The article has a form to fill out to submit additional anecdotes; you should encourage her to do that if she's comfortable. I bet Google would really like NYT readers to think this is only a thing that happens at "other companies" and people need to know that it definitely isn't.
Well, nothing in this story suggest they do. They might have an inconsistent review process, like pretty much most processes in these companies - from interviews to promotions. Let's see how many people follow her and leave Google Research due to their practices. My prediction is zero.
Sure, but there are still lots of ways to turn this into a good article. I like that they included the original source, but to not write a single word of their own? They could have summarized the tweets, provided history on who Erica is and what her role at Google was, got a statement from Google, talked to Googlers "off the record", reported on any history of allegations against Google in the areas that the tweet brings up, reported on how other companies handle salary information, etc.
If true, it does sound terrible. Though, I would focus not so much on one named person. The culture is allowing it, leaders above and around her, whatever feedback systems Google has, and so on.
Per other commenters, this is basically a hit piece on Google by claiming that Google does something that it doesn't do to promote the author's own company which seeks to improve hiring.
"... By BHARAT MEDIRATTA; as told to JULIE BICK .... Bharat Mediratta is a software engineer at Google. ..."
If you read carefully the NY TImes writer was Julie Bick who most likely from the byline at the top of the article. The story teller does work at google. But it it probably the best plain language description of the 20% rule I've read.
"... It's a bit...puff piece-ish. ..."
Could be viewed this way but it's a first-hand story from a google engineer.
Didn't say she was from the company. I was pointing out that she admits to being a thorough Google Fan-gal, enamored of everything the company produces. Fan-boys/gals typically aren't critical, and this article did not give me any objective insights. I read more emotional torment in it than I did concrete analysis.
Plus, what I do gather is more repulsive than attractive. Google is building a device to [ultimately] lock us into their services and devices (or make their services available solely via their devices)? This is great?
Same concern with Apple. I worry about the fans of both behemoths.
I don't really know enough to agree or disagree with you.
She claims she's in a role to make judgment calls on adding content - and that this was reinforced by her previous stellar performance reviews, which made her confident in her judgment - but I don't personally have enough info to know if that's the truth. She very well could be stretching the truth that maybe every other addition she's made was under the direction of HR or product, in which case she is definitely out of line here - it would take the input of a Googler on her team to know for sure.
The first statement is partially true (it's certainly nice) but that's true of any marketing team. To be clear, I don't think the NYT people were pushed to do this. Engineering blogs commonly say what they did to take pride in their work. I'm not in marketing, so I don't know if we we're involved. Maybe they sent it over for review, but I kind of doubt it. (To the comment below, we don't pay people for content, and it's demeaning to the engineers at NYT to suggest that).
Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud (as an engineer, not in marketing, despite how I like HN).
reply