←back to thread

Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

(qz.com)
581 points antr | 8 comments | 16 Aug 13 12:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.659s | source | bottom
Show context
g20 ◴[16 Aug 13 13:04 UTC] No.6223701[source]▶
20% time isn't dead -- I have been using it at Google consistently for over 7 years, and it has immensely benefited me. You don't need any permission, at least in engineering.

However, I would agree that it is "as good as dead". What killed 20% time? Stack ranking.

Google's perf management is basically an elaborate game where using 20% time is a losing move. In my time there, this has become markedly more the case. I have done many engineering/coding 20% projects and other non-engineering projects, with probably 20-40% producing "real" results (which over 7 years I think has been more than worth it for the company). But these projects are generally not rewarded. Part of the problem is that you actually need 40% time now at Google -- 20% to do stuff, then 20% to tell everyone what you did (sell it).

I am a bit disappointed that relatively few of my peers will consciously make the tradeoff of accepting a slower promotion rate in return for learning new things. Promotion optimizes for depth and not breadth. Breadth -- connecting disparate ideas -- is almost invariably what's needed for groundbreaking innovation.

replies(5): >>6223952 #>>6223999 #>>6224002 #>>6224655 #>>6227838 #
1. ◴[16 Aug 13 13:52 UTC] No.6223952[source]▶
replies(4): >>6223985 #>>6224038 #>>6224162 #>>6224221 #
2. notacoward ◴[16 Aug 13 13:58 UTC] No.6223985[source]▶
Reviews affect salaries even without promotions, and salary ranges are often tied to titles. If you're at the top of the range for your grade, even a good review might get you nothing. Anything that affects reviews - such as stack ranking - is therefore going to affect salaries, and I hardly think it's unreasonable to "give a shit" about salaries.
3. jrockway ◴[16 Aug 13 14:07 UTC] No.6224038[source]▶
You may want to graduate to management or UML architect or be bogged down in valueless meetings, but that's not for me. I just want to make computers do magical things.

That's not what promotions are at Google. If you want to become a manager, that's called a ladder transfer, not a promotion. Promotions are basically for paying you more for making computers do more magical things. You are never asked to do anything other than software engineering, unless you want to do something other than software engineering.

(Note that software engineering is more than opening up an editor and typing in code, though.)

replies(2): >>6224094 #>>6227954 #
4. btipling ◴[16 Aug 13 14:16 UTC] No.6224094[source]▶
Quite a lot has been accomplished by just that, opening an editor and typing in code. It's what it all comes down to, and it's why startups can take the lunch from big corps who lose competency in opening an editor and typing in good code.
5. ksk ◴[16 Aug 13 14:26 UTC] No.6224162[source]▶
>I don't understand why engineers who don't want to be managers give a shit about corporate promotions or corporate ladders.

HR/MBA types value titles, buzzwords and other nonsense because most of them are incapable of actually parsing a technical resume. So, if you're going to look for a job, filling in your title as "developer" over a period of multiple years is a losing strategy.

By the same accord, without titles, buzzwords, etc as an engineer I won't be able to differentiate between resumes of a regular graduate level physics educator and one who is capable of nobel prize level research.

replies(1): >>6226883 #
6. ◴[16 Aug 13 14:36 UTC] No.6224221[source]▶
7. VladRussian2 ◴[16 Aug 13 21:40 UTC] No.6226883[source]▶
>By the same accord, without titles, buzzwords, etc as an engineer I won't be able to differentiate between resumes of a regular graduate level physics educator and one who is capable of nobel prize level research.

if you're in the position to make a hiring decision and can't make such differentiation - well, yep, that is what we have in software engineering. In physics the situation seems to be a bit (though not much) better, in part because of CVs, in part because the network is smaller.

8. plywoodtrees ◴[17 Aug 13 02:29 UTC] No.6227954[source]▶
> engineering is more than writing code, and senior-levels of engineering even more so.

Google's higher engineering ladder rungs are defined more by scope of influence than the excellence or profusion of individual code. At higher levels, engineers will tend to spend more time communicating with and influencing other people.

Some people are happy to stop at level 4 or 5, where they can mostly do their own thing. They can do good work, they can feel they have time for 20% projects, and (to some extent?) they can keep getting raises and bonuses.