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.
This is an established company following a predictable path. From the maxing-out-your-personal-creditcard days of the startup, to the exuberant days of VC money rolling in and the freedom to shape the company in your own ideal image, to the celebratory IPO and early bird employees getting their payday, to the bean counters taking over. So from bonuses and generous wages and free fruit and foosball tables, to the soon to be accelerated penny shaving. The only surprise is that it took this long to begin.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
That's what they say. Yet some of it was implemented. That's a little... coincidental.
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
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
Really? I've worked at 3 places, a university, a mid-sized 850 person corporation (independent branch of a larger, 20k person multinational) and a small business (now about 50 people).
The small business has near zero perks. Pop in the warehouse fridge, sometimes and if you like diet cherry Coke or some Mt. Dew variant about half the time. Shitty TGIFridays level appetizer platters about 3 times a year during phony quarterly meetings held at 3 PM on Friday. Travel and other expenses can be parsimonious.
The university was about what you expected from a state institution, there was no free stuff but we seemed to have more food around the office than the small biz. The department was run by seasoned bureaucrats, I imagine they had weaseled in some staff welfare line item that let them buy grub.
The bigger business seemed way more generous. Food/pop was common in meetings, including lunches. Expense limits for travel were beyond generous, I actually asked the guy responsible for them if I could split the savings if I stayed in cheaper hotels and ate cheaper meals but he gave me some song and dance about how I should eat and sleep well to perform well away from home, the company had some concern about employee safety, etc.
My sense is there's just more slop in a large organization than a small one. I'm sure big companies are top notch at treating large groups of identical employees cheaply, but they aren't always very efficient and you can sometimes get in on the extras. Small business is the worst.