Google veterans: The company has become ‘unrecognizable’

Re:Google veterans: The company has become ‘unrecognizable’ by m0zg on Thursday January 02, 2020 @09:58PM (#21942678)

The proliferation of VPs started under Eric. At one point I counted twice as many VPs per capita as what we had at Microsoft. There were VPs reporting to VPs and directors reporting to directors, as well as VPs and directors with zero reports. It's nuts. I suspect it's gotten much worse since then.

Also, as the chairman of the board, there's no way Schmidt did not know the "DOD ML thing". For the record, I think the "DOD ML thing" is an appropriate "thing" for a US company to be doing, including Google. In fact I think GCP should accept (and seek out) all workloads legal under US law, same as AWS and Azure.

Disclosure: same.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google veterans: The company has become ‘unrecognizable’ by smaryjerry on Friday January 03, 2020 @10:30AM (#21946675)

Sounds like the type of creep that naturally occurs after a company has existed for a long time. They offer higher level titles so they can recruit people with experience who want a move upwards when really all that changes is their title. Look at banks where President and Vice President are so over used that basically every relationship manager is called a "VP" even though they have no reports.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google veterans: The company has become ‘unrecognizable’ by gen220 on Sunday January 05, 2020 @01:47PM (#21963057)

fun fact, I believe that the (V)P roles exist mostly as a satisfying hack of financial software development regulations applied to public and high-revenue companies, where all software changes impacting the ingress and egress of money requires "director-level approval".

The least-burdensome solution to that regulation is to make every "Tech Lead" a director, hence the title creep! :)

[ Parent | on HN ]