11 points by mark_h 2 days ago | link The "google doesn't offer a career path" point didn't necessarily sound as bad as they were probably assuming: given the choice between moving in to management if you're good at coding, or being paid more to do what you presumably enjoy, I know a lot of people who would prefer the latter.
Not a cut-and-dried issue I know, but I suspect it betrays a certain set of assumptions if not a mentality.
4 points by ntoshev 2 days ago | link I think "no career path" means that how exactly you become a manager is not formally defined. I haven't seen a good formal requirements for managers yet.
2 points by Goladus 1 day ago | link I understood "google doesn't offer a career path" to mean that there's no structure in place to help you advance to more valuable positions, not necessarily from coder to management. "Developer to Technical Architect" is one example given.
The problem with the traditional corporate structure isn't that advancement is bad, it's that there's often a mistaken assumption that the only thing more valuable than an individual contributor is a manager of individual contributors.
In the end I think this one is a wash. It's hard to see how you could do it both ways, and there are advantages to each. Google's ad hoc style seems to allow freedom to grow in whatever direction you want, and Google will decide later on if it's worth a promotion (to SDE II etc). The author seems to envision a system where the company has specific needs, and will support an employee with training and mentoring until he fits those needs.
9 points by Goladus 1 day ago | link I like this reply:
I don't know what I should and shouldn't say because of the NDA, but it's probably okay to say I'm married to a Googler. He hasn't been there too long, but the only problem we've had so far is that he never seems to want to come home!
Seriously, though, I've seen a lot of articles that might be labeled "sour grapes" about Google lately. (Not to imply that yours is one of them - you made an effort to support your conclusions and it does sound as though you know some unhappy people, which is unfortunate.) The thing is, I've seen my husband go through jobs at other corporations. I've waited up for him on the nights when he was forced to work overtime on a doomed project. I've been there for him while he struggled under the tyranny of dangerously ignorant management. I've seen him waste weeks of his time because of thoughtless and fruitless penny-pinching. He started out so bright, so full of energy and zest for what he does, and over time I watched that energy and passion wilt under buzzing florescent lights in suffocating cubicles.
Corporate life in general is terribly depressing. I personally hate it and work independently. I love what I do and at least this way no one can take my enthusiasm away from me.
But that's exactly why I think what Google is doing is terribly important. More companies need to be that way. They need to be families who treat their employees like children - they take care of them. They reward them for their hard work. They encourage them to be creative, because they know (and you know, too) that it only takes one good idea to make a million dollars. Or a billion. Or an empire.
I'll say this: my husband has never been happier. For that, I'm exceedingly grateful to Google. They've given him something that he deserves, that everyone deserves. I wish it were more widely available. I wish we all could be free to be children, to feel like it's okay to laugh, to look forward to waking up, to nurture the bright and crazy ideas that wander through your head. That really doesn't sound like a bad world to me.
I work at Google, am fully vested, and could retire tomorrow if I wanted to. I continue to work here because it actually is the most interesting place in the world to work at.
Once again you've written a sensationalistic piece based on cursory research that only serves to confirm your preconceived notions about the world. Only this time, I don't suspect you're wrong, I know you are."
1 point by dood 2 minutes ago | link The rest of the story has emerged, from the guy who wrote the email (and notably didn't publish it himself). From http://www.phatbits.com/?p=3
" The responses are my personal impressions, communicated to my Microsoft recruiter in the context of a private 1:1 conversation. A few days after I sent my response to the recruiter, I saw an anonymized version floating around and being discussed inside Microsoft. I hadn't realized at the time that I wrote it that it would be distributed widely within Microsoft so that was a bit of a shock. "
