backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 80 comment(s) - last by Baked.. on May 21 at 11:50 AM


Google offices in Zurich  (Source: adrozdov.com)

  (Source: adrozdov.com)

  (Source: adrozdov.com)

  (Source: adrozdov.com)
Google has one of the most employee pampering policies, but its losing star employees; what's happening?

Google's top 3 executives have pledged to stay with the company for two more decades.  It's not hard to imagine why with the company's rampant success and amazing perks.

Like a tropical paradise, the Google workplace environment sounds like some fantasy or flight of one's imagination.  Employees get haute cuisine lunches cooked by renowned chefs.  Childcare and swimming spas all come free as well.  The workplace features art and brings in guest speakers like Barack Obama, which whether you love them or hate them, promise to yield above average water cooler chat.  And tech training sessions are in no short supply.

Perhaps most famously, employees are able to devote one day a week, or 20 percent of their total work time, to anything they want.  This famous perk supposedly has yielded many of the current Google products since its inception.

Despite the plush accoutrements, all is not well in paradise.  Google is finding to its astonishment, that for the first time in its history, employees are leaving in droves.  At Microsoft, or especially at Apple (notorious for its high turnover in upper management), this would seem business as usual.  But for Google this is strange and frightening unfamiliar territory.

President of global communications and public affairs Elliot Schrage jumped ship to work at Facebook this last week.  Just two months prior Sheryl Sandberg had left to become the number two executive at Facebook.  And in April off to EMI went Google CIO Doug Merrill.

And it’s not just executives -- its regular employees as well.  Google is trying to downplay losses, saying that it’s replacing anything that it lost in IQ and is not suffering from some sort of brain power sapping.  Maybe so, Google is still one of the most desired workplaces.  However, the departures beg the question -- what gives?

Some analysts say that employees may feel that Google is trying too hard.  While company dodge ball games, foosball tables, and bright color schemes may be what some dream of at work, analysts say that when the company actively promotes such features, it can risk seeming obnoxious. 

Valleywag, a tech gossip blog states, "What makes [some tech workspaces] so bad? Some offend with exposed fluorescent lights, gray cubicles and a dystopian-corporate environment. But others, with their pseudo-hip graffiti, kindergarten toys and plastic decorations—all in a desperate attempt to seem 'Internet-y'—come off even worse."

Other analysts say that coddling its employees has helped Google retain its employees for years, but now is helping to lose them.  The truth is, these parties say, the kids someday want to grow up.  Perks such as free-laundry service, free food, and bouncy ball chairs (yes, Google employees get those) may be fun for a time, but eventually employees feel the desire to advance to a position of higher leadership at a more "adult" company, which is easy due to Google's track record of success.

Says Aaron Schwartz on his blog Raw Thought, "Google hires programmers straight out of college and tempts them with all the benefits of college life. Indeed, as the hiring brochures stress, the place was explicitly modeled upon college… But as the gleam wears off the Google, I can see why it's no place anyone would want to hang around for that long."

Other analysis from critics center around stock options which are less bountiful these days, though still strong.  However, perhaps the most logical explanation to why employees are leaving is one centered on the nature of the actual work. As some analysts aptly point out, most Google employees are changing the world, or creating a brand new product rather merely making iterative minor refinements on an existing one.  Under all the layers of "fun", the fact is Google is a lot like other tech companies, just a bit brawnier in the brains department.

Chuck Pappalardo, principal and managing director at Trilogy Search, an executive recruiting firm states, "A lot changes as a company becomes really successful and goes from being entrepreneurial to institutional. Sometimes the most fun part of a company like that is not working there when it is already a success, but growing it from the beginning. When a company reaches that point, some people will naturally transition out."

Sarcasm slinging pundit Fake Steve Jobs similarly states that the fun just leads up to a big disappointing realization about the true nature of the work.  Says Fake Jobs, "[Google] makes a big deal of only hiring these super-high-IQ kiddies and the fact is that most of them truly are smart, but then you put them into this horribly dull and easy drone work on AdWords and AdSense and they're all bored to tears and totally disappointed because they really really really thought they were going to do something meaningful with their lives and now they're just worker bees--pampered worker bees, sure, but still..."

Others point out that many of departing employees are going to companies similar to Google, but merely younger and more new and exciting.  Three early employees left to found the microblog site Twitter; three more to launch the video sharing site Ooyala.  Forty employees have left for Facebook, accounting for 10 percent of Facebook's staff at the last count.

Others take their winnings and quit working tech altogether and turn to investment.  Says Pappalardo, "A lot of people made a lot of money working there, and took some level of stock and there's a lot of cool, interesting stuff to do with this. Silicon Valley is probably the best place in the world for inventors with ideas, so it's not about leaving Google because you're unhappy, but because you're ready for the next big thing,"

With all the ruminations on the departures, an interesting aside to consider is provided by Phillip Lessen at Google Blogoscoped.  Lessen points out that Google may eventually acquire some its former employees startups in a move much like the circle of life.  What are the potential problems with such a move?  Lessen warns, "Any such acquisition may be enough of a demoralizing factor to those who work at Google that it could be risky for Google's management to consider; it may almost equal telling their employees that the best way to achieve something at Google is to quit Google."

It’s a humorous observation, perhaps; but quite astute and certainly a sign of the changing times for Google.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Google
By Reflex on 5/15/2008 4:47:22 PM , Rating: 5
Being in an area where Google does a lot of hiring, and having experience myself in several large technology companies in the area, although not Google for reasons I'll explain below, I do understand that their retention is going to be bad over the long term.

There are several problems I see with Google's hiring policies, for instance they hire exclusively among college grads, prefferably new grads, and prefferably from Stanford. Pretty much if your a comp-sci grad from Stanford you have a automatic job at Google. The problems with this strategy are:

a) The tech industry is still relatively young. The best talant often was self-taught or certified via independent training, very little of the real talant at this point came from the colleges(although this is slowly changing)

b) By focusing on new grads they lose experience, their sales pitch is 'Its just like college, but with a paycheck!' which sounds great to a 22 year old, but as the article alludes, isn't so nice when your 30, have a wife and two kids, and really don't want to collaborate with your co-workers at 2AM because that is when they are at their 'most productive'. Suddenly 9-5 'normal' jobs get a whole hell of a lot more attractive.

c) While Stanford is no slouch, they really are not the best college for tech grads. MIT and CalTech both beat them hands down. While thier Stanford focus is advantageous to Stanford grads, it serves as a disincentive to highly qualified grads at other schools, not simply because they won't be noticed as easily, but also because it confers the idea that once you are hired you will always be a second class employee due to your alma-mater. Why would someone choose that when IBM, Microsoft, Intel, etc etc would value them without such bias?

Another aspect of the 'fun' environment is to encourage employees to make work thier life. And discourage privacy among them consequently. Pretty much everyone at Google knows thier Boss' hobbies, schedule, etc, as well as those of their immediate co-workers. No one ever really 'gets away from it all' there, its very difficult to accomplish in any meaningful fashion, work is always present. Other aspects, like their 'glass walls' policy, where management and any other offices have glass walls are sold as a way to make everyone accessable, but they also function to make everyone accountable. Browsing the web while you wait on something? Everyone can see you, including your boss. For a student used to a professor watching, this is no big deal, but for a professional with experience, this is quite simply demeaning and unprofessional.

As mentioned, their salaries are a bit under industry norms, however so are Microsoft's and Intel's. People work at these companies to gain the resume checkbox, not to get rich. Honestly after the IPO, most of the instant millionaires are already made, the rest will have to work a few decades.




RE: Google
By Oregonian2 on 5/15/2008 6:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By focusing on new grads they lose experience, their sales pitch is 'Its just like college, but with a paycheck!' which sounds great to a 22 year old, but as the article alludes, isn't so nice when your 30, have a wife and two kids, and really don't want to collaborate with your co-workers at 2AM because that is when they are at their 'most productive'. Suddenly 9-5 'normal' jobs get a whole hell of a lot more attractive.


Yes, that is my personal experience. Things become a problem when one wants to have a life outside of work. For my first 15 years out of school (thereabouts) I lived at work. Everything short of sleeping there (but worked through the night sometimes not going home at all). Did very well and I actually enjoyed it quite a lot. But gets hard when one is married. Very hard (as in not possible).


RE: Google
By Arribajuan on 5/16/2008 11:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
These kind of jobs are like expensive sports cars.

The are great but have a low Wife Acceptance Factor.

So it becomes difficult to remain in this places in the long run.


RE: Google
By Rabscuttle on 5/15/2008 7:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a) The tech industry is still relatively young. The best talant often was self-taught or certified via independent training, very little of the real talant at this point came from the colleges


One has to wonder how long before some disgruntled applicant and some slick lawyer will sue a company like Googler for "Education Discrimination" - showing that they can do the job and the only reason that they weren't hired was for lack of a "scrap of paper." Boy, wouldn't that open up a can of worms!!

America - Land of the Free and Home of the Tort!


RE: Google
By Reflex on 5/15/2008 8:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
I cannot imagine such a lawsuit succeeding because education is a valid qualification for a job, and can be listed among the job requirements. Gender or race are not and to list them would be opening the door to a lawsuit.


RE: Google
By masher2 (blog) on 5/16/2008 1:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
> "I cannot imagine such a lawsuit succeeding because education is a valid qualification for a job"

Actually, such a lawsuit has already been not only filed, but actually succeeded, as in the case of an employer who required a high-school education for employees, including janitorial staff. The requirement was construed as having a disproportionate impact on blacks.


RE: Google
By ThePooBurner on 5/16/2008 9:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. That is a racist judgment. Apparently courts feel that blacks don't get HSD and can only work as janitors.

That should have never won.


RE: Google
By Reflex on 5/17/2008 2:26:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think I can agree with that. The courts are not necessarily about theory, but also about practicality. If blacks do not graduate high school at a disproportionate rate compared to other races, and a job puts a HS diploma as a pre-requisite for a position, well you end up with defacto discrimination even if it wasn't intentional. I can see how the case could be won with that argument, and its not an insult to blacks.

I agree with the premise though: No condition should be on a job that is not required to actually do the job. I cannot think of a reason a janitor would have need to have a HS diploma.


RE: Google
By Muerr on 5/15/2008 9:07:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Another aspect of the 'fun' environment is to encourage employees to make work thier life.


I would like to highlight this excellent point!

Work != life. If Work == Life, then you are a workaholic, and that isn't a healthy lifestyle long term.

When you truly enjoy your work, and it is a vocation - its what God put you on the planet to do, then its not work :-). But most programmers I know wouldn't consider it to be their calling.


RE: Google
By semo on 5/18/2008 5:52:03 AM , Rating: 3
yeah, some people just can't get enough of that workahol.


RE: Google
By grebe925 on 5/16/2008 12:15:48 AM , Rating: 2
I know my age is showing but I am looking at those pictures and, frankly, a lot of the "cool" stuff in them looks silly to me now. And I used to work at companies that had similar setups to "excite" employees and considered them cool.


RE: Google
By Runiteshark on 5/16/2008 9:47:29 AM , Rating: 2
You kidding? I'm not even past my 30s yet and I think it looks pretty stupid. Give me racks of equipment to play with, or a shop to work on a car in, or a decent lanparty, something like that.

I can't imagine the mindset of the people that actually enjoy having a silly slide at their work, and use it often. I can see it in my head as the thing that nobody actually does (for fear of looking like an idiot).


RE: Google
By dever on 5/16/2008 1:27:30 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know. I like efficiency. If a slide gets me downstairs quicker, I just might use it. Pride goes out the window after a while. Of course with this attitude, I might end up being the guy at the nursing home who sleeps naked in the lobby.


RE: Google
By afkrotch on 5/16/2008 10:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
Those pictures remind me of the stupid Wii ads on TV. I wouldn't be caught dead working at Google if all their offices look like that.

I've seen kindergarten classes that looked less kiddy.


RE: Google
By PandaBear on 5/16/2008 1:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
Very true. The fact that they hire based on which school you go to and what is your GPA really doesn't do you any good after you establish yourself with work experience. Sure, 75k a year sounds good when you first got out of Stanford, but after 3 years or so, you want more because of your experience and they refuse to pay you more. People stay back when stock options and bonus were good, but now everyone is cutting options (I got none from SanDisk this year, cheap skate) and so everyone is looking for a new job with bigger bonus or a higher salary.

This isn't just Google, it is every big company with prestige.


Google
By thebrown13 on 5/15/2008 3:20:03 PM , Rating: 3
Smart developers want to create high quality products, and Google is not doing it. Simple as that.




RE: Google
By Ammohunt on 5/15/2008 3:29:04 PM , Rating: 3
That’s a problem with a lot of companies along with valuing a College Degree over years of practical work experience.


RE: Google
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/15/2008 3:36:08 PM , Rating: 2