This feels a little disingenuous. I get what he’s saying. He wants a “sprint and rest” type of environment rather than “always jogging” type of environment. His statements on employee entitlement generally resonate with me at a similar company, same with the overall privacy/regulatory stuff, which is a bureaucratic nightmare (like you want to ship a small button change that is delayed 3 months because it needs to go through needless reviews).
If he were able to ignore various regulatory compliance issues that Google insisted he follow, Google would have likely faced some pretty serious fines.
If Waze had stayed independent and done so, it would likely be destined for a consent decree with the FTC.
Either way his life would have gotten a lot worse--he just experienced the pain via corporate insistent, rather than direct governmental influence.
A lot of conclusions in your comment based on assumptions that are not supported by anything I’m aware of. I read his statements as “dealing with an extra level of inefficient bureaucracy every day is annoying”, not “these pesky lawyers won’t let me do risky things”
I don't see the "rest" part. At most, usually the business owners get some rest, while employees continue the usual work. "Rest" is not a synonym of "not working on weekends".
> The worst thing is that this was inline with the policies and norms - I was the weirdo who wanted to push things fast and expected some level of personal sacrifice when needed. I don't believe long hours are a badge of honor but I also believe that we have to do whatever it takes to win, even if its on a weekend.
You're making map app dude, week later or earlier on a feature won't save the world
I'm actually glad to see these responses here, because I have the exact opposite feelings, and I think it highlights a huge generational disconnect.
I agree with the author. It is somewhat shocking to me that so many employees in tech feel, or at least project, that being available during normal working hours is "kinda optional". And to be clear, I'm not talking about someone that has a real emergency. But to have the expectation that one should be available between 9-5ish is somehow considered "toxic" is just baffling to me. I'd also highlight that many professions, e.g. those that have shift work, are nowhere near as lax.
He's not arguing for a regular 9-5 Mon-Fri, he's arguing against weekends and personal days. He expected "personal sacrifice" on the part of employees and was frustrated that Google didn't. That's not a generational mindset, it's a modern startup mindset that was out of place in an established company like Google.
Here's the full quote:
> Having trouble scheduling meetings because “it's the new Yoga instructor lesson I cannot miss” or “I’m taking a personal day” drove me crazy. The worst thing is that this was inline with the policies and norms - I was the weirdo who wanted to push things fast and expected some level of personal sacrifice when needed. I don't believe long hours are a badge of honor but I also believe that we have to do whatever it takes to win, even if its on a weekend.
> I'd also highlight that many professions, e.g. those that have shift work, are nowhere near as lax.
We have two groups of people - tech workers who have a generally great working environment, and shift workers who do not. The idea that in our advanced society we should base our expectations on those who are currently doing worse is frankly absurd. Our aim should be for _everyone_ to have the work-life balance that tech workers have now.
> Our aim should be for _everyone_ to have the work-life balance that tech workers have now.
With what, a magic wand? There is the fundamental difference that, for shift work, every employee who is out needs to be replaced by someone else. And it's not just a low-skilled workers issue, for example the same dynamic exists in say doctor groups or pilots. With tech/project-based work, if someone is out it's not like someone else needs to cover for that timeslot.
But just, at a more fundamental level, basically saying "you are expected to be available for your job at particular times" is an expectation for which there is considerable disagreement between generations.
> But to have the expectation that one should be available between 9-5ish is somehow considered "toxic" is just baffling to me. I'd also highlight that many professions, e.g. those that have shift work, are nowhere near as lax.
Right, because everyone should be stuck in traffic to work at 9AM, marvellous idea.
It baffles me that it appears to be so hard for managers to just schedule meeting at 11 instead of 9
I didn't imply that it had to be in-office, so not sure where you got "everyone should be stuck in traffic".
As to "It baffles me that it appears to be so hard for managers to just schedule meeting at 11 instead of 9", this is the exact point I'm getting at. Why is it somehow hard for people to be available at 9? Having been a manager, it's much more difficult to juggle 15 different individualized schedules when you need to have a meeting with a couple people.
So get out as fast as you can reasonably can after your startup is acquired by a company like Google. Droning on for money sounds pretty good to a lot of people.
People generally need to feel stable in the middle before reaching for self-actualization.
For people who grew up on the lower half of the household income or wealth distribution, it takes many years of FAANG comp to feel stable there.
It’s a big privilege to risk your career in the pursuit of self-actualization. Not in the sense that one should be ashamed of it, but in the sense that it’s prudent not to look down on people for declining to take it.
The marginal $300k/year is worth significantly more impactful for most people than the expected returns of pursing of self-actualization-through-work. I think most people would rather have a secure income and seek self-actualization outside of work — in their family life or hobbies.
So I take it that your current workplace, which is somewhere that you do prefer to work at, resembles pre-acquisition Waze? Or why else would you want to work there?
And according to your bio is Dropbox? Well good thing you let the whole HN know that Dropbox is toxic to work at.
No, my current workplace isn't much like where I'd like to work eventually. But it's fine for now. I'll eventually work somewhere smaller and less corporate. Dropbox is much like Google by the sound of it. Probably better, and would be worse if acquired by an even larger company, but who knows.
But you're the one equating a bunch of stuff with toxicity, just keep in mind that that is not a universal equivalence, it's your opinion.
(Although for the record I don't _completely_ agree with the guy. Obviously work-life balance is a good thing. But much of the other stuff resonates.)
Different people have different priorities when it comes to choosing a place to work. For some, a stable and secure company like Google might be the best option, while others might prefer a more dynamic and fast-growing company like Waze. It really depends on what you're looking for in a job. I know that I had periods in my life when I would prioritise one over the other and vice-versa.
The biggest problem arises when a workplace has a mix of employees who have different motivations and goals. Some may be content with just doing their job and going home, while others may be ambitious and want to do great things. This can lead to resentment and hostility when these different perspectives clash. It's the role of the HR department and recruitment to make sure you don't get too many outliers in any direction, but alas those are often doing really poor job with this. Not to mention that the quality of "being a good fit" has been branded "problematic" so it's often not even taken into account.
As the economy moves from a period of growth to a recession, the balance of motivations and goals among employees is likely to shift. And the amount of entitlement will reduce.
