My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action". There are definitely limits on this, but it's been helpful when dealing with various internal negotiations. I don't spend as much time looking to "align with stakeholders", I just go ahead and do things my decades of experience have taught me are the right paths (while also using my experience to know when I can't just push things through).
Isn't that "move fast and break things" by another name?
(I have more than once had to explain to a lawyer that their understanding was wrong, and they were imposing unnecessary extra practice)
Why would the lawyer need to talk to my manager? I'm the person getting the job done, my manager is there to support me and to resolve conflicts in case of escalations. In the meantime, I'm going to explain patiently to the lawyer that the terms they are insisting on aren't necessary (I always listen carefully to what the lawyer says).
I guess I was assuming (maybe wrongly) that you are an engineer/developer of some sort. All of that work sounds like manager work to me. Why is an IC dealing with all of that bureaucratic stuff? Doesn't they all ultimately need your manager's approval anyway?
I have a lot of experience doing this sort of work (IE, some product management, project management, customer/stakeholder relationships, vendor relationships, telling the industrial contractor where to cut a hole in the concrete for the fiber, changing out the RAM on a storage server in the data center, negotiate a multi-million dollar contract with AWS, give a presentation at re:Invent to get a discount on AWS, etc) because really, my goal is to make things happen using all my talents.
I work with my manager- I keep him up to date on stuff, but if I feel strongly about things, and document my thinking, I can generally move with a fair level of autonomy.
It's been that way throughout my career- although I would love to just sit around and work on code I think is useful, I've always had to carry out lots of extra tasks. Starting as a scientist, I had to deal with writing grants and networking at conferences more than I had time to sit around in the lab running experiments or writing code. Later, working as an IC in various companies, I always found that challenging things got done quicker if I just did them myself rather than depending on somebody else in my org to do it.
"Manager" means different things, btw. There's people managers, product managers, project managers, resource managers. Many of those roles are implemented by IC engineer/developers.
Certainly, and its interesting to see your perspective. At most of my jobs, if I needed a subscription to a SaaS (the earlier example) I'd tell my manager, explain my reasons, and they'd deal with purchasing, legal, security, etc. as needed, maybe looping me in if there was a technical question they could not answer.
We fought and tried to explain that what they were asking didn't even make sense, all of our data and IAM is already under the same M365 tenant and other various cloud services. We can't take that apart, it's just not possible.
They wouldn't listen and are completely incapable of understanding so we just said "ok, fine" and I was told to just ignore them.
The details were forgotten in the quagmire of meetings and paperwork, and the sun rose the next day in spite of our clueless 70+ year old legal team.
This question has been answered many times. Time to move on and fix forward.
But why do YOU care? Are you trying learn so you can avoid such traps in your own company that you run? Maybe you are trying to understand because you’ve been affected? Or maybe some other reason?
You can't label others as mere nuisance and simultaneously claim to respect them when faced with criticism.
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/facebook-removes-onavo/
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/06/rohingya-...
Move fast and break things is more of an understanding that "rapid innovation" comes with rapid problems. It's not a "good enough" mindset, it's a "let's fuckin do this cowboy style!" mindset.
lol, that works well until a big issue occurs in production
The real unmitigated danger of unchecked push to production is the velocity with which this generates technical debt. Shipping something implicitly promises the user that that feature will live on for some time, and that removal will be gradual and may require substitute or compensation. So, if you keep shipping half-baked product over and over, you'll be drowning in features that you wish you never shipped, and your support team will be overloaded, and, eventually, the product will become such a mess that developing it further will become too expensive or just too difficult, and then you'll have to spend a lot of money and time doing it all over... and it's also possible you won't have that much money and time.
It's a total win for the management: they take credits if initiative is successful but blame someone else for failure.
Userneed is very much second to company priority metrics.
This is, IMO, a leadership-level problem. You'll always (hopefully) have an engineering manager or staff-level engineer capable of keeping the dev team in check.
I say it's a leadership problem because "partnering with X", "getting Y to market first", and "Z fits our current... strategy" seem to take precedence over what customers really ask for and what engineering is suggesting actually works.
What worked well for extracting profits from stable cash cows doesn't work in fields that are moving rapidly.
Google et al. were at one point pinnacle technologies too, but this was 20 years ago. Everyone who knew how to work in that environment has moved on or moved up.
Were I the CEO of a company like that I'd reduce headcount in the legacy orgs, transition them to maintenance mode, and start new orgs within the company that are as insulated from legacy as possible. This will not be an easy transition, and will probably fail. The alternative however is to definitely fail.
For example Google is in the amazing position that it's search can become a commodity that prints a modest amount of money forever as the default search engine for LLM queries, while at the same time their flagship product can be a search AI that uses those queries as citations for answers people look for.
I think this is the steel man of “founder mode” conversation that people were obsessed with a year ago. People obsessed with “process” who are happy if nothing is accomplished because at least no policy was violated, ignoring the fact that policies were written by humans to serve the company’s goals.
But really, leadership above, echoing your parents.
I just went through this exercise. I had to estimate the entirety of 2026 based on nothing but a title and a very short conversation based on that for a huge suite of products. Of course none of these estimates make any sense in any way. But all of 2026 is gonna be decided on this. Sort of.
Now, if you just let us build shit as it comes up, by competent people - you know, the kind of things that I'd do if you just told me what was important and let me do shit (with both a team and various AI tooling we are allowed to use) then we'd be able to build way more than if you made us estimate and then later commit to it.
It's way different if you make me to commit to building feature X and I have zero idea if and how to make it possible and if you just tell me you need something that solves problem X and I get to figure it out as we go.
Case in point: In my "spare" time (some of which has been made possible by AI tooling) I've achieved more for our product in certain neglected areas than I ever would've achieved with years worth of accumulated arguing for team capacity. All in a few weeks.
Look at the FDA, where it's notoriously bogged down in red tape, and the incentives slant heavily towards rejection. This makes getting pharmaceuticals out even more expensive, and raises the overall cost of healthcare.
It's too easy to say no, and people prioritize CYA over getting things done. The question then becomes how do you get people (and orgs by extension), to better handle risk, rather than opting for the safe option at every turn?
I think the reason why some people mistakenly think this makes healthcare more expensive is that over recent years the FDA has raised the quality bar on the clinical trials data they will accept. A couple decades ago they sometimes approved drugs based on studies that were frankly junk science. Now that standards have been raised, drug trials are generally some of the most rigorous, high-quality science you'll find anywhere in the world. Doing it right is necessarily expensive and time consuming but we can have pretty high confidence that the results are solid.
For patients who can't wait there is the Expanded Access (compassionate use) program.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/expanded...
Always saying no to new tech is "safe" , but it also keeps you in the stone age.
It wholly owns Visible, and Visible is undercutting Verizon by being more efficient (similar to how Google Fi does it). I love the model – build a business to destroy your current one and keep all of the profits.
From what I remember it was also about splitting the finance reporting - so the up-start team isn't compared to the incumbent but to other early teams. Let's them focus on the key metrics for their stage of the game.
In 2017 Google literally gave us transformer architecture all current AI boom is based on.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/google-ai-chief-says...
That made plenty of scientists and engineers at google avoid AI for a while.
As sibling comments indicate, reasons may range from internal politics to innovator's dilemma. But the upshot is, even though the underlying technology was invented at Google, its inventors had to leave and join other companies to turn it into a publicly accessible innovation.
LaMDA is probably more famous for convincing a Google employee that it was sentient and getting him fired. When I heard that story I could not believe anybody could be deceived to that extent... until I saw ChatGPT. In hindsight, it was probably the first ever case of what is now called "AI psychosis". (Which may be a valid reason Google did not want to release it.)
Which ML-based products?
> It was convenient for Google that OpenAI acted as a first mover
That sounds like something execs would say to fend of critics. "We are #2 in AI, and that's all part of the plan"
Some more details in https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/15/technology/artificial-int...
Didn't Netflix do this when they went from DVDs to online streaming?
They are completely stuck in the 90s. Almost nothing is automated. Everyone clicks buttons on their grossly outdated tools.
Meetings upon meetings upon meetings because we are so top heavy that if they weren't constantly in meetings, I honestly don't know what leadership would do all day.
You have to go through a change committee to do basic maintenance. Director levels gatekeep core tools and tech. Lower levels are blamed when projects faceplant because of decades of technical debt. No one will admit it because it (rightly) shows all of leadership is completely out of touch and is just trying their damnedest to coast to retirement.
The younger people that come into the org all leave within 1-2 years because no one will believe them when they (rightly) sound the whistle saying "what the fuck are we doing here?" "Oh, you're just young and don't know what working in a large org is like."
Meanwhile, infra continues to rot. There are systems in place that are complete mysteries. Servers whose functions are unknown. You want to try to figure it out? Ok, we can discuss 3 months from now and we'll railroad you in our planning meetings.
When it finally falls over, it's going to be breathtaking. All because the fixtures of the org won't admit that they haven't kept up on tech at all and have no desire to actually do their fucking job and lead change.
> They are completely stuck in the 70s. Almost nothing is automated. Everyone types CLI commands into their grossly outdated tools
I'm sure 30 years from now kids will have the same complaints.
Hah, at a previous employer (and we were only ~300 people), we went through three or four rounds of layoffs in the space of a year (and two were fairly sizeable), ending up with ~200. But the "leadership team" of about 12-15 always somehow found it necessary to have an offsite after each round to ... tell themselves that they'd made the right choice, and we were better positioned for success and whatever other BS. And there was never really any official posting about this on company Slack, etc. (I wonder why?) but some of the C-suite liked to post about them on their LI, and a lot of very nice locations, even international.
Just burning those VC bucks.
> You have to go through a change committee to do basic maintenance. Director levels gatekeep core tools and tech. Lower levels are blamed when projects faceplant because of decades of technical debt.
I had a "post-final round" "quick chat" with a CEO at another company. His first question (literally), as he multitasked coordinating some wine deliveries for Christmas, was "Your engineers come to you wanting to do a rewrite, mentioning tech debt. How do you respond?" Huh, that's an eye-opening question. Especially since I'm being hired as a PM...
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=46
Every tech industry executive has read that book and most large companies have at least tried to put it into practice. For example, Google has "X" (the moonshot factory, not the social media platform formerly known as Twitter).
A better example would be Calico, which faced significant struggles getting access to internal Google resources, while also being very secretive and closed off (the term used was typically an "all-in bet" or an "all-out bet", or something in between. Verily just underwent a decoupling from Google because Alphabet wants to sell it.
I think if you really want to survive cycles of the innovator's dilemma, you make external orgs that still share lines of communications back to the mothership, maintaining partial ownership, and occasionally acquiring these external startups.
I work in Pharma and there's a common pattern of acquiring external companies and drugs to stay relevant. I've definitely seen multiple external acquisitions "transform" the company that acquires them, if for no other reason than the startup employees have a lot more gumption and solved problems the big org was struggling with.
Even internal to MS I worked on 2 teams that were 95% independent from the mothership, on one of them (Microsoft Band) we even went to IKEA and bought our own desks.
Pretty successful in regards to getting a product to market (Band 1 and 2 all up had iirc $50M in funding compared to Apple Watch's billion), but the big company politics still got us in the end.
Of course Xbox is the most famous example of MS pulling off an internal skunk works project leading to massive success.
Oh wow. Want to kill morale and ensure if a few years anyone decent has moved on? Make a shiny new team of the future and put existing employees in "not the team of the future".
Any motivation I had to put in extra effort for things would evaporate. They want to keep the lights on? I'll do the same.
I've been on the other end of this, brought in to a company, for a team to replace an older technology stack, while the existing devs continued with what was labeled as legacy. There was a lot of bad vibe.
Search is not a commodity. Search providers other than Google are only marginally used because Google is so dominant. At the same time, when LLMs companies can start providing a better solution to the actual job of finding answers to user queries, then Google's dominance is disrupted and their future business is no longer guaranteed. Maintaining Google search infra to serve as a search backbone is not big enough for Google.
I get better results than Google on segments of common craw using a desktop computer and a research model.
Given that Google has decades of scrapes, and more than four gpus to work with, they can do a better job than me. That I beat them right now is nothing short of embarrassing, bordering on an existential threat.
For data which hasn't changed since knowledge cutoff - for sure, but for real life web search, being able to get fresh data is a hard requirement.
"Oh, but that doesn't happen" - it does, Goog results have been manipulated before to the extent that probably can't be attributed purely to SEO. Youtube removed tons of "covid misinformation" about things we all know now to be true
I've never observed facebook to be conservative about shipping broken or harmful products, the releases must be pretty bad if internal stakeholders are pushing back. I'm sure there will be no harmful consequences from leadership ignoring these internal warnings.
Yes I’m still bitter.
Something that loses money now can be the next big thing. ChatGPT is the biggest recent example of this.
I had seen chatbot demos at Google as early as 2019.
You can't innovate without taking career-ending risks. You need people who are confident to take career-ending risks repeatedly. There are people out there who do and keep winning. At least on the innovation/tech front. These people need to be in the driver seat.
Its not the job of employees to bear this burden - if you have visionary leadership at the helm, they should be the ones absorbing this pressure. And thats what is missing.
The reality is folks like Zuck were never visionaries. Lets not derail the thread but a) he stole the idea for facebook b) the continued success of Meta comes from its numerous acquisitions and copying its competitors, and not from organic product innovation. Zuckerberg and Musk share a lot more in common than both would like to admit.
It depends what you want to optimize for.
If we are serious about productivity.
I helps to fire the managers. More often than not, this layer has to act in its own self interest. Which means maintaining large head counts to justify their existence.
Crazy automation and productivity has been possible for like 50 years now. Its just that nobody wants it.
Death of languages like Perl, Lisp and Prolog only proves this point.
It's often possible to get promoted by leading "large efforts" where large is defined more or less by headcount. So if a hot new org has unlimited HC budget all the incentives push managers to complicate things as much as possible to create justification for more heads. Good for savvy mangers, bad for the company and overall effort. My impression is this is what happened at Meta's AI org, and VR/AR before that.
Self preservation takes over at that point, and the bureaucratic org starts prioritizing its own survival over anything else. Product works instead becomes defensive operations, decision making slows, and innovation starts being perceived as a risk instead of a benefit.
The bureaucracy crew will win, they are playing the real game, everybody else is wasting effort on doing things like engineering.
The process is inevitable, but whatever. It is just part of our society, companies age and die. Sometimes they course correct temporarily but nothing is permanent.
I also think on this topic specifically there is so much labor going into low/no ROI projects and it's becoming obvious. That's just like my opinion though, should Meta even be inventing AI or just leveraging other AI products? I think that's likely an open question in their Org - this may be a hint to their latest thoughts on it.
(0) The only thing that matters is the budget.
(1) Beauraracies only grow, never shrink. You can only control the growth rate.
HR had completed many hours of meetings and listening sessions and had chosen to ... rename the HR department to some stupid new name.
It was like a joke for the movie Office Space, but too stupid to put in the film because nobody would believe it.
It’s amazing how process and internal operations will just eat up a company.
This was noted a long time ago by Brooks in the Mythical Man-Month. Every person added to a team increases the communication overhead (n(n − 1)/2). Teams should only be as big as they absolutely need to be. I've always been amazed that big tech gets anything done at all.
The other option would be to have certain people just do the work told to them, but that's hard in knowledge based jobs.
Also, why go thru a layoff and then reassign staff to other roles. Is it to first disgrace, and then offer straws to grasp at. This reflects their culture, and sends a clear warning to those joining.
Why not just move people around you may ask?
Possibly: different skill requirements
More likely: people in charge change, and they usually want “their people” around
Most definitely: the people being let go were hired when stock price was lower, making their compensation much higher. Getting new people in at high stock price allows company to save money
Also, planning reorgs is a ton of work when you never bothered to learn what anyone does and have no real vision for what they should be doing.
If your paycheck goes up no matter what, why not just fire a bunch of them, shamelessly rehire the ones who turned out to be essential (luckily the job market isn't great), declare victory regardless of outcome, and you get to skip all that hard work?
Nevermind long term impacts, you'll probably be gone and a VP at goog or oracle by then!
But it is just a little toy, Facebook is looking for their next billion dollar idea; that’s not it.
Even tho the creator says LLMS aren't going in that direction it's a fun read, especially when you're talking about VR + AI.
Author's note from late 2023: https://www.fimfiction.net/blog/1026612/friendship-is-optima...
This issue can be extended to many areas in technology. There is a shocking lack of effective leadership when it comes to application of technology to the business. The latest wave of tech has made it easier than ever to trick non-technical leaders into believing that everything is going well. There are so many rugs you can hide things under these days.
“You’ve got to start with the customer experience and work backwards to the technology. You can’t start with the technology and try to figure out where you’re going to try and sell it.” — Steve Jobs
Meta is not even in the picture
Few tools are ok with sometimes right, sometimes wrong output.
If we consider time period of length infinity, then it is less clear (I don’t have room in the margins to write out my proof), but since near as we can tell we don’t have infinity time, does it matter?
But I've found it leads to lazy behaviour (by me admittedly) and buggier code than before.
Everytime I drop the AI and manually write my own code it is just better.
Alexa?
Our economy is being propped up by this. From manufacturing to software engineering, this is how the US economy is continuing to "flourish" from a macroeconomic perspective. Margin is being preserved by reducing liabilities and relying on a combination of increased workload and automation that is "good enough" to get to the next step—but assumes there is a next step and we can get there. Sustainable over the short term. Winning strategy if AGI can be achieved. Catastrophic failure if it turns out the technology has plateaued.
Maximum leverage. This is the American way, honestly. We are all kind of screwed if AI doesn't pan out.
What technology? Can you link to some evidence?
GPT-5 is one piece of evidence
I will always pour one out for the fellow wage slave (more for the people who suddenly lost a job), but I am admittedly a bit less sympathetic to those with in demand skills receiving top tier compensation. More for the teachers, nurses, DOGEd FDA employees, whatever who was only ever taking in a more modest wage, but is continually expected to do more with less.
Management cutting headcount and making the drones work harder is not a unique story to Facebook.
We're talking about overworked AI engineers and researchers who've been berated for management failures and told they need to do 5x more (before today). The money isn't just handed out for slacking, it's in exchange for an eye-watering amount of work, and now more is expected of them.
And do not forget that people have autonomy. They can choose to go elsewhere if they no longer think they’re getting compensated fairly for what they are putting in (and competing for with others in the labor market)
(For me, I found the limit was somewhere around 70 hrs/week - beyond that, the mistakes I made negated any progress I made. This also left me pretty burnt out after about a year, so the sustainable long-term hourly work rate is lower)
And wanting that is not automatically a bad thing. The fallacy of linearly scaling man-hour-output applies in both directions, otherwise it's illogical. We can't make fun of claims that 100 people can produce a product 10 times as fast as 10 people, but then turn around and automatically assume that layoffs lead to overburdened employees if the scope doesn't change, because now they'll have to do 10 times as much work.
Now they can, often in practice. But for that claim to hold more evidence is needed about the specifics of who is laid off and what projects have been culled, which we certainly don't seem to have here.
Maybe they should reduce it all to Wang, he can make all decisions with the impact and scope he is truly capable of.
I don't understand why everyone always likes to bitch about why their preferred wordsmithed version of a layoff announcement didn't make it in. Layoffs suck, no question, but the complaining that leadership didn't use the right words to do this generally shitty thing is pointless IMO. The words don't really matter much at that point anyway, only the actions (e.g. severance or real possibility of joining another team).
My read of the announcement is basically saying they over-hired and had too many people causing a net hit to forward progress. Yeah, that sucks, but I don't find anything shocking or particularly poorly handled there.
then they gave it to Chris Cox, the Midas of shit. It languished in "product" trying to do applied research. The rot had set in by mid 2024 if not earlier.
Then someone convinced Zuck that he needed what ever that new kid is, and the rest is history.
Meta has too many staff, exceptionally poor leadership, and a performance system that rewards bullshitters.
Pure technologists and MBA folks dont have a visionary bone in their body. I always find the Steve Jobs criticism re. his technical contributions hilarious. That wasnt his job. Its much easier to execute on the technical stuff, when theres someone there who is leading the charge on the vision.
To be fair, almost every company has a performance system that rewards bullshitters. You’re rewarded on your ability to schmooze and talk confidently and write numerous great-sounding docs about all the great things you claim to be doing. This is not unique to one company.
Meta's is uniquely bad.
Basically your superiours all go into a room and argue about who did what, when and how good it was.
If you have a manager who is bad at presenting, then their team is sunk, and will be used to fill quotas. The way out of that is to create workplace posts that are seen by your wider org, that make you look like you're doing something useful. "oh I heard about x, they talked about y, that sounded good"
This means that people who work away and just do good engineering are less likley to be rewarded compared to the #thankstrain twats/"I wrote the post, therefore it was all me me me" types
This alignment meeting is all private, and there are no mechanisms to challenge it. worse still it encourages a patronage system. Your manager has almost complete discretion to fuck up your career, so don't be honest in pulse(the survey/feedback system).
Alas, the burden falls on the little guys. Especially in this kind of labor market.
Management should take a painful paycut or resign to demonstrate some contrition.
If an engineer screws up hugely, do you want get rid of them immediately and find a replacement, or evaluate whether or not they learned a very important and expensive lesson that may happen again with a replacement?
But that said, you still have to deal with the situation and move forward. Sunk cost fallacy and all that
"We want to cut costs and increase the burden on the remaining high-performers"
Anecdotally, this is a problem at Meta as described by my friends there.
Overshooting by 600 people sounds a lot like gross failure. Is someone going to take responsibilities for it? Probably not. That person's job is safe.
> "You can't expect to just throw money at an algorithm and beat one of the largest tech companies in the world"
A small adjustment to make for our circus: s/one of//
New leader comes in and gets rid of the old team, putting his own preferred people in positions of power.
I imagine there’s some people who might like the idea that, with less people and fewer stakeholders around, the remaining team now has more power to influence the org compared to before.
(I can see why someone might think that’s a charitable interpretation)
I personally didn’t read it as “everyone will now work more hours per day”. I read it as “each individual will now have more power in the org” which doesn’t sound terrible.
Why not both?
On what planet is it OK to describe your employees as "load bearing?"
It's a good way to get your SLK keyed.
If they want to innovate then they need to have small teams of people focused on the same problem space, and very rarely talking to each other.
Why? Being transparent about these decisions are a good thing, no?
Coming soon to your software development team.
But rather than finding magic to make teams better, they did find that there were types of people who make teams worse regardless of anyone else on the team, and they're not all that uncommon.
I think of those folks when I read that quote. That person who clearly doesn't understand but is in a position that their ignorant opinion is a go or no go type gate.
A small team is not only more efficient, but is overall more productive.
The 100-person team produces 100 widgets a day, and the 10-person team produces 200 widgets a day.
But, if the industry becomes filled with the knowledge of how to produce 200 widgets a day with 10 people, and there are also a lot of unemployed widget makers looking for work, and the infrastructure required to produce widgets costs approximately 0 dollars, then suddenly there is no moat for the big widget making companies.
> ”By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Wang writes in a memo seen by Axios.
That's kinda wild. I'm kinda shocked they put it in writing.