Slashdot Mirror


Internal Microsoft Email about Life at Google

An anonymous reader wrote in to give us "An interesting perspective on Google, from an internal email sent around Microsoft. Basically an interview that provides analysis about how Google compares to Microsoft from an employee perspective. Included are suggestions for what Microsoft might copy in order to stay competitive in the job market and criticisms of Google's "college kid" atmosphere."

21 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. isn't this normal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "These kids don't have a life yet so they spend all of their time at work."

    "People are generally in the building between 10am and about 6pm every day, but nearly everyone is on e-mail 24/7 and most people spend most of their evenings working from home."

    Wow - I dunno about the rest of the world, but for our company that's the norm and we're all in our 30s/40s working for a marketing company :)

    1. Re:isn't this normal? by Lockejaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just like the combination of "they spend all their time at work" and "generally in the building between 10am and 6pm." Isn't that eight hours per day right there? Then there's the part about how it changes as the employees get older, but he doesn't exactly give a shining example of that supposed change.

      --
      (IANAL)
    2. Re:isn't this normal? by utopianfiat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds normal to me? Except the whole "not having a life" part...
      A lot of Google sounds similar to the structure of the place where I work. There's a bit of an unhealthy spin that makes it sound like it ends up being worse- for example, valuing "degrees" over "experience"- Well, for one, I've been in class with a graduate student who was refused an internship from Google, and this guy was actually extremely intelligent; their reasoning was that he ought to start at a lower-tier job first (he wanted to be a dev?).
      I mean, it sounds like they'd hire any old bum with a cool degree, which simply isn't true- I sincerely doubt that Google's products are the result of code that *my* classmates could chug out; college code tends to be extremely inelegant and barely operational. I think, instead, google might *gasp* be hiring lots of programmers since they're a new company (relatively). Furthermore, maybe Stanford is simply buddy-buddy with Google; I know that's the case between utexas engineering and AMD; we tend to give them quite a few interns and coops, not because they think utexas is superior, but because they get a *lot* of applicants from utexas.
      Not to bust on Microsoft- despite the slashdot official stance on them, I was seeking a job with them earlier, and it looked to me like they treated their employees very, very well.

      --
      +5, Truth
    3. Re:isn't this normal? by drasfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      10am to 6pm? Damn, that IS relaxed for an IT job.... 24/7 checking email with blackberry doesn't really mean working... maybe the feeling of working? we all have a couple of minutes in our evenings sometimes to answer an email here and there...

      I know so many people in IT that work more, 8 or 9am to 7pm, or more, and often work from home too...

      I was approached by Google, got interviewed, and at the end declined because I wasn't technical enough to be the Director of Engineering (or something like that as a tittle). Which is utter bs. There was not a single question about management. It was 100% technical, which is fine, I am very technical and have always been, and in all my reviews at all my jobs was/am always told one of the most technically savy person. Their style of questions was grilling you more and more and going deeper and deeper into the questions and technicalities until you failed. Started as what is TCP and UDP to going down and down and down the stack, syncookies, handshakes, how it works, to how sequence numbers are generated and more to more obscure points... At one point I couldn't answer anymore.

      I used to know but not anymore. I told them, and I told them a 2 minute search on google itself will turn up the results so there is no need to know that by heart. In all my previous jobs, and that is my way of thinking, initial knowledge is not what gets the job done. Ability to do research and learn quickly IS the most important thing.

      In my opinion people there at google tend to be pretentious and full of themselves. But that is my personal opinion and I am glad I don't work there in fact, sure there are some nice benefits and all, but it isn't everything. I got a few job offers and work for one of the best company around, and in my mind a much better company than Google...

    4. Re:isn't this normal? by Splab · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Holy crap!

      I thought the US had abolished slavery. Why on earth does anyone put up with that??? Is the job market really that bad?

      I can accept a few days of overtime pending product launch, but if a company expected me to me available like that I would tell them to go f*** themselves.

    5. Re:isn't this normal? by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      24/7 checking email with blackberry doesn't really mean working... maybe the feeling of working? we all have a couple of minutes in our evenings sometimes to answer an email here and there...

      I hate this. When did people become so obsessed with work? I've posted my feelings about doing work on "personal time" before and I'm going to restate it here: When you leave the office, you're done. Regardless of how the company decides to pay you and regardless of your own warped feelings about how you should operate, you should NOT work once you leave.

      Leave work at work even if you LOVE your job. You should LOVE your personal time a ton more.

      In my opinion people there at google tend to be pretentious and full of themselves.

      I feel the same way about people that feel that they are so important that they must work from home... It's as if the world will stop turning if they take vacation or have personal time. I work with a woman like that and being that she spends most of her day taking personal phone calls and playing Hearts, I have a real problem with her telling everyone how important her job is to the institution.

    6. Re:isn't this normal? by Ogive17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Staying plugged in to work 24/7 is putting yourself on the fast track to burnout. Most people where I work (procurement for major engine company) work from home occasionally, but management constantly warns about making it a habit. They are aware that it's unhealthy to devote 9 hours in the office and another 5-6 hours out of the office to work each day. Of course, at certain times they expect long days to get a project done.

      You have to draw a line between work and life, before work takes over your life. If these guys have to stay in tune with what is going on at work all the time, they are setting themselves up for less enjoyment of life.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    7. Re:isn't this normal? by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If workers are "interchangeable parts," as the article seems to suggest, then from the company's point of view, it's best if your work IS your life. So what if you burn out early, there's a class-load of graduates every year, plus stragglers or over-achievers at mid-year.

      In other words, you have to set your limits, because many employers will be happy to take all they can get from you, without thought to the future.

      Unfortunately, in an employment situation like we have now in the US, there is little-to-no disincentive for employers to put workers on the burnout track, as a matter of course.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    8. Re:isn't this normal? by Richthofen80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've made the mistake of thinking the only way to be a slave is to be physically coerced.

      I haven't made the mistake because it is true.

      The definition I am using is: a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. This is from dictionary.com . The closest definition I can find to the way you are using the word is: a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person . Even if we use the more generous second meaning; it simply does not apply, because one can simply be undominated by work by simply not showing up or doing it.

      When the alternative is starving in the gutter, that's close enough to coercion for most people.

      Let me ask you this: Imagine we are 8000 years in the past. An prehistoric farmer is carving out a meek farming existence. He carefully tills the soil with hand tools and scratches out a basic existence on what little he can cull from the soil. Is he then a slave to his farm? Is he a slave to the fact that he is an animal, and must, from time to time, feed his belly? What is coercing him to farm?

      The answer is, he is not coerced. There is no force. He is free to starve. Just because men must provide for their own survival does not enslave them. If that were the case, using that definition, under no circumstances could a man *not* be a slave. And in which case, all men are slaves and then there's no such thing as slavery.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    9. Re:isn't this normal? by illumin8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their style of questions was grilling you more and more and going deeper and deeper into the questions and technicalities until you failed. Started as what is TCP and UDP to going down and down and down the stack, syncookies, handshakes, how it works, to how sequence numbers are generated and more to more obscure points... At one point I couldn't answer anymore.
      That was exactly how my third and fourth Google interviews went. I did extremely well because I tend to be the type of person that remembers those obscure details about TCP/IP packets that nobody needs to know in the "real world." But I couldn't help feeling that the entire interview was just about a pissing contest between 2 techies to see who knew more. Google has a lot of brilliant people working there, but it did seem extremely elitist and not a very good way to determine how smart a potential candidate is. If they push you long and far enough they will get to a point where you don't know any more.

      The thing that really, really bothered me about the interview process was that if they are hiring for a "senior level" position (in my case they were), basing their hiring decision on whether you know which bit is flipped on or off in a TCP header is more likely to favor the recent college graduate who happened to memorize his textbook and has no real world experience, than the experienced career veteran that has probably forgotten more than the college grad ever knew. That's most likely why the workforce is "just like college" and "work experience doesn't matter." Like I said, Google has a lot of bright people, but they lack a lot of real world experience. Maybe that's a good thing (look at problems from a new perspective), but there's something to be said for experience.
      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
  2. Lost me in the first para by CallFinalClass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Microsoft is an amazingly transparent company. Google is not. "

    Ya, right.

    1. Re:Lost me in the first para by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just say no to Google! Oh, but here's how we can try to be exactly like them!

      --
      This guy's the limit!
  3. Laughable "Google is like my mommy" arguments by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somehow, the author interprets the great perks like free T-shirts, meals, health care, and facilities as Google playing your parent and running your life. That's a hell of a spin job on what I'd consider a dream environment.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Laughable "Google is like my mommy" arguments by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Do you, by any chance, fit the "college kid" demographic referred to in the article?

      I am a family man. The idea of eating 3 meals per day at work doesn't fit at all. Dentistry at work? Interesting, but I'd prefer a traditional plan, because I personally am only 1/6 (less, actually) of the dental needs that I am responsible for. Am I making sense? It seems like the benefits are all based on the employee/company relationship, but most of those needs are already met by my other relationships, and maintaining those is a higher priority for me. Instead of a gourmet meal for myself at work, I'd rather have the cash towards some hamburgers I can eat at home with my family.

  4. Re:From the perspective of someone on the outside. by bahwi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is about making a better, quicker, more effective product or filling a need that wasn't filled before. Microsoft's policy has typically been "How do we control the market?" "How do we make this product necessary to the industry?" etc... Not building a better/quicker product but making a product in demand. Kind of like requiring vista to run certain games(while my railroad tycoon 3 causes vista to coredump on my laptop, I'm not touching it on my desktop, which means no shadowrun... damnit).

    You can argue it any way you like, Microsoft is a little more agressive in the industry and Google believes if you build a great product people will come(and with their name they believe everything they do is a great product whether it is or isn't because they get people just because of their name). Microsoft has given up on better/quicker and gone for "How to make this necessary?"

  5. Wrong about private office space by Uksi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The memo is wrong about private office space. Microsofties are used to it because they all have private offices (with doors and all), which is far better than cubes, but his dismissal of shared working spaces comes with no backup arguments (other than a link to a JoelOnSoftware article that talks about them expanding space--how is that a backup argument?)

    I used to work in a team room environment, where all the developers sat together in one room (there were 10-15 of us or so), working on the same product. I loved working in that environment. You could talk to anyone just like that right away. Not having to walk for a minute or half a minute makes quite a difference, believe it or not. Since the barrier for asking someone for help or ideas is so low (lean over and speak), it's much easier to quickly bounce off ideas without having to interrupt your own flow. Also, you overhear others' problems and ideas, and pitch in with your own. Countless times I've heard someone lamenting some problem and was able to chip in with "oh I just solved the same issue."

    Yes, you must have headphones in the team room, because sometimes you just need to concentrate and headphones are essential to drown out the noise.

    Unfortunately, I am back to working in a cube and I miss the team room days.

  6. Evil Empire by llZENll · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just wait another 5 years and Google will be the new evil empire, they are almost already there with all of the privacy concerns.

  7. Finally, I'm not jealous! by HerculesMO · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I spent time working up my resume to get noticed at Google or Microsoft to get a job. I really wanted to work in a field that was 'techie' and that I was working for a company I believed in.

    Then I got a job at a video game company. It was a smaller firm, but a lot of fun to work at. People were all young (I'm only 26), they had free food and lots of perks. You could go to work in shorts and a tshirt.

    But then I started to see the down sides of it all. I worked long hours, and often worked from home. My health insurance wasn't anything special. Being on email till the wee hours of the night was an annoyance.

    And then I found another job, and left.

    Now I work for a place I have no real feeling of accomplishment, nor is it a place I yearned to work for. But I get in at 10am, I am out the door at the latest by 6pm. I don't work from home. I don't get on email after I leave work. Emergencies come up and then I take care of them, but I am able to separate my work life from my personal life with great distinction. My co-workers are in their 30s and 40s and 50s, all of them have families and leave on time to make sure that they are home to pick up their kids, play with them, and be at their soccer games. They encourage me to leave work and go out on a date, watch a movie, read a book, and do something constructive. They know that working isn't the point of life, but merely a part of it.

    And now at the age of 26, I finally have a job that I yearned for, but didn't know I wanted.

    Do yourselves a favor -- find a job that will let you live your life reasonably. You will be better at your job because you appreciate it, not because you are dying for it.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
  8. Take if from the "last" great thing by gelfling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I work for the last tech generation's great and most favorite company. A big three letter place. It's a tomb. It's a company that sees its future as merely saving and cost cutting its way to prosperity as it develops nothing and creates nothing. And the only new things to come out of it anymore is via acquisition.

    MS is probably just like that. A husk on cruise control that's driven by costs, bureaucracy and slack. A place where nothing new happens because the executives are paranoid rich blockheads.

    Some MS insider should check to see what the average tenure with the company is now. I'm sure its dropping. If it's a really low number like mine is then that's a red flag for a company that just wants to operate on the lowest cost basis, probably out of the country and where innovation and quality are already dead.

  9. Re:Who died and made you boss? by Techguy666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If someone likes working all the time, why not respect that and move on with your life?


    As long as it doesn't intrude on my life, I'm all for that. However, if you work 24/7 and our mutual boss wants to know why I'm not accomplishing 20 tasks a day, that gets annoying and your work habit is affecting me. If our mutual boss decides to make you the "norm" and expects everyone to follow suit, then you've created an environment for burnout and your work habit is affecting me. If you get in the habit of working 24/7 and you catch a cold and come in to work anyway, and I catch your cold, your work habit is affecting me. You infect me with a cold and I'm staying home, dammit. You infect other, saner, people and they'll stay home too.

    Allowing someone to behave detrimentally in a work environment sets a dangerous precedent because nobody works in a bubble; it changes the work culture to one that benefits the organization unequally over the individual, it creates health risks, and combined, potentially skews a society's economy. That's why I care if *you* work yourself to the bone. You're not only my colleague but you're a barometer of the world around me.
  10. Re:Who died and made you boss? by Knara · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not if he dies before you get to know him.

    Not being dramatic, just pointing out the flaw in the argument.