Slashdot Mirror
Google Memo On Cost Cuts Sparks Heated Debate Inside Company (bloomberg.com)
"A 2016 document proposing cost cuts at Alphabet's Google, including fewer promotions and bonuses, sparked heated debate when it was shared inside the technology company for the first time this week," reports Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter. "At a companywide townhall meeting on Thursday, Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai fielded questions about the proposals, some of which have been implemented." From the report: The ideas were in a 2016 slide deck drafted by the company's human resources department from a brainstorming session. The document, portions of which were read to Bloomberg News, was circulated in recent days by employees via Google's internal communications systems. It detailed proposed changes to employee compensation, benefits and perks. The document also discussed how the proposals could be best presented to employees to minimize frustration, according to one of the people. That caused the most anger among some staff after the document was circulated, said this person.
Perhaps the most significant change in the proposal called for trimming the rate of promotions. Each year, a certain number of employees are up for promotions based on performance and other metrics. The slide deck suggested reducing this by 2 percentage points. The document said this could be rolled out without upsetting staff because workers didn't know what the existing rate was, so wouldn't notice if it declined. The brainstorming deck also proposed reducing wage bumps when workers get promoted. It also suggested changing Google's approach to "spot bonuses," sums that managers can award at any time of year. Managers receive emails reminding them to dispense this money. The slide deck proposed ending the emails, arguing that few people would notice. The proposal also included converting holiday gifts to staff into charitable donations -- something Google did at the end of 2016. Google confirmed the veracity of the 2016 document, although it was never presented to the company's top management.
Perhaps the most significant change in the proposal called for trimming the rate of promotions. Each year, a certain number of employees are up for promotions based on performance and other metrics. The slide deck suggested reducing this by 2 percentage points. The document said this could be rolled out without upsetting staff because workers didn't know what the existing rate was, so wouldn't notice if it declined. The brainstorming deck also proposed reducing wage bumps when workers get promoted. It also suggested changing Google's approach to "spot bonuses," sums that managers can award at any time of year. Managers receive emails reminding them to dispense this money. The slide deck proposed ending the emails, arguing that few people would notice. The proposal also included converting holiday gifts to staff into charitable donations -- something Google did at the end of 2016. Google confirmed the veracity of the 2016 document, although it was never presented to the company's top management.
Google needs to be careful with this slippery slope. The reason they can attract so many great employees despite being a huge company is because of a culture of taking care of their employees better than most big companies. The moment they become just another HP, IBM, etc, they will start to degrade quickly.
That's what they say. Yet some of it was implemented. That's a little... coincidental.
What is shocking is that the google employees dont know how it works outside of google. This happens everywhere, perks decrease as a company grows, plain and simple
The reason they can attract so many great employees
Like who now? Where is the evidence that in the past five years, they have attracted "so many great employees". I see a LOT of failed projects and an inability to stick to anything. Core search remains really good as always, but don't you get the impression of a group of ten people in a small room, who have barricaded all the doors and are trying to keep the howling mob at bay from the one area of Google that still functions perfectly?
because of a culture of taking care of their employees
Yes they certainly have a. culture of "taking care" of employees now. Just ask Damore...
The moment they become just another HP, IBM
Google has chosen a different path, far less boring and far more self-destructive.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
.
Time to stop having an important company from being run by a college student-thinking mob.
Some will pan out, most will not.
The problem is that some panned out (a user base that liked what they were doing), and Google killed them anyway, in a lot of cases like taking a kitten that you loved and exposing it to powerful miutagens just to see what it would transform into. Or just plain shot the kitten, as per Google Reader.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You got modded down because you are siding with google even after they fired him. When they shouldn't have. You are ok with hurting people because of their beliefs and that is NOT OK. That's why you got modded down. Learn the difference idiot.
All companies do this. What Google failed to do though was keep the internal memos secret. There's a reason that companies don't like to share things like how much your coworkers make, who can get promoted, and so forth. Because someone will always be upset when they find out. No one really gets paid on merit. I know one group where the best worker is paid the least and the least effective worker is paid the most, and the reasons for this have to do with the initial starting salary and the inability to either rapidly promote or cut pay once granted.
If I brainstorm a bunch of ideas with co-workers, I try to present the best ideas to management, rather than every idea that came up. Sometimes a hybrid of multiple different ideas from the brainstorming session sounds better than the original ideas, or even inverting the idea.
It's entirely possible that some of the ideas were presented to top management without this particular document being presented.