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."
The biggest difference between Google and Microsoft is that Google turns research ideas into products. Microsoft spends something like five billion dollars on research a year, and pretty much any conference has a few interesting papers by Microsoft Research, but five years later you still won't see any products based on them. Google have a good track record of turning employees '20% time' into products. I think the difference here is that Microsoft have a research arm, and a products arm, and are not good at passing ideas between the two, while Google have people doing product work 80% of the time and research 20% of the time, so there is no disconnect.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I find that very amusing. Bill gates ran Microsoft as just such a company for many years.
With the exception of the 'almost always work at home' (doesn't happen a lot) and the hours (they vary according to individual's preference), sounds like here, too.
I have no problem with keeping an eye on email every time I walk by my computer, and responding or fixing a problem or 2 here and there. It keeps Everyone (including my co-workers) happy, and generally doesn't cost me much. There's only been a few times when I had to put something fairly important (to me) away, and almost never that I had to stop something -very- important. (Usually someone else will step in and do it, instead.)
One of my co-workers DOES spend a ton of time at home working, and I kick myself for lack of work ethic whenever I realize he's spent time working at home. I then realize that I already over-work anyhow, so no biggie.
I think a lot of the people that complain about these working conditions have never actually experienced them. I've been in the cube farm of a major OEM and a major telecommunications company, and I've done retails in different stores, and I -far- prefer to work a little harder here and know the people around me are doing the same, for the good of ourselves and the company. It's a completely different feeling and I don't ever think, 'Man, if I have to deal with that lazy bugger again today...' Every other job I've had, I've had to do someone else's work because they were too lazy. I'm not saying that'll never happen here, but it hasn't so far (near 2 years now).
My point: Don't judge a book by its cover. Just because 1 aspect of the job seems to suck doesn't mean there aren't 2 others that make up for it.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Now, you say "oh, but patents 'only' last 20 years". Well, I've got news for you: US diplomats have been pushing for 40 year patent terms abroad (asia, mainly). Once a country goes for that, then the USA will have a policy-laundered excuse to "harmonize" up to 40 years. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The entire patent system should be abolished - if you want to reward "innovators" over and above the free market, find a way that doesn't deal a death of a thousand cuts to the freedom of hundreds of millions.
I'm amazed to see discussions, not just here but elsewhere, based on blog posts which supposedly give "an insider's look" or "confessions from a former...." and are taken as the gospel truth.
Admittedly, I am cynical, but isn't it common sense to take these things as false until proven true?
Personally, I give this kind of thing as much credence as forwarded-forwarded-forwarded email.
I think another big issue is that Google is probably still at that stage where projects are new enough and the organization is new enough where you're actually permitted to accomplish significant things without a mountain of bureaucracy, a long series of pointless meetings, and approval from several large committees. You get the impression that, unlike other software companies, Google hires good people and lets them work instead of keeping them perpetually frustrated.
Eventually, Google's employees will be as over-managed as most other employees at most other software companies.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
I've tried to write code in a cubicle, and it sucks, big time. I can share an office, but two-up in a 10x20 is about my limit.
So, if I find myself competing with Google for a candidate, I can see the main lever to apply. Besides matching their salaries, I've got to provide a private office, and make sure that the work is as interesting as whatever they'd be doing at Google.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
hmmm... a while back there was speculation that Microsoft had despaired of ever having its press releases taken seriously, and instead had started to release company PR disguised as "leaks" about which it would then pretend to get vary annoyed.
By doing so, instead of everyone going "ho-hum - more PR from Redmond" they'd take the leaked document very seriously. Then someone would pipe up with, "you know, if you think about it, Microsoft really don't sound too that bad in this", and everyone would take that seriously too. Because, you know, if it wasn't true, why would they be so angry?
So I suppose it's possible that Microsoft employees aren't the intended audience here...
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I work at Google. It really is a dream job. The main criticisms he had were:
1. People work too hard
2. There is little privacy
#2 is true and is unfortunate, although it matters less than you think because nobody expects you to be working all the time. #1 is just a load of crap. Some people work hard because they feel like it, but there is very little pressure to do so, and many people do not work hard at all. I average less than 8 hours a day and never work from home, and I have never been given crap about it.
I'd go a step further than that. I'd guess a lot of good ideas at Microsoft are thrown by the wayside not because communication is bad, but because the ideas are "dangerous." The company's massive revenue comes mostly from Office and Windows; many things that are new, shiny and have the potential to change the world, also have the potential to change the OS and productivity markets. The Web's history at Microsoft is the core example of this way of thinking - if Microsoft can control something and prevent it from being too world-changing, it's all right. Hence Fake-Java, IE, ActiveX and so on. If it weren't for the company's paranoia of upsetting the cash cows, Microsoft would probably have changed the world a dozen times over. They might have better supported Java, built Web versions of Office, opened more APIs in Windows, spearheaded the OpenDocument format and adopted it in Word ... and I'm sure there are thousands of other "what-ifs" that the cash cows have killed.
Google doesn't seem to care what they tear down in order to build new technologies, aside from their ad revenue, but at the moment that's not in serious danger.
What makes the open plan office thing tolerable at Google is a very large number of modest-sized, well-equipped conference rooms.
Google does go overboard on on-site services designed to keep people at work. I'm surprised they didn't go all the way and build dorms. Some large Japanese companies do that. But the real feel of Google is "overfunded dot-com". Yes, they're profitable. But the profitable part, search, was built some time ago. Most of the technical people in Mountain View are working on Google's money-losing sidelines, like desktop apps. Those are the labor-intensive parts of the business.
Remember that Google is really an ad agency. That's how the money is made. Much of their newer hiring is sales reps for ads. The days when the ad sales just ran on autopilot are over; now Google has to push their ad products. In time, the ad agency people may take over. That will be an interesting culture change.
Google's campus used to be SGI's campus. Most Google buildings are former SGI buildings. So if you've been in the Valley for a while, there's always that reminder that a company can go from #1 to zero in just a few years.
Compare Intel in Santa Clara. Intel looks like Dilbertland. Intel is where cubicle culture began. Intel has built buildings from the ground up with single rooms covering about two acres, full of tiny cubicles. The cubicles are so small that only one chair will physically fit in them; they look like library study carrels. These aren't for call center employees; these are the people who design Intel CPUs.
You know, I have never once considered working at google. The free gourmet lunch thing... yeah, thats great. All of the perks and status attached, thats great too. Yet, at the end of the day, im really more interested in family time then I am work time. I work to live, not the other way around.
That said, give me a Natalie Portman clone and im in! Who needs family time when you have Natalie Portman?!?!
Glad to see your post!! I was getting really amazed, and actually a bit scared by how many people are responding as if working over 8-9 hours a day, working on your own time at home, etc was the NORM!!!
I dunno. I like my jobs...but, when working for someone else, it is just that work. I do it only for the money, nothing else. When that door hits me on the ass on the way out, I do not give 'work stuff' another single thought, till I walk in the next day.
Maybe that's why I'm happy as a contractor. Don't get me wrong, when working, I'm dedicated...I'm tuned in and actually enjoy what I do, but, it isn't my life, and it does not define me. If I won the lottery tomorrow and had the money I'd ever need...I can assure you, I'd spend the rest of my days 'off work'. I'd dabble in whatever hobbies I like, but mostly, I'd be out travelling, chasing women, driving boats and fast cars, and leading the good life as best as I can. I certainly would be too busy doing that, to have time to work ever again.
Work is a necessity...it allows you to have the funds to live your life as you like. But, you have to take time away from work to actually enjoy the fruits of your labor, ya know?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
By your logic a slave is not a slave, since he is free to starve or otherwise kill himself.
I'm running a pirated copy of Linux.
I currently work at Google, and people aren't expected to work overtime, they choose to. Keep in mind the types of people Google hires - very intelligent overachievers. These are the types of people who want to keep working after they go home.
If you don't want to, like me, you can put in your 40 hours a week and be done with it. I work my 8 hours a day and that's that. Nobody asks or expects me to do more.
In fact, even the founders actively encourage people to have a better work-life balance. They've come out and specifically said that if we feel pressured to work overtime then something is wrong.
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.
There seem to be plenty of places to go after google, or any other "burnout track" job. Although you are kinda like an abused foster kid at that point. It takes you a while to learn to behave in "normal" manner, at least that was my experience. Granted I didn't work at MS or Google, but a place that qualified as "not normal" in many regards. I think in the long run it was a beneficial experience, as it has made me better at what I do. I'll never be a manager, but I am happier that way.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
Right, this just gets your youthful coworkers resentful of you for making every excuse under the sun for you to get out of work while they pick up your slack. (ex: My kid is sick. My kid has a parent teacher conference. My kid needs to get picked up from school, etc.)
So what's the solution, promote us? Not every techie is destined for management, nor should they be. When you hit your 30s, do you want to just be replaced by someone who can spend their entire life in the office? Heck, I'm worried about hitting the magic "40" number where overt age discrimination starts setting in. I really want to stay 100% technical as long as I can...that's where I'm most valuable to any company. Sorting out the "kindergarteners" when they have stupid people disputes is not how I want to end my career. Leave people management for those who enjoy it.
Having a life outside work doesn't necessarily make you a slacker. Lots of people are, and some use their outside commitments as an excuse. Unfortunately, it's really difficult to fire corporate employees for poor performance everyplace I've worked.
A lot of people say "start a business." If you're not a people-management type, any business you start will fail miserably.
So what do we do?
I agree with what you're saying for the most part, but I, too, have worked in both types of environments. You've captured the downsides of the start-up type company pretty accurately. The downside of the other type of environment is a tendency toward under-achieving.
... i.e. big HMOs, university staffs ... any job where it's really difficult to get fired or laid off once you're in. These jobs attract people who have families, outside lives, want the healthcare and the work/life balance, precisely because they offer so much security.
... and the buck stops there. Your manager diddles the numbers a bit. Everybody's told they need to "work a little harder." And that's it.
You see it more in larger companies, and especially as companies get closer and closer to government
The problem is, once you have a preponderance of people with that mindset on staff, it becomes difficult to act like the smaller company. When your whole staff is seeking security in their employment, it makes sense that the organization naturally becomes more and more risk-averse. You stop taking chances. There's nobody to rock the boat.
When that really starts to suck is when upper management starts looking at the numbers and they say, "Hey, it's a different market, your department isn't pulling its weight anymore. We need change." In a company full of ambitious over-achievers who have learned to be just a little bit afraid for their jobs, this situation is an opportunity. It's time for new ideas to surface, for the underdog to make his bid for success. New projects get launched. People move offices, start reporting to different bosses. You try stuff.
In a staid, safe, secure work environment, however, this is how it happens: Upper management says "we need change," and the head of your department says, "Yes sir, will do, sir"
And maybe you were at the same meeting that the head of your department was, and maybe you heard that upper management guy saying "we need change," and now you're just sitting there. Twiddling your thumbs. Waiting for the axe to fall. And you go to your boss and you say, "Shouldn't we really be doing this or that?" But he's thinking about his kid's braces and his car payment and his wife's last biopsy, and he doesn't want to rock the boat. So he sends you back to your desk. To wait.
Bitter much? Nah, not me.
Breakfast served all day!