
Why Google Employees Quit - peter123
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/18/why-google-employees-quit/
======
cdibona
So: working for a large company is different than working for a small company.
I started at G when it was ~2k people and now we're at ~20k people. I've
worked for very small companies and much larger companies than Google and I
have to say that Google is a great place to work, when comparing to both and
is probably the best large organization for a real , cs focused, software
engineer to work for. If you love algorithms, scaling problems and the rest,
you are likely to find a group where you can be pretty happy, intellectually
speaking. But, if you aren't into that kind of thing, it may not be the place
for you.

As long as I've been there, Google has been about 1/2 engineer and 1/2
everyone else. That's very atypical for large technical organizations, where
if you have 25% engineering you'd feel pretty lucky. This also means that
sometimes there is a 'engineers and everyone else' sort of thing going on.
This is reflected in the exit stories, as are the very real problems that face
globally distributed engineering organizations.

I find myself wanting to make excuses for some of the complaints mentioned in
the article, but it really comes down to not every company matching every
engineer, and if you have a large engineering org, you'll have some people who
don't fit the org (the short story writer), and some people treated lamentably
or regrettably by thier co-workers or managers.

A side note: the hiring process is much better than when I started. I've been
sitting on hiring committees for 4 years now, and it is much more efficient
than when I interviewed. I was interviewing for an odd position though, so it
was even more extreme in my case (for both good and bad). I interviewed with
13 people and was given an offer within a few weeks. but back then a typical
interviewer would have 8+ interviews, now we almost never go over 6.

That said, hiring is a dark art. I don't pretend to have an answer for that.

~~~
andrewljohnson
Are you kidding me? Are you really saying that the people who didn't like
Google are the engineers who aren't as interested in algorithms? That seems
both condescending and arrogant.

As a San Francisco native with friends that are both at Google and have left
Google, I can tell you it's not the dumb engineers that quit. It has
absolutely nothing to do with that. Your answer is glib and is totally the
wrong take "if you love algorithms, scaling problems and the rest, you are
likely to find a group where you can be pretty happy, intellectually speaking.
But, if you aren't into that kind of thing, it may not be the place for you."

Google attrition is 0% correlated to that. It's totally false, and it says
something about you that you think that.

It has more to do with cultural fit, not technical fit. For example, at Google
you have to be extremely persuasive and political to get anything done as an
engineer. You seem like a pretty forward and well-spoken individual, so this
environment made you thrive.

But if you're not much for that sort of thing, then trying to get anything
done in such a flat management hierarchy is going to be impossible.

Let me say it again: the engineers who left aren't the dumb ones.

EDIT: Another thing. It's not that Google employees can't hack it and quit. A
bigger problem is Google has so many smart people, that really great engineers
often get trivial programming tasks. Google doesn't have enough interesting
work to keep everyone interested.

~~~
cdibona
I'm kind of wondering which comment you are answering, you seem to be angry at
my post for some slight that I didn't even say in my comment (or even in the
quote). If you have a chip on your shoulder about google, fine, but the things
you seem to be upset about seem almost wholly unrelated with what I said.

I didn't say that those that quit are stupid or somehow inferior, and if you
read that in the comment, I really don't know what to say about that. I don't
think that is the case (except here and there, naturally) and that those
engineers that left the company did so because they found an opportunity that
fit them better. Turnover happens, and you can read some great deep meaning
into it, I suppose, but sometimes people just stop being interested in a job
after 2 or 3 years (or less)

I think that you are right in that you have to be persuasive (or political,
for some definitions of political) to get new projects off the ground or to
direct a project in some direction, but that's kind of academic, isn't it?
Where isn't that true?

As to the great programmers getting trivial programming tasks: I'm certain
this happens. Our readability guidelines almost require that people do
something basic or trivial. Some people hate that.

~~~
andrewljohnson
Here's your quote again: "if you love algorithms, scaling problems and the
rest, you are likely to find a group where you can be pretty happy,
intellectually speaking. But, if you aren't into that kind of thing, it may
not be the place for you."

The point is, the people who left Google did not do so because they weren't
into algorithms! So why did you even bring up such a point when discussing
attrition at the company? Almost every engineer Google hires likes this stuff
and is good at it.

The reason I am so aggressive in decrying what you said is because it's both
misleading and insulting to the people who left Google. Not only is your post
at odds with what I know, but it's also at odds with the mailing lists posts
people leaked to techcrunch.

Please show me one email in that whole sheaf in which a person says "I left
Google because I didn't like working on algorithms and scaling problems."

~~~
cdibona
So, look again at the words "If" and "may" and maybe you'll read that quote
with less vitriol and see its not so different from what you are talking
about. Also, note that nowhere in what I said did I say this is the only
reason people leave.

I was relating my experience and trying to qualify it carefully, but you are
choosing to read what you like and ignore the rest. Which is fine for an
internet argument, I guess.

~~~
Tamerlin
Actually, the way you read it almost exactly contradicts most of the reported
reasons that the engineers who left did so. It seems far more likely and
believable that you'r exactly wrong -- and that the engineers who are leaving
google are leaving BECAUSE they like working on algorithms and solving scaling
problems, and aren't able to get opportunities to do that at google.

------
paul
I remember when I initially read these emails (the thread is from last year),
my first though was, "I'm glad that I don't have to work with these people."

Perhaps this is unfair since they are just venting (and not all of the emails
were in this category, some were reasonable), but there's something about
their attitude that is just very unappealing. I can't quite put my finger on
it though... Something about working at big companies seems to turn many
people into whiny children. I think it's because they aren't really
responsible for anything.

Unfortunately, Google's transition into "yet another big company" is
inevitable at this point. If you take the same fundamental structure as every
other big company, and hire the same people as the other big companies, then
you shouldn't be surprised when you end up looking like every other big
company.

~~~
far33d
I was really hoping to hear some insight from these ex-employees about the
google culture to see how it compares to my disillusionment with a "cool" big
company.

Instead, most of the comments (I couldn't get through all of them) were
whining about benefits, pay, and snack stations. Seriously? As a friend of
mine tweeted the other day about my old company - "people are getting laid
off. stop complaining about the lack of free beer this friday".

~~~
redrobot5050
I remember reading an article by Neil Strauss in Rolling Stone covering Jenna
Jamison, the notorious adult film star and the adult industry in general.

Since Neil was sent "on set" while Jenna was filming, a lot of the article
details him talking to people that work in the industry (journeyman/freelance
make up artists, camera men, sound guys, Male "Actors").

One thing that stuck out to Neil that he drew attention to is what these guys
bullshitted about at work: Sports. Kids. Health Care. Wages. Tax tips (since
they're all contractors).

The reason I bring this up is to make this point: No matter how mundane or
bizarre your industry, people still have the same genuine needs. A company
that addresses those needs in a superb factor will have loyal employees. If
Google is subpar in salary and puts people in jobs that're menial and they're
overqualified for them, they will get bored and they will leave. I can't
simplify it any more than that. Any company with 18,000 employees can't rely
on "cool" to motivate. For an easy 17,000 of those workers, money (or stock
options) is the biggest motivator.

A lot can be said about this, but I'll go out on this note: Not all of the
world's greatest problem solvers are in their mid-20s and are motivated by the
"cool" factor of a web app and think in Python.

The majority of people, in any field, are motivated by money. Microsoft pays
in the 68th percentile for a reason. You'll never be rich, but you'll always
be comfortable. And yes, intelligent 24 year old Standford CS grad _should_
feel like there's something more to life than supporting Google AdWords code,
which, according to other internet rants, is simply a frustrating experience.

~~~
nostrademons
Google's "official" hiring docs say that they pay in the 75th percentile, with
stock options in the 90th percentile. I'm not sure if that's true, but then,
I'm not sure if Microsoft's claim of paying in the 68th percentile is true
either. From the Envy data someone else posted on the thread, it looked like
Google engineers were being paid just slightly more than their Microsoft
counterparts.

~~~
icefox
I have only ever heard of one person getting a better offer at Google, but I
have heard countless times of people getting low offers or taking a pay cut to
work for Google. So to see so many leave because of pay in the end isn't
surprising. Working on cool things only gets you so far (six months? a year?)
When your friend gets more then double your salary then you for doing
something much easier and has a better out of work life it really makes you
wonder if there isn't something better. Perhaps not Google, but a nice place
to work now that google is on your resume.

~~~
nostrademons
Could be selection bias. People who got a better offer at Google tend not to
trumpet it, they just work there and keep quiet about salary. After all, why
make your employer think that they're overpaying you?

------
bilbo0s
What's really interesting is all of the 'ship jumpers' lamenting how much
better it was at Microsoft.

That's not a jab at Microsoft. I was just thinking there must be something
there with respect to employee benefits, or maybe just employee treatment,
that other large companies may want to look at.

Out of curiosity, are there any ex-MSFT employees here that could tell us what
you like or dislike about MSFT? I guess the most illustrative ideas might come
from knowing what you MISSED when you left MSFT. If anything.

~~~
wheels
I think Microsoft has had longer to adjust to the fact that they're not the
new hotness and is probably closer to recruiting / compensating accordingly.

~~~
potatolicious
When I was interning at Amazon a little while back I was quite surprised to
hear from Google interns how little they were being paid (in comparison, the
salary is still respectable). I'd always imagined Google to be the type that
showered you in money/perks simply because of their Googliness.

Turns out they rely on the "but we're GOOGLE!" schtick a lot when hiring.

~~~
enomar
I can't say much for full time employees, but I've heard the exact opposite
for interns. The Google interns I've spoken with all said Google was their
best offer as far as compensation goes.

~~~
litewulf
I got internship and full time SWE jobs at Google. They're competitive. About
the same as Microsoft (though, they have better insurance and different tax
situation), I'd say pay is comparable (I am getting quite a bit of income out
of the food lets say). All in the last two years.

------
angstrom
I strongly believe the "sweet zone" for headcount is somewhere around 200-500
employees. You can still make a difference, but at the same time you're not
struggling with the day to day nuances of a 5-50 person startup. To sum it up:

You will get paid next week, you're no more than 2-3 levels removed from the
CEO, and the fiefdoms don't have the coffers to squabble.

~~~
whacked_new
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number>

~~~
snprbob86
That article mentions that Dunbar proposed 150, but the real count is probably
closer to double that.

I think for a company, 150 is probably perfect. If the real number of
relationships one person can maintain is 300, that grants an allowance of 50%
of their maintainable relationships for both work and play.

~~~
wallflower
That 150 number made me remember this nice, little compact, too nice story
about Gore-Tex which was probably in 'The Tipping Point' (I don't remember):

"What is most unique about this company is that each company plant is no
larger than 150. When constructing a plant, they put 150 spaces in the parking
lot, and when people start parking on the grass, they know it's time for
another plant. Each plant works as a group. There are no bosses. No titles.
Salaries are determined collectively. No organization charts, no budgets, no
elaborate strategic plans. Wilbert Gore - the late founder of the company,
found through trial and error that 150 employees per plant was most ideal. "We
found again and again that things get clumsy at a hundred and fifty," he told
an interviewer some years ago"

<http://www.commonsenseadvice.com/human_cortex_dunbar.html>

~~~
snprbob86
Yup, that was The Tipping Point. Quite interesting...

------
mdasen
Google could be nothing, but disappointment from the way it's built up. It's
seen as this magical place where work does itself and things flow so
perfectly. The fact is that at Google, most people are going to have to slog
away somewhat tedious things like making context ads match their page content
0.1% better. It's not all fun, change the world Gmail and such. Most of it
isn't the interesting stuff that we see. That's not really what makes Google,
Google. What makes Google what we see is that relentless pursuit of
increasingly tiny increases in efficiency. Sure, they had great theoretical
ideas like BigTable, PageRank, etc. but what made something like PageRank work
was that they didn't stop - they kept making ever more tiny increases in
accuracy in a way that could become quite tedious to program and test.

You also tend not to get a full view of things at Google. If you're in backend
engineering, that's what you work on. I know that I like seeing the full
product and knowing that I've worked on what the users are going to see.

~~~
phenylene
"... most people are going to have to slog away somewhat tedious things like
making context ads match their page content 0.1% better."

I'm not sure why you think that the 0.1% improvments are assumed to be a
tedious slog. They may have required some seriously interesting new ML
techniques just to get that extra boost. Recall the Netflix recommendation
algorithm improvement contest that had teams working very hard to get those
last fractions of a percent.

Small adjustments to a huge system can have huge impact:
<http://norvig.com/speech.html>

------
amobilebiz
Everything I read here I can relate to with big companies. It seems once
companies reach that 1000 employee mark the culture changes drastically. I can
also relate to how going from a private to public company can impact employee
"life". Not that money is necessarily tight or the company can not afford the
"perks" they once gave to employees as a private company, but with being
public comes added scrutiny and greater sense of needing to be responsible
with spending. The average Joe investor does not want to hear that employees
are enjoying free meals when his stock drops $1.00.

On the other hand though, from reading these emails it seems most of these
people went to work at Google with a preconceived notion that it was going to
be different and that somehow Google was going to be this theme park
environment. As with any job at any company it is what you make of it. If you
take a job solely because you think you are going to eat/drink free everyday,
have daily live entertainment, and going to work is going to be fun then you
are taking the job for the wrong reasons. Work should be fun, but you need to
make it fun and not rely on the company or the culture to make it fun for you.

As for salaries, while I do not know exactly Google's salaries, I would be
willing to bet that they are extremely competitive. I do know that a starting
salary is most often highly negotiable and the people that tend to complain
about receiving a low salary are the ones who go in expecting to be offered
some godly amount right from the start. The other thing you have to weigh is
the benefits or perks in relation to the salary. For example, if you get to
eat lunch and dinner free every day at the office then you are saving around
$10-20 a day in food. That adds up to over $200 a month or probably around
$3000 a year in extra compensation you are receiving. Just like the one person
did comparing the job at Google to buying a luxury car with all the fancy
options and extra cup holders, you have to compare the salary plus perks to
your current salary with no perks.

I have been there, not with Google, but with a startup. I went from government
contracting, to a small startup as a very early employee, and then to
Microsoft, and back to startup life. I can say that once you are bit by
startup life it is tough to move to a big company like Google or Microsoft and
be truly happy. The culture is not the same and to expect it to be is
ridiculous. That is why I am back in startup life now. It is fun, fast, and
everyday is a new adventure.

~~~
anewaccountname
It's actually $3,000 in after-tax (federal, state, and SS) dollars, so it is
really closer to a $5-6,000 difference in base salary, as long as you are a
glutton.

~~~
mountain_man
yeah, but it kind of sucks thinking about it as part of your salary, because
then you feel like you're throwing money away if you don't stay for dinner
every night. Sometimes you just want to eat with your friends and family.

~~~
amobilebiz
yes, that is definitely a downside when you don't or are unable to take
advantage of the perks. That is where negotiating your salary comes into play
though. If you know that you are not going to be staying for dinner then
negotiate up for that extra $2000-3000 to get it back.

i feel the same way about taxes though. I pay them and half the things they go
to I never use. I wish I could negotiate them with them government better :)

------
prakash
I think you can substitute google for any other >1000+ company and most of
this would ring true. Managing thousands of people in getting things done
quickly and where people feel productive is a very hard problem.

~~~
ramchip
There were a couple posts a while ago about the Semco management style which
felt like a much better solution than the traditional vertical hierarchy. I
would have thought Google would be a lot flatter as an organization.

~~~
wmorein
Google is very flat by reputation, but that is not an unequivocal good. If
your manager is also managing 50 other people, to the extent that you would
benefit from management you are probably not getting those benefits.

~~~
mihasya
All of the big silicon valley companies claim to be "flat." When I started at
Yahoo!, all I heard about was how flat the organization was. Doesn't mean it's
true.

~~~
joshu
Indeed.

The number of times a product idea was sent from an SVP to the divison VP who
forwarded it to the group head of product who forwarded this with the note
added "SVP wants this done by the end of the day" was more than I'd even like
to think about.

------
known
Employees normally quit their Managers.

~~~
lacker
This is a good point I think many people are overlooking. (Full disclosure - I
work at Google now.) Your project matters too. People working for great
managers on things like search algorithms, Android or open source initiatives
are much more likely to love their job. People working for managers they hate
on things like Orkut, ATS, or cross-browser compatibility testing are much
more likely to leave.

In a company as big as Google, different employees can have very different
experiences. When you read this group set up for employees who quit, you're
seeing the least happy segment of the employee population. I know it doesn't
work out for everyone, but I think the average Google employee really likes
their job, and I would recommend working there to any programmer who was
thinking about it.

Just my 2 cents.

~~~
bluishgreen
I would imagine orkut dev is being done by Google India, otherwise it is gonna
be frustrating, just like you can't make a shop in India work on Facebook:
because none of your friends are using it!

~~~
lacker
Orkut was initially developed in Mountain View and I know for some people it
was a frustrating job for exactly the reason you describe. I am not sure but I
think it is primarily developed in Brazil now (where Orkut is very popular).

------
fallentimes
Is there a big company that has solved or at least significantly reduced any
or all of these problems?

They seem to come with the territory, which is one of the reasons why startups
always have a chance.

------
vsiva68
I'm surprised by the comments about low salaries. From the public records, it
certainly looks like Google pays somewhat higher salaries. The difference
though is that there is a huge variance.

[http://envy.appspot.com/?q=microsoft|google&title=softwa...](http://envy.appspot.com/?q=microsoft|google&title=software&fav=)

The issue with reports like these is that it is a biased audience. It could
very well be that only the people who had low salaries posted their comments
on the website.

------
jderick
"You will fail in a boring and project specific way"

Corollary: and then you will blame it on something else

I mean, who really quits their job because of the copayments on their health
insurance?

~~~
Retric
The only reason I am considering leaving my job is compensation. I make around
2/3 of what I could at another companies now the benefits are nice but typical
for large companies. For now I think it's reasonable but if they reduced the
benefits so I needed to pay more out of pocket I would defiantly leave.

~~~
jderick
Sounds to me like you are already ready to leave. I'm guessing it's just the
poor economy that is keeping you from wanting to search for another job right
now.

~~~
Retric
No so much, I really like my job. I gave up 5k/ year to work here because it
was prestigious and good for my career. Now I got a promotion, but not much of
a pay raise so I could be making even more. But, I am surrounded by smart
people, it's low stress, I work 40 hours a week, and I spend 90% of my time
developing so it's nice.

------
dustineichler
This could be said for any company. I worked at company "X", where middle
managers and coworkers pissed me off too. Desicions would get pushed around
and I felt hugely disalussioned and ineffective. It's not surprising Google is
the same way. What is striking is how quickly people left Google was. I've
heard all the rest about low salary, but there bonus package is awesome if
you're an engineer. So I've heard.

This makes me feel like I wasn't alone as a few people mentioned in the
article. I think if you're ever to work at a large company again, you should
set realistic expectations for what it is. It's great otherwise having the
security, benefits and other amenities... but it's not for everyone as I
suspect it wasn't for these people. Just as being at a startup isn't for the
kinda people who find success in large companies.

~~~
illumen
I think most people have realised that there's no security at large
corporations.

For recent proof, look at the thousands laid off at many large corporations
(google, yahoo, ms, etc).

------
vaksel
Its basically grass is greener on the other side syndrome...people have built
up Google in their minds, and it just couldn't live up to their expectations

~~~
brianto2010
> _...people have built up Google in their minds_

If that was the case, shouldn't the exact opposite happen? The Subject-
Expectancy Effect states that a person's expectations directly influences
their views.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-expectancy_effect>

I don't think expectations has much to do with it. Very few people (Issara,
Lilly) actually referred to expectations at Google. There is a recurring theme
of employees complaining about management/bureaucracy, salary, hiring, and job
satisfaction.

Even though you said "basically", it seemed to me like you are generalizing
too much (sorry if I'm wrong and hypocritical). Some people (search for Aaron
on the page) got a job there out of necessity, not purely open choice.

------
sachinag
I would really be interested in seeing attrition rates for engineers and non-
engineers. Sales guys are the revenue producers almost anywhere else, and as
such, are favored in the way that Google stereotypically favors their
engineers. I know that this was the Kirkland office, as well, and there's
always something about moving from HQ to a satellite office that's probably
captured in the sentiment expressed.

------
vitaminj
It may be just me, but I was continually irked by the thread's subject line:
"So… Why’d you left, guys? I mean, seriously."

I mean, seriously, it doesn't even make sensed!

------
nihilocrat
See also: Why Video Game Company Employees Quit

A lot of the reasons here are similar: disenfranchisement, low pay, long
hours, crappy benefits (though this is not true at all for some companies).
Also, unlike Google, there is usually very low job security and you sometimes
have to accept a semi-nomadic lifestyle.

------
mihasya
_GASP_ A JOB AT GOOGLE IS A JOB?!!!

~~~
DenisM
Lay off the caps lock and excessive punctuation, no need to yell around here.

~~~
gjm11
Looks to me like the caps lock and excessive punctuation were intended
ironically. Which may or may not justify them, but the problem isn't a failure
to realise that there's "no need to yell around here".

~~~
DenisM
The yelling will turn a polite conversation into digg. And sarcasm doesn't
make it any less so, it actually compounds the problem.

------
pauljonas
I sure wish there was a NH filter that would enable me to /ignore any
TechCrunch sourced articles…

~~~
tokenadult
The parenthetical indication of source domain after every submission to HN
works pretty well for me. Some sources I ignore regularly, and others
(TechCrunch is one) I ignore selectively.

------
cookiecaper
>And let me say this: if Larry Page is still reviewing resumes, shareholders
should organize a rebellion. That is a scandalous waste of time for someone at
that level, and the fact that it’s “quirky” is no mitigation.

Regarding this quote, I'm not so sure. Delegation and hands-off management is
important and necessary indeed, and I loathe micromanagement no matter which
end I'm on, but I think that hiring would be my most closely guarded and
reviewed process. Employees are the weakest link, the ultimate valuation; you
can have fancy processes or equipment or a lot of hype, but the real value of
your company ultimately boils down to the work force -- the capability of
yourself and the people backing you up to deliver, maintain, and evolve your
money-makers.

I actually developed this concept while working at a medium-sized (revenue-
wise) niche company. The company was impaired because nobody cared about the
bigger picture; we were all just office workers doing our office jobs and
trying to push through without killing ourselves. Inter-departmental
relationships were tense and there was no cohesion or overarching social glue
between the groups, and no understanding managers in between, which led to
animosity between obviously less-valued departments and obviously more-valued
departments. It was a sad place to work, but it only had about 200 employees.
I found this sad.

There should be no peons; every employee is an important contributor (or the
job shouldn't exist) and every employee should be well-screened and found to
be competent for their position and somewhat like-minded with the rest of the
force on foundational issues (i.e., no disengaged, uninvolved typical office
workers, only people who generally respect but never fear management and
direction, ideally someone who thinks the company's revenue generators are
enthralling, etc.). You need the kind of people who will push things forward,
the kind of people willing to call their managers out, people who will provide
mini-revolutions in product and process development for years to come. People
who cultivate conviction, respect, and love, and constitute best-in-class
performers.

Your company is only as good as your people. Your "company" is a company,
consisting of the company your entity employs and regularly keeps, not a
soulless, faceless, independent, autonomous corporate machine. Any corporation
operated at the "machine level" and not the "company level" is just a story in
systemic and institutionalized inefficiency, corruption, and incompetence.
Companies operated are breeding grounds for corruption and greed and their
ugly consequences, and eventually begin to falter, and do so until someone
cognizant of this takes over and starts to turn things around by bringing in
new, high-caliber, high-vision employees and keeping them motivated in the
right ways.

In autonomous corporate world, inefficiency and unhappiness are the hallmarks.
In good world, employees and employers care about each other and care about
their work, contribute and share openly, and push their sector forward,
setting new records for morale, efficiency, innovation, and profits.

I think if I were Larry Page, I wouldn't waste time with BS like resumes, but
I would interview every candidate, and refuse a permanent hire until I was
confident that their thought process and personal style was conducive to the
overall goals of a non-evil company.

