To Senior Roles -...
source link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/03/08/1543239/google-tells-employees-that-fewer-of-them-will-get-promotions-to-senior-roles
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Google Tells Employees That Fewer of Them Will Get Promotions To Senior Roles
Google is warning employees that fewer of them will receive promotions to more senior levels this year than in the past. From a report: "The process is manager-led and will be largely similar to last year -- though with our slower pace of hiring, we are planning for fewer promotions into L6 and above than when Google was growing quickly," the company said in an email that was viewed by CNBC. The L6 distinction refers to the first layer of staff that's considered senior and typically includes people with about a decade of experience. The changes come as Google implements a new performance review system called Google Reviews and Development (GRAD), which as CNBC reported in December, will result in more Google employees receiving low performance ratings and fewer receiving high marks. Like many large tech companies, Google has a sprawling middle management. According to last year's internal survey results that affected the company's ability to ship products efficiently. Google also is in the midst of trying to cut costs as growth decelerates and recession concerns persist. The company has slowed hiring and announced in January that it's cutting 12,000 jobs, or about 6% of the workforce. In Monday's email, the tech giant said it's promoting fewer people to senior roles "to ensure that the number of Googlers in more senior and leadership roles grows in proportion to the growth of the company."
›
are they an UP or OUT workplace? peter or dilbert system for putting people into management?
They should take the Musk approach. He culled...what, 90%+ of twitter and it's still up and running?
Give it an hour. Then tell us if Twit is still up. They are having multiple issues each week [downdetector.com], including service being not available.
They should take the Musk approach. He culled...what, 90%+ of twitter and it's still up and running?
How many @ google do you suppose are dead weight? ~90% feels about right.
Musk is an idiot, he basically took the slash and burn approach without bothering to figure out what's important first. It doesn't help that he's also saddled Twitter with some fairly large debts that he used to fund his acquisition. It's still up and running but that's pretty much inertia the platform is now pretty fragile. However, it's probably not that which is likely to ultimately bring the whole platform down. He cut all the regulatory stuff, and he's going to get screwed even though the wheels grind slow.
-
-
People who think Musk are an idiot, are a special kind of idiot.
No, they've been paying attention.
Obviously someone who made an electric car company and a rocket company work. things many said were impossible, is vastly smarter than most people.
Musk invested in, and took over, an existant car company. His car company survives today despite many, many, boneheaded decisions, and because of a cult of personality among car buyers.
Musk funded a rocket company that very famously has management that aggressively prevents him from being involved in it.
Musk is a supplier of money having been lucky to have his half assed micropayments company bought up by the company that eventually became Paypal, which made him a billionaire. And he only had a micropayments company in the first place because he had the right contacts because he was the son of a mine owner.
Let's look at the Twitter acquisition though, which was the reason Musk was called an idiot.
First of all, how did it happen? Musk was upset about "bots" for reasons lost in the mists of time, but possibly related to the amount of criticism he was getting @'d. He complained to Twitter. When Twitter explained the situation, he started making various allegations, culminating in him calling Twitter execs liars when they explained how they got to their own figures.
He then suggested buying Twitter (because... why?) and bought some shares to get on the board. Because he was angry at Twitter execs contradicting him in public about bots.
He then left the board and announced he was going to buy it. Because he was angry at Twitter execs contradicting him in public about bots.
He then made an offer, a massive amount of money, and no way to withdraw the offer unless he couldn't raise the capital - and if he withdrew for that reason, he'd have to pay ONE BILLION DOLLARS to Twitter as a breakup fee. But to make matters worse, if he criticized Twitter during the capital raising period, he couldn't back out at all. All because he was angry at Twitter execs contradicting him in public about bots.
It then became obvious that mainstream financial institutions weren't actually happy about lending him the money for this. Musk announced the buy wasn't going to go ahead, and he blamed... bots. He actually had the gal to complain that Twitter was underestimating the number of bots on the platform and use that as an excuse to back out of a deal when the reason he was buying it was... because he was angry at Twitter execs contradicting him in public about bots.
Because Musk disparaged Twitter by claiming it was lying about bots, he simultaneously made it impossible to back out of the deal he'd made to buy Twitter because of the aforementioned non-disparagement clause. Which meant that if he didn't want to be sued into bankruptcy, he would have to get high interest loans from banks in addition to money from "friends" like the Saudis and that fascist vampire (no, this isn't hyperbole) who owns Palintir. This would, if he sought to dispose of the problem the typical way (spoiler: he did!) doom Twitter because he'd assign those loans to Twitter, adding roughly $1B in interest payments to its expenses every year. For reference, Twitter's pre-Musk loss was only a few million dollars a year. And he was doing this because he was angry at Twitter execs contradicting him in public about bots.
He went through with the purchase and announced layoffs, then unannounced them, then asked for every software developer working there to send him literal printouts of the code they'd written in the last six months and then fired them based upon getting rid of the people who wrote the least lines of code. Because apparently that's how you tell the difference between a good programmer and a bad one. Because he was angry at Twitter execs contradicting him in public about bots.
He them demoralized the rest of the staff there, most of
-
If the thing about lines of code is true, that's it. Game over. Anyone who thinks that's a reasonable metric doesn't know shit about tech.
-
-
Musk is an idiot in many areas, but not an idiot in others. What is particularly idiotic is thinking that you're a super genius in a new company that you know literally nothing about. In that sense Musk is a special idiot - at Twitter. Maybe he's not an idiot at Tesla.
Musk was never forced into that purchase, he set a trap for himself and stepped into it. He agreed to buy Twitter and then could not back out - no one forced Musk to make the original agreement, they only forced him to uphold his agreement.
-
Musk (and many hi-tech luminaries) benefit from the halo effect. Musk did indeed do something visionary with Tesla and SpaceX. The halo effect allows those successes to indicate a broad genius that extends to everything he does. Some people see the halo, and others don't.
I don't think Musk is an idiot. He did exactly what he intended with Twitter, which was to bend it to his will. Twitter was his toy. I don't think he cared about elevating Twitter's financial or technical success. So, in this sense,
-
You've got some boot polish on your nose there.
That wasn't a question of smarts as much as it was the combination of money, self belief and a bit of luck. For sure he's made some bloody good calls, but unfortunately he's also made some bad ones too (e.g. that cave submarine) you've just forgotten them because humans are cognitively biased that way. He's an above average businessman for sure, he had the money to invest, he thought something was possible that others thought impossible and he hired the people
-
-
It's obviously always been very fragile- which is why so many ex-employees were convinced the whole service would fail as soon as they were let go. Musk has repeatedly complained about the current architecture being awful.
I'd also point out that Twitter has added multiple new features since he took over, at a far greater pace than under the prior regime, so saying it's running on inertia sounds pretty oblivious.
Does that mean the whole thing won't ultimately crash and burn? No, there's certainly still a str
-
Elon is a dumbass and can’t be bothered to even look at who he’s firing. Like this guy https://www.bosshunting.com.au... [bosshunting.com.au]
I mean selling the office plants for cash is something every company does, right?
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
-
Musk is a jerk, but I thought the reporting on that disabled employee was a bit disingenuous. We was taunting a guy who turned out to be disabled, not mocking the disability (like Trump with that reporter several years ago).
-
He literally claimed the employee wasn't disabled because he could type, and implied he was fired because he didn't do any real work, comparing him directly to the middle manager on Office Space.
Deeply shitty behavior and well deserving of the negative press.
-
The disabled employee is now owed $100 million, part of the contract with Twitter when his company was bought. He was getting a salary in order to pay taxes to Iceland, because he had enough money already he wanted to thank Iceland for their disability support. It does not matter if he did or not do useful work - his salary was going to be less than the $100 million payout. His reason for asking if he was fired or not was for these reasons, and he was being ignored by Twitter. So the tweet was the way to
-
He made a tweet about "can't feel my legs" with a picture of a wheelchair guy.
-
-
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK