

Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Bullcrap. - zachbeane
http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2010/11/29/google-has-a-problem-retaining-great-engineers-bullcrap/

======
thetrumanshow
"...the value Google is getting out of my work is worth many multiples of my
total compensation. And that’s a position that every engineer should strive
for, since that’s how you can be confident that you will remain gainfully
employed."

As an entrepreneur, something about this statement bothers me... something
about all the value I create getting skimmed off the top and taken away by
someone else. Yeah, that's probably it.

But if you just want to do neat engineering work, then, sure, I get it.

~~~
johngalt
But that's not really what's happening.

A skilled engineer who focuses solely on engineering will produce much better
work than a skilled engineer that also has to focus on /marketing /sales
/investors /accounting /facilities /IT /management /HR

Either a small fish in a big pond or a big fish in a small pond.

Edit: Also consider that you may be a person that can produce a lot of value
specialized, but practically no value when juggling all the above items.
You'll find that if you can produce a lot of value at any level then you can
negotiate from a position of power.

~~~
DevX101
With a name like johngalt I would think you'd be supporting his argument ;)

~~~
johngalt
Atlas Shrugged is a fun fantasy, but in reality there are many different
valuable specialties. It's all too easy to dismiss anyone that doesn't do what
_you_ do as worthless.

That said I do agree that a very small number of people in any organization
are responsible for the lion's share of the productivity and are inadequately
compensated for that.

------
wooster

      They are about business model discovery.  
      So if you are fundamentally a technologist 
      at heart, whose heart sings when you’re 
      making a better file system, or fixing a 
      kernel bug, you’re not going to be happy 
      at a startup.
    

There are plenty of storage startups in Silicon Valley that would be happy to
pay someone to do filesystem work.

Web 2.0 startups are not the only game in town. There are plenty of other
companies at which to do serious engineering work.

~~~
merijnv
Of course, but why go to those if you can do the same work at Google and
actually be sure they'll be able to pay you more then you need to life
comfortably.

~~~
wooster
Because at least at the startup you have the possibility, however remote, of
getting FU money and never having to answer to anybody you don't like, ever
again.

And besides, if you're that good, you don't really have any worries about
getting paid what you're worth.

~~~
qq66
The whole FU money is mostly a fallacy. If you really love filesystem hacking,
and you live in Silicon Valley and are really good at it, you already never
have to answer to anybody you don't like, ever again. If you don't like your
boss, you can quit, and do this 50 times if you want.

And people shouldn't work for a "possibility, however remote." That's called
playing the lottery and is generally foolish.

------
gyardley
Okay, so Google has a problem retaining the subset of great engineers who're
also entrepreneurial.

That's still a problem.

~~~
brown9-2
Where does the author say that?

He is claiming that the startup life is for people interested in
entrepreneurship, not technology. If their attrition rate truly hasn't moved
at all, then I don't see how one can say there is a problem retaining any
subset of people.

~~~
gyardley
The author didn't say that, I said that.

We'd need more data, but obviously the attrition rate could remain constant
for the whole while changing for some of its parts. Perhaps Google has gotten
better at retaining non-entrepreneurial engineering talent, while getting
worse at retaining entrepreneurial engineering talent.

~~~
brown9-2
_Perhaps Google has gotten better at retaining non-entrepreneurial engineering
talent, while getting worse at retaining entrepreneurial engineering talent._

But you aren't really basing any of this on any facts or even statements by
involved parties, are you? This is just theorizing that maybe their rate is
worse in some spots. Maybe their rate is even better among this last category.
What is the point of idle speculation like this?

------
YuriNiyazov
FTA: "A startup is totally the wrong place for me."

There are startups out there that depend on superior engineering for their
living. Off the top of my head, this guy would do very well at Heroku,
Dropbox, RethinkDB, Clustrix and FlightCaster.

------
CRASCH
From the perspective of working on file systems, I don't see a viable way to
innovate and monetize. I completely see the OP point of view, from his
perspective. I disagree with the conclusion though.

It is true that a lot of the big startups aren't innovating in technology.
They are innovating in the business model space. But that doesn't mean you
can't create some innovative technology to build a startup around it.

------
martinkallstrom
In Sweden, Google has aquired Marratech and Global IP Solutions. Both are all
about hardcore codec innovation, not business model discovery. Google was
licensing tech from GIPS long before they aquired it. If big companies are
where heavy tech is developed, aquisitions like those would never happen.

NB. Another Google aquisition from Sweden was Trendalyzer, Hans Rosling's
visualization technology famous from his TED talk, making Sweden the country
with most Google aquisitions in Europe, Middle-East and Africa.

~~~
myth_drannon
It's a tie with Germany (allPAY,bruNET,Neven Vision Germany )

~~~
martinkallstrom
Ok, so let's make it per capita :)

------
benblack
Google, like almost any other company of sufficient size, has a problem
retaining great engineers who prefer smaller companies. Those preferences are
not about the false dichotomy between "engineers" and "entrepreneurs". Mr.
Ts'o enjoys a job in an established company where he can be paid well, work
only on specific technical problems, work reasonable hours, etc. That's a fine
choice, and the right one for many. It is, however, still exactly that: a job.
People who start companies are not often looking for another job. Mr. Ts'o
should be thankful that is so. Had Larry and Sergey taken his advice the
company for which he works would not exist.

------
sdizdar
The following sentence is very not true and quite misleading:

> Similarly, you don’t work on great technology at a startup. .. They are
> about business model discovery...

If that is true, then why do technology startups exist at all? Isn't
discovering business model very much connected to discovering new technologies
(new, more efficient ways to solve problems)? In other words, if a technology
startup is not planning to invent something, then it not should probably exist
in the first place.

It is true there are some Web 2.0 startups which are not about technology at
all, but these startups are anyway not looking for great engineers.

~~~
btilly
I emphatically disagree. At least for most "technology startups".

Technology startups are just startups that require technology to operate. I've
worked at some successful ones. And they really were about finding the right
business model. We needed good technology people and there were fun technical
problems. But really they were about finding business models that fully used
the technology, and not about the technology itself.

That said, there are some _real_ technology startups. They look rather
different. For instance I know employee #7 at SpaceX. There is no question
that that company is really about the technology.

------
kin
Reading the article title I immediately thought of those leaving Google for
Facebook. This IS happening. They're doing it to catch the FB IPO.

OP mentions this topic but mostly talks about his view, which I get. On the
other hand, I've spoken with plenty of ex-Google employees who've left because
Google is getting so large and has so many 20% projects that it no longer
feels so entrepreneurial being at Google and so they leave. These are
employees that don't care about a business model and just want to see their
projects see the light of day.

So, Google has a problem retaining great engineers? Sure, it doesn't apply to
OP, but that doesn't mean it's bullcrap.

------
jkin
I find this article misleading, Google certainly does not have problem
retaining talents joining early stage startups. Those talents probably joined
Google pre-IPO and funding their own startups now. The problem for the late
Googlers is that they and their uncles all want to join the multi-billions
dollar pre-IPO "company". And yes, their scale is big enough and affect
millions, and the up side is, one day they can move on to be entrepreneurs.

~~~
tytso
Not everyone who participates in an IPO makes millions you know. Especially
those who join in the later stages of a startup's lifecycle, the combined
effects of (a) dilution, and (b) increasing stock valuation means the lottery
payout diminishes very steeply. And in the case of Facebook, where there have
been a lot more opportunities for stock to be sold pre-IPO, that means there
are more opportunities for the stock valuation to be established. This has
impacts for what the company can offer as far as stock options are concerned,
which influences the upside opportunity.

Furthermore, given the huge amount of attention and hype about How Facebooks
Success Is Assured, a lot of the "pop" in valuation that took place pre-IPO
has probably already taken place. People who expect that Facebook will have
its valuation (its market cap is currently estimated at $41 billion; Apple is
$219 billion; IBM is $157 billion; Dell is $22 billion) "pop" by another 10x
post-IPO will probably be sadly disappointed. And if you don't get that "pop",
those stock options won't be worth all that much.

Which is one of the reasons I really don't believe the stories of $3.5m and
$6m retention offers. It would simply be insane to make such offers, because
the payout for someone jumping from Google to Facebook at this point, roughly
a year before when people are guessing Facebook will IPO, are nowhere near
that large (after stock reserved for the 5 stages of VC investment, and the
founder's stock, and stock already issued to other employees, not to mention
the shares that you know, need to actually be sold to the public, the number
of options that could be granted per employee won't be that high). And, I'm
pretty confident Google isn't insane. Furthermore, if Google was doing this,
it would be bleedingly obvious on the quarterly 10Q statements it has to file
with the SEC. So if you really think this is real, try doing some digging in
the 10Q's 2-3 months from now.

------
earl
Since Theodore brought this up: "(And those stories about Google paying $3.5
million and $7 million to keep an engineer from defecting to Facebook? As far
as I know, total bull. I bet it’s something made up by some Facebook recruiter
who needed to explain how she let a live prospect get away. :-)"

I'm pretty sure it's real. Someone who either posts on here or who is
frequently submitted -- I think piaw, or something like that? -- is an early
Google ops person. Anyway, on piaw's blog, he or she mentioned that he or she
had personally spoken to a G employee who got a counteroffer within 20% of the
3.5MM. So perhaps Theodore should be a little less sure of himself. Sorry for
being vague, my memory is a little hazy, but I've read this in the last 2
weeks.

Also, he's doing something much closer to pure infrastructure work, so of
course fewer -- but not zero -- web startups will be interested. That being
said, I think it highly unlikely there are no jobs in SF / valley for highly
experienced linux kernel file system devs.

Edit: link I referred to above [http://piaw.blogspot.com/2010/11/counter-
offer-conundrum.htm...](http://piaw.blogspot.com/2010/11/counter-offer-
conundrum.html)

"People asked me yesterday if the Techcrunch $3.5M story was true. I said it
was believable, because while I wasn't involved in negotiating that particular
counter-offer, I had some role in assisting someone land a counter-offer
within 20% of that number some time back."

~~~
guelo
Of course it's true, I read it on the internet!

