Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Treatment of Google Defectors
Miguel de Icaza (Note, this Miguel is not the Ximian developer, just someone whose small life is fulfilled by trolling under someone else's name) writes "Here is a story revealing just how threatened Microsoft is by Google. While senior partners can expect the full chair experience, some lowly staffers who are putting in their notice are being escorted off campus immediately. Why? Because they've put in their notice to join Google. In Microsoft's eyes, Google is Enemy No. 1. Anyone leaving Redmond for the search leader is a threat. Not because they'll scurry around collecting company secrets — as if Google's interested in Microsoft's '90s-era technologies. Departing employees, however, might tell other 'Softies how much better Google is. If an employee is leaving for Amazon.com or another second-tier employer which doesn't make Microsoft so paranoid, they'll probably serve out the traditional two weeks of unproductive wrapping up. So if you're planning on leaving Microsoft for Google, pack up your belongings and say goodbye to friends ahead of time. There'll be no cake and two weeks of paid slacking for you."
I have never worked for Microsoft and to be honest, I'd probably never want to. I think the key problem for Microsoft is that nothing they do is exciting anymore.
I think Vista has really damaged Microsoft. Not in terms of revenue, since a sale of Windows XP is still a sale for Microsoft. No, the damage is in morale. Vista was an absolute disaster for morale. They worked for a couple of years only to ditch it and start again from the Windows 2003 Server source-code. Nothing they put in to Vista was in anyway something you can get developers energised about. Every feature had nightmarish committees which destroyed any hope of motivation. They even developed anti-features like SecurePath that nobody cares about.
I read somewhere that Microsoft developers write something like 1,000 lines of code a year. Last-year, I contributed around forty times that to our source control at work. When you're paid so much to do so little - that has to destroy morale too. Most developers I know like to work.
Vista is a symptom of a much deeper problem. Microsoft doesn't know how to be sexy. it doesn't now how to to be secure and it doesn't know how to please it's users. Worst of all, it doesn't know how to make it's huge base of developers happy!
All of this makes Google a very attractive place. If all your talent walks right of your door, it isn't too long until there is no way whatsoever to fix any of the problems I've just mentioned.
Put more succinctly, Microsoft sucks and Google rocks.
Simon.
Actually, getting escorted out the door gets you two weeks of paid slacking at home! I would consider it an insult if I weren't important enough to be shown the door in a paranoid fury.
At our business (office machine dealer), ANYONE that resigns, even though they give a two week notice, is asked to leave at the end of the business day. Their email account is yanked, all passwords changed. It's SOP for just about any business. With the ease of taking business customer information with you, I don't blame MS, or any company for doing this. I don't think it is sour grapes, but a good business practice.
I don't know about you, but I have friends at my former place of employment, and even if I didn't tell them where I was going, they would find out through the grapevine. Besides, there's always that chance that a colleague may be interested in following, and were afraid to speak up without prompting. Its good to network people...
Sorry, but even if I were to be escorted off the premises after giving notice it wouldn't prevent me from talking to coworkers. I've kept in touch with coworkers from a number of previous jobs. In todays high-tech marketplace it's very common. I get from, and send to former coworkers e-mails about new job opportunities. I have IM and e-mail accounts for a number of people going back 4 jobs or more. Then there are sites like LinkedIn, Plaxo, etc. that let you keep track of former employees.
If I worked at MS, gave notice that I was going to Google, and was immediately escorted out, I'd be much more inclined to e-mail my former co-workers and let them know what happened. I'd also willingly give them details about working at Google if they asked.
How does it benefit Microsoft?
What makes you think it was a rational decision? Not all business decisions are rational. Far too often they are driven by a desire to control, frighten the employees and/or stroke the egos of managers.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Giving notice is a courtesy to the company and it must be earned.
>>If you're leaving these days it's not uncommon to get escorted to the door...
Then, if this is standard practice at your company, do not provide notice. Just quit, walk out, and never look back.
Clean out your office over the preceeding week, then simply say to your manager on the last hour of your last day "I quit, effective immediately. I'm not coming back tomorrow, and I did not give notice because of the poor way this company responds to those who resign (e.g. "perp walk"). Goodbye and good luck." Or just send them an email over the weekend. It might sound harsh but if they truly respond this poorly to resignations, you have nothing to lose anyway.
The funny part is, I'll bet the clueless executives have had at least one profanely expensive "retreat" this year where they listened to expensive consultants's opinions on boosting employee morale and/or commitment.
I agree, it is very common. I think most HR consultants advise companies in competitive industries to escort fired or quitting employees to the door immediately, giving them no chance to do any damage. The thing is, I still think it's wrong. It's a unilateral violation of the trust contract between employees and the employer. Employees are trusted with the most sensitive information and assets of the company while they are working there, and it would be easy to abuse that trust. Any employee who is planning to leave, or who getting the vibe that they could be laid off, could be stocking up on sensitive info or doing other damage if they wanted. What stops them? Nothing but mutual trust and the value of personal reputation. When the employer violates that trust contract by treating the employee badly and showing that they have no trust, that is being communicated not only to the mistreated employee, but to everyone else who still works there. Only future badness can result. As an emmployer, I'd rather demonstrate trust in my employees and take the chance of an occasional hit from a bad one.
From this heading alone, I'd conclude that defection is the other way round. That is to say, the defection is from Google to Microsoft.The story suggests otherwise.
But again, I could be wrong.
why not just avoid telling the company you are leaving where you are going to? ..or just use the same trite line companies use whenever they fire a CEO: "leaving to persue other opportunities" or "taking a sabbatical" or whatever.
Any decent manager would surely ask for a specific company. I imagine most people would be inclined to give an honest answer. I think refusing to answer completely would be a surefire way to make said manager very suspicious that its a direct competitor and make damn sure you were out that same day. Its not like it would be some casual conversation where you could dodge questions, any responsible manager would want to know your motivations as to why you wanted to leave.
I can understand why a company might escort you off the premises after they lay you off - to avoid you stealing stuff and generally trying to get back at them. But when you resign you've already stolen everything you intend to (unless you're particularly disorganised), so what's the point?
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
> If you're leaving these days it's not uncommon to get escorted to the door... and it's not
> uncommon to be a perp walk, which sucks. It undermines the fabric of trust in the workforce
> generally and damages individual psyche specifically.
What IS this "fabric of trust in the workforce" of which you speak?? I think thats been gone for MANY years..
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
"as if Google's interested in Microsoft's '90s-era technologies"
It's crap like this that makes me embarrassed to be a Slashdot reader. Way to go, CmdrTaco.
True that, however why would you want to be confrontational about it? If it is a company which doesnt directly compete wouldnt you do your best to maintain good relations with your old employer? I know I would, quitting is not something an employer likes but you should never burn bridges unnecessarily.
In my last company, the standard practice was to immediately walk you out if you were going to a direct competitor. If you were not doing that, then you served out your final days like normal. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think it is understandable.
So what is the purpose of giving a notice anymore then? Why should I give one if I am going to be treated like cattle? Maybe I will just leave the company hanging on an unfinished project with no one else to finish.
> If someone has informed you that they are leaving the company,
;-)
> the first thing that should happen is that your manager should
> push a red button that instantly removes all access you have to
> computers and badge-access doors (or get that process started),
You got that (partly) wrong.
The problem is not that it doesn't get done on day one, the problem is
that people don't do it at all and leave accounts open for months
after people have departed.
Freaking out when an employee leaves and calling "Defcon 1" is stupid.
> and the second thing is calling security to escort them out.
As numerous people have said, this just generates bad mood in
other employees.
IMO, this practise is ridiculous in all cases other than when criminal offenses
are involved.
There are positions that are connected with enough trust-level that the company
might consider putting you on paid vacation for the time being - but that also
creates a bad mood in the other employees.
(Although a different kind - the individual can get a paid vacation for free)
I know these boiler-plate advice snippets very well, but they apply to supermaket till-girls at best:
jobs with no deep knownledge and qualification, but some control over money (or otherwise valuable good).
They also presume that the individual in question is totally and immediately replaceable - this is fictional at best.
If you escort them out on the spot, they actually carry out more information than if you had let them finish their work and tell their replacement the basics of the job.
And, think about this: in Germany, people usually have three or six months "notice time". That means, you can't just fire them and be done with it.
But it also means that the employee can't just go and leave over the weekend. Both have to find a way to get along for the rest of the time, because, like it or not, you always meet twice
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Ride the skies
I tell today's young tech people get stupider and stupider. You don't tell, they ask you say, "That's not the issue, thanks." But if you're going to brag all over the place then you're a retard.
The fellow in the fine video says that they acquired parts of it when they bought a company, and that other parts are grad student work. So the jury's still out as the blandness of MS RnD.
If an employee is leaving for Amazon.com or another second-tier employer which doesn't make Microsoft so paranoid, they'll probably serve out the traditional two weeks of unproductive wrapping up.
That's a pretty damned big "probably." If Microsoft does let those people serve out two weeks, then this article is actually making a point. If not, then this article is worthess trash. Does the author bother to find out which it is? Nope! Wild speculation all-around!
For all we know this is standard practice in all of Microsoft. Or, for that matter, there was just one manager not following the standard practices. Crap journalism.
Comment of the year
Just counting lines of code can be highly misleading:
1. IIRC that was a flawed metric anyway. That was final number of lines of code, divided by developpers, divided by time. It just isn't the same as what you seem to think it means. E.g., lines of code changed or refactored or whatever, would not be counted in that number.
Judged by that kind of a flawed metric, my contribution to some projects would actually be a negative number of lines of code per time unit. E.g., each time I moved someone's copy-and-paste code to its own method and replaced it with a call... well, let's say it was in 3 places, 20 lines of code, replaced with a method and a call each. That's minus thirty-something lines of code in a quarter of an hour by that metric. Am I the worst programmer ever, or what?
I'm sure CVS counts them for yours, though. So you're not comparing the same number.
Now I'm not saying that that alone accounts for that kind of a difference, but it's a start.
2. Just writing code is easy. It's debugging it that takes a lot of time. So the limiting thing is really how well you want that code to work. Going from, say, 90% caught bugs to 95% can easily double your development time on the whole... and thus halve your average lines per year.
Yes, I know, it's MS, but they still have a policy to not ship with known bugs. (Though obviously the unknown ones are more than enough in their own right.) So they'd inherently have less lines of code per year, compared to, say, Google which is officially a perpetual beta.
3. Lines of code / time doesn't scale linearly as the program complexity and team size grow. In other words, you can't just add man-months.
I thought I was so smart too in college, when I could write a program or module of several hundred lines of code in a day. But then that was the whole program, that was the whole complexity, and I was the whole team. That's the easy scenario.
Now move to something the size of Vista and it's just not the same thing any more. Now you suddenly have to deal with stuff like how your code works together with Tom, Dick and Harry's, what they want from your code, and what you need from theirs. There's a lot of overhead just to synchronize it all, document it all, learn other people's APIs, and deal with the increasing level of mis-understanding each other's interfaces.
Now I'm not saying that MS is necessarily the paragon of efficient coding anyway, but I am saying that a lot of people waving that number around... just aren't qualified to make that judgment. They've never actually worked on something that size, and that total team size. I've seen teams hit a wall and get bogged by the fact that each time one guy changes something, it broke some other guy's code, long before being anywhere near the size of MS or of Vista.
4. Well, I also don't like that metric because I've seen people actually abuse it. Not all lines of code are born the same.
E.g., my good coleague Wally would have topped that metric easily, because the guy just copied and pasted everything in sight to make it look like he's doing something. Not only he had whole open source projects pasted into his code tree, but also such surrealistic stuff as: a Swing (standalone GUI framework) file chooser dialog hidden deep in the source code of one of his EJBs (server-side thing.) That thing didn't serve any purpose. It was just there to inflate the number of lines of code he supposedly produced.
Replacing that monstrosity with something smaller and simpler, not only cut down the size (hence, less average lines of code per year for the team, ya know), but also made it run around 40 times faster.
You can also inflate the number of lines of code arbitrarily by just liberally mis-applying patterns. Just have everything get packed in a decorator, made by a factory, which is a singleton, register it with a manager, etc, etc, etc. The number of lines of overhead can be grown arbitrarily, without actually adding any functionality. And past a size wit
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The folks I know who went to Google weren't escorted out. They come back for lunch, even.
Maybe you're frog-marched out if you work in MSN, or search, or something directly competing.
As to "how much better it is at Google," from reports it seems to be a wash. MS appears to be a better place to work if you're raising a family (wonderful medical package -- way better than Google's -- understanding management, etc.), while Google seems to cater to the younger employees by making it possible to live your entire life without leaving the building.
I've worked at both kinds of companies (guess what? there were free lunches at Silicon Valley companies prior to Google). And I remember Apple in the 80s and early 90s where the unofficial policy was "bring 'em in and burn 'em out" (the sabbatical at five years was great for winnowing out the non-hackers). Big and slow (MS) is bad, because dinosaurs can stumble and living in a company town like Redmond isn't necessarily a great idea (just talk to some Boeing folks), but a quick and burn-outish place is bad because you're just going to be so much biological waste after a few years of 12-hour days ("Look, someone threw out a perfectly good software engineer!").
At any rate, escorting folks who have given notice is nothing new. Believe me, worse would be, "We're going to keep you here for two weeks," and then give you a blank walled office to sit in, with no network or access to anyone and escorts to the potty. Worse than that would be, "You're going to spend the next two weeks standing at a whiteboard doing a brain-dump of everything you've been responsible for on this project." [Been there; I'd made the mistake of giving *three* weeks notice, just to be nice, and my hands were cramped and my brain was leaking out my ears by the time I got out of there].
Said like a lousy manager, or one who doesn't appreciate what people actually do, or somebody who never worked in a large enough organization to appreciate the true cost of attrition, or I don't know what...
Excepting the departures of Truly Useless People, those last two weeks are somebody's last chance to find out that which you don't know about that which you are about to inherit. I am so sick of watching stupid managers and stupid successors squander that invaluable last chance because they act like scorned girlfriends or just don't understand the true value of even people who would leave, and the undocumented knowledge they carry in their heads.
I've never met a leaving person who wouldn't be helpful in his own succession. Most, in fact, are incredulous as to how little anybody seems to care about the invaluable knowledge they are walking away with, and how much more difficult their successor's lives will be for the ignorance.
Shape up, managers and everybody else. Those defectors leaving your ranks should be more valuable to you in those last two weeks than in any other two weeks of their employ.
Even if the company will treat you poorly, you are working for and with individuals that you may meet again in your career. It's to your advantage to treat all with respect even if they (or the company) don't return the favor, your professionalism will be noticed and remembered by some.
Quick question: how many people here work or have worked for Microsoft? What about Google?
How many here actually have a snowball's chance in hell to work for either of these companies?
Why does Slashdot care so much about the goings-on of the elitist clique of software developers fostered by both companies? Is there any chance this will actually effect any of us, or is this simply the Slashdot equivalent of reading People magazine?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Having worked on "nowhere" projects, I'd say the essential point that you are missing is that people working on a "nowhere" project go nowhere. Or are laid off. Nobody sponsors a non-profit project out of the good feelings it gives them.
If you aren't part of the profit, you are part of the loss. And losses get cut.
Be thankful you are working on something people believe will be profitable. Many, many things Google is looking at have almost no hope of ever seeing light of day, much less being profitable.
Here in The States, we legally (and spiritually) value corporations as the primary entity that produces economic value. Our laws treat a corporation much like a person.
How do we offset this seemingly overbearing allocation of power to corporations? We counter as individuals with pursuit of our self-interest: "I owe the corporation nothing." As usual, in the United States, the right of the individual reigns supreme. (You gotta love that.)
Consider that. A corporation is essentially the sum of its people's doings. But a cultural irony of the United States is that we who breathe such life into corporations deny them their most valued commitment: that of their employees. We deny them *us*.
And why, you might ask, could such a contradiction make sense?
It is because we trust neither corporations nor individuals. Both, by nature, are selfish. So we pose the two as adversaries, fodder in a competitive arena. They are merely two points of view dueling for a higher ground. From that competition of ideas (vocalized through media pronouncements and water-cooler banter) emerge various perspectives of the day. And as each of us adopts one or more of those perspectives, this informal but continuous voting process produces a seemingly nonsensical consensus that is Our View of Corporations (and Our Obligations to Corporations), for *today*.