<story><title>Google Memo on Cost Cuts Sparks Heated Debate Inside Company</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-26/google-memo-on-cost-cuts-sparks-heated-debate-inside-company</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jlebar</author><text>&lt;i&gt;your manager can&amp;#x27;t vouch for you and it&amp;#x27;s basically up to how well you summarize and present your work to a faceless promotion committee (_i.e. how well you play politics_).&lt;/i&gt; (emphasis mine)&lt;p&gt;Googler here, speaking for myself.&lt;p&gt;Isn&amp;#x27;t what you describe literally the opposite of playing politics?</text></item><item><author>flunhat</author><text>I&amp;#x27;ve heard that getting promoted at Google is kind of a shitshow -- that your manager can&amp;#x27;t vouch for you and it&amp;#x27;s basically up to how well you summarize and present your work to a faceless promotion committee (i.e. how well you play politics). I don&amp;#x27;t think this is entirely a bad thing, per se. In light of this memo, however, I wonder if the layered bureaucracy of the promotion process is an intentional way of not promoting promotion-worthy employees and keeping costs down.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>drewg123</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m an Xoogler and was promoted when I was there.  (see sibling comment for details).&lt;p&gt;The way to get promoted at Google seems to be to play a game where you tick all the boxes for performance at the next level and have the right people write for you.  In some ways, that helps the company (working across teams, for example).  In other ways, it may hurt the company (launching potentially redundant products is seen by committees as being more valuable than incrementally improving existing products).   I think that a &lt;i&gt;lot&lt;/i&gt; depends on who writes recommendations for you in your promo packet (and that&amp;#x27;s pure politics)&lt;p&gt;In my case, I was basically gathering requirements and helping other teams integrate with an internal product.  So I was perfectly positioned for promo.  I was an L5, and talking to a lot of senior folks in other teams (sr. staff, director, vp) who were willing to write for me.  I&amp;#x27;m pretty sure having a VP who knew me and could write about me really made the difference.</text></comment>
<story><title>Google Memo on Cost Cuts Sparks Heated Debate Inside Company</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-26/google-memo-on-cost-cuts-sparks-heated-debate-inside-company</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jlebar</author><text>&lt;i&gt;your manager can&amp;#x27;t vouch for you and it&amp;#x27;s basically up to how well you summarize and present your work to a faceless promotion committee (_i.e. how well you play politics_).&lt;/i&gt; (emphasis mine)&lt;p&gt;Googler here, speaking for myself.&lt;p&gt;Isn&amp;#x27;t what you describe literally the opposite of playing politics?</text></item><item><author>flunhat</author><text>I&amp;#x27;ve heard that getting promoted at Google is kind of a shitshow -- that your manager can&amp;#x27;t vouch for you and it&amp;#x27;s basically up to how well you summarize and present your work to a faceless promotion committee (i.e. how well you play politics). I don&amp;#x27;t think this is entirely a bad thing, per se. In light of this memo, however, I wonder if the layered bureaucracy of the promotion process is an intentional way of not promoting promotion-worthy employees and keeping costs down.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>coldtea</author><text>Is it? It might not be playing inter-personal politics, but it&amp;#x27;s like doing a campaign speech.&lt;p&gt;Instead of a long term assessment of your work (and the real interactions within your team etc), it&amp;#x27;s how you represent it in a pitch that is measured... The most charismatic presenter (e.g. bullshit artist) wins.</text></comment>