Google has been rolling out an astoundingly aggressive anti-remote policy from what we've heard - and it's probably even more aggressive internally. I wouldn't be surprised if they're just losing a lot of the folks that realized quality of life matters to them.

Googler here.

All indications pointed towards no remote option, but that switched a few months ago. Most people in software engineering roles have decent access to full time remote options, especially if they are willing to change orgs. I don't know a single case in my org (hundreds of people) who had a rejected remote application.

I've always been confused by Google's reputation for pushing in-the-office work. I've met with... 3, I think, Google teams quite a few times over the years, and not once have I seen Google engineers in the office for these meetings. I even flew into the area for a meeting at Mountain View once, we got escorted in by a manager, and we sat in a conference room while all the Google engineers dialed in from their homes around the Bay Area. But yeah, everyone seems to talk about Google not being remote friendly (pre-COVID, that is).

[Also a Googler here, speaking my own interpretation rather than any official policy.]

They make the official policy in-office to set the expectation that that's where you'll be, and then they can negotiate exceptions on a case-by-case basis. I've never seen a high-performing Googler (meaning one who has successfully launched a project) turned down for remote work or office transfers. They don't want the non-performing Googlers (who possibly might outnumber the high-performing ones) working remote though. If you're meeting with engineers as an external partner or customer, it's almost certain those are high-performing engineers, because they wouldn't be put in that position otherwise.

> They don't want the non-performing Googlers (who possibly might outnumber the high-performing ones) working remote though.

Why not?

I'd assume that verifying that non-performing Googlers are actually working, and correcting performance issues, is much harder when they're remote. Most knowledge workers pretty much have to be trusted to perform their jobs, but that trust is much harder when you can observe neither process, progress, or results.

In most knowledge work - not just Google - you're fine as long as you're either putting in effort or getting results. After all, software development has plenty of risks, it's possible to fail to deliver for many reasons other than being lazy. But when you are neither putting in effort nor getting results, that's when you're at risk of getting fired, because the company starts to wonder why they're paying you. Remote work makes it much harder to observe the "putting in effort" piece.

> but that trust is much harder when you can observe neither process, progress, or results

I don’t get it. There’s code and working features. That’s the result.

If I may humbly weigh in on this...

It's not just about the code, it's also about the culture.

Non-performing staff could be non-performing for different reasons - not just output - and it's often easier to spot those reasons (and address them) when you're working in the same office.

Source: I've been running a company with hybrid in-office + remote staff for 15 years. Would be happy to expand on the above if asked.

15 years of experience with this kind of work puts you well ahead of most, so I’ll bite: please do expand on the above :)

I take it you're not a professional slacker. It's so easy to game all these tracking systems.

People who consistently deliver code and working features usually don't have a problem getting approved to work remotely. That's the case-by-case part. It's the people whose code is buggy or nonexistent and whose features don't work that are stuck in the office.

But what is there's no code or code that is not used in a working feature? Both ends of the performance spectrum comprise people who don't really code.

You've just explained it yourself: there may not be enough code and/or working features.

I can tell with certainty that slacking in office is extraordinary simple. You can even slack your way to massive overtime, as you chat with this or that person, hang around, procrastinated with actual work or just plain browse reddit.

> They don't want the non-performing Googlers (who possibly might outnumber the high-performing ones) working remote though.

They don't want to increase the performance of the low-performers?

When Google got big, it got stupid.

Everywhere I've worked has had a policy of no remote work. Yet, if you got your work done, and your manager was OK with it (probably the case if you get work done), no one cared. I guess they could look at badge data (if your company has them) but I've never seen a company do that.

I don't think I've ever had a manager that could be convinced to care about this even if some level of management did in fact care. Who the hell wants to spend time taking attendance like a schoolteacher?

Yes, anyone can apply. But no, not all orgs will accept a remote application.

And if your org says no, there aren’t that many internal remote options yet. And some orgs will say no to remote transferees for the first N months or a year.

So it’s better than before, but some orgs are still stuck in no-remote, and for many a departure is the way to go remote.

Very few of the eng orgs have policies against remote work. Even TI supports it, despite whinging over Urs' statements. I'm also not aware of any manager who'd reject an internal xfer who had a record of good performance for remote work.

Would I like to see more to support remote work? Yes. It feels ridiculous to me that the folks in Sales don't have the same options. But from the actual data collected most people in a position to work remotely have access to it.

Googler, opinion is my own.

Says who? They are allowing people to apply for full remote, with an estimated 8500 so far approved.

https://www.businessinsider.com/google-approved-85-of-roughl...

From the article

> "The company also turned down requests where organizations "made a commitment to invest in key growth sites and are working to build their teams and critical mass in those particular hubs," Google told Insider."

That reads like "if someone in your organization chain said they want to build a hub in your region, we'll probably deny your request because headcount need to be filled for those hubs"

Which is fair for the company to do but you can see why that can trigger attrition too.

Point taken, thanks for raising it. I could definitely see some newer sites have that issue that require local teams until critical mass is hit. I guess the sites I tend to work with are already very well established, so people I've seen apply have all been accepted (of the ones I know).

Some people aren’t even applying because their orgs have made it clear that remote won’t be approved, and some people are being denied for spurious reasons. (Best one I’ve seen is: personal reasons not strong enough for remote.)

So it’s not as rosy as it seems.

10-15% annual attrition is normal. If this is ~36 total departures in a quarter (2%) its entirely in line. But if its 36 in addition to some unspecified baseline it would be a moderate problem.

A 10% turnover rate in 4 months is pretty high, though I don’t know their baseline.

10% is 180. That seems pretty far outside of the expected range of "dozens".

True lol I misread. So it’s close to 1% in 4 months or 3-4% a year, which should be pretty normal

Yeah, let's say average tenure is 5 years. Wouldn't that indicate that each year 20% of workforce would leave?

It depends if you're including the tenure of all the people who have departed or not - AFAIK most places don't, which skews the numbers tremendously.

I heard that Google has decided to force everyone to get vaccinated before the end of August if they want to remain employed.

I don't know if people leaving has something to do with that, but personally, I would leave immediately.

If you were in a workplace that cares enough to require vaccination, and you refuse, they'd probably be glad that you left.