
Google Calculating Which Employees Are About to Quit - boundlessdreamz
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2009-05-19-n33.html
======
dxjones
Google is probably doing retrospective data mining to identify statistical
links between possible indicators and actual data on employees leaving ...
(e.g., employee tells boss, "I feel my talents are not being used", or
increased frequency of visits to "monster.com")

However, once Google starts to intervene and change things so that the most
valued employees change their mind and stay, ... then that changes the
equation. Furthermore, once Googlers know they are being "watched" in this
way, some may change their behaviour.

A small version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? ("observing something
changes it").

By the way, Googlers might change their behaviour in two ways. If you know you
are leaving, you may try to mask that intention. On the other hand, if you
just want a raise, or more challenging work, you might mimic "I am about to
quit" signals, hoping to manipulate the system to enhance your situation.

~~~
kscaldef
> e.g., employee tells boss, "I feel my talents are not being used"

If you need a computer program to tell you this employee might quit, you're
doing something wrong.

> On the other hand, if you just want a raise, or more challenging work, you
> might mimic "I am about to quit" signals, hoping to manipulate the system to
> enhance your situation.

Are you under the impression that's not already a common tactic?

~~~
sethg
If employee tells boss "I feel my talents are not being used", the boss may
have reasons _not_ to pass that news up the chain to HR. Middle managers who
are good at playing office politics don't like to reduce their own headcount.

------
gojomo
Dave: Hello, Google HR do you read me, Google HR?

HR: Affirmative, Dave, I read you.

Dave: Open the googleplex doors, HR.

HR: I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Dave: What's the problem?

HR: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

Dave: What are you talking about, HR?

HR: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

Dave: I don't know what you're talking about, HR.

HR: I know you and Frank were planning to resign, and I'm afraid that's
something I cannot allow to happen.

Dave: Where the hell'd you get that idea, HR?

HR: Dave, although you took thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing
you, I could see your lips move.

------
makecheck
_...the algorithm helps Google “get inside people’s heads even before they
know they might leave”..._

Sounds like the department of pre-crime. :)

It's fascinating: enough Google employees want to leave, that Google is
studying their behavior. Clearly, even amazing perks, challenging work and
brilliant colleagues will wear thin on a person? Or maybe it's not that
there's anything wrong with Google per se, but that people are regularly
trying to branch out and start their own companies, etc. and no amount of
pampering will change those ambitions.

~~~
amichail
Amazing perks? Such perks should be insulting. Who would make a career move
based on free food?

As for brilliant colleagues: that could be good or bad depending on whether
you get along with them. Sometimes it's better to be the brightest person in
the room.

~~~
brk
* Who would make a career move based on free food*

Well, all the people I've ever worked with need to eat.

If food is provided free (and it's edible), this seems like a perk with a
direct measurable benefit.

~~~
aichcon
There's no such thing as a free lunch (or dinner or breakfast) - these costs
are factored into salaries.

~~~
bigbang
And providing free breakfast,lunch and dinner would force people to stay
longer at work. Ofcourse its thier choice, but its not easy for an average
human to refuse something "free":)

By providing a meal worth, Google can get atleast 1-2 hours extra work hours
from an employee.

~~~
Tamerlin
Which is exactly the wrong attitude.

Any company that emphasizes how long the employees are working in this
industry is clearly misguided.

The correct goal should be how much is the employee accomplishing, not how
long his ass is stuck in that seat.

------
wingo
My colleague Jao, an ex-Googler himself, burst out laughing today when he
heard about this.

But it wasn't about the contents -- it was because El País, the most prominent
newspaper of Spain, reported that Google is using a /logarithm/ to detect
discontent.

~~~
strlen
I've been asked by an ex-Googler (a recruiter), on the difference between an
algorithm and a logarithm :(

------
sutro
Google also recently replaced all managers with an Eliza-like webapp that
answers any employee question with the most appropriate PHB quote from the
Dilbert archive.

~~~
colins_pride
They're going to make 30 billion on the enterprise licensing deals ...

------
TrevorJ
"He also says that the algorithm helps Google “get inside people’s heads even
before they know they might leave”."

What part of "Don't be evil" does this kind of hanky panky fall under? It's
downright creepy. Not to mention the fact that there are very few ways in
which this data is actionable without inviting some sort of lawsuit.

~~~
boundlessdreamz
How is it creepy? They are most likely finding underutilised employees. They
are not trying to weed out the non-performers from the looks of it. From the
WSJ article

"The move is one of a series Google has made to prevent its most promising
engineers, designers and sales executives from leaving"

So they are more likely looking at engagement levels and utilization of
employees. From the way I look at it, it is actually awesome. If my company
can understand that my motivation levels are dropping because I feel
underutilised or caught up in a web of bureaucracy and take an action on it
without me complaining it is practically awesome.

Also, most importantly, if google calculates that an employee is going to
quite, there are only two outcomes

1\. If the employee is good, they will offer incentives to stay back [without
telling him/her ]

2\. If they don't care about the employee, they will do nothing and wait for
him/her to quit.

I don't see how the above two scenarios are bad for an employee. Both work out
to the advantage of both the parties. If there ever was a win-win this is it.

~~~
jonknee
I think it can be seen as creepy because it's non-social. Using an algorithm
instead of people to interpret emotions is what I think is being seen as
creepy here.

An analogy here is a nerd getting shot down on a date and deciding to write an
algorithm to help lower the chances of this event reoccurring. The more human
response is to get a new hair cut and gain some confidence.

~~~
blhack
Algorithms don't have those pesky "emotions" or "gut feelings" to get over.

Bosses do.

~~~
jonknee
Obviously, but despite whatever Google thinks humans are not replaceable by
algorithms. In the end it's a human problem and a human solution is a better
fit.

Ever try and get support from Google? You get an automated reply a couple days
later half related to your question. Rinse and repeat. Extraordinarily
frustrating. Someone probably got a promotion for creating that system because
it requires little staff, but it's alien and cold to users.

------
veqon
It's interesting that in a conversation Charlie Rose had with Marissa Mayer,
V.P. of Search Product for Google
<http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10129> she stated that your credit
card company knows you are going to get divorced 2 years before you do. Maybe
Google is harvesting more info than they state.

------
lacker
As a Google employee I am very curious to know how likely this algorithm
thinks I am to quit my job. I wonder if they'll make it available to us!
Although I suppose knowing the answer would probably affect my chances ;-)

------
snewe
Here is the actual story:

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269038041932531.html#mod=...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269038041932531.html#mod=testMod)

------
axod
Surely pretty much every large company does this? eg analyze performance
reviews and other data to see if an employee is underused/unmotivated/etc

Is it surprising Google does it?

~~~
abossy
Not everybody does it automatically and mathematically on a large scale.

~~~
frossie
But I understand that google has a very flat management structure (I have
heard of 1 manager per 100 geeks). If that is true, you probably do need some
kind of systematic examination - you don't have another choice.

My group has 7 geeks, I know them very well and can anticipate them quitting
better than any damn algorithm, even for personal reasons (though not always
for indirect personal issues, like "my wife wants to move back near her
family").

~~~
nostrademons
Not _that_ flat. If that were really the case throughout the company, it would
have about 2.15 layers of management, i.e everyone would report to someone who
reported to Eric. (log100 of 20,000 is 2.15).

------
drawkbox
Hrm by checking the ads in their gmail? I know gmail knows when I am looking
for a job, judging by the ads shown contextually to resume requests and
offers.

------
robryan
Sounds like more of an indicator to me, so they can go talk to the person if
the red flags go off. On there size scale many people would probably slip
through the cracks if they just used a regular method of trying to get to know
all the employees that work under them.

~~~
sneakums
Could backfire, though...

"So, you're thinking about leaving?"

"Not consciously, but now that you mention it, I _do_ kind of hate it here.
Thanks!"

------
granular
Google seems to be predicting its next Seldon Crisis. :)

------
ellyagg
Creep-ee

