Whenever I hear about Google doing some genuine technology, it just makes me a million times more fucking angry to compare what Google must be like if you're a Real Googler (machine learning projects, basic research, quantum computing, meaningful work) to the misery that the other 90% endure.
I feel like this should be much more of an HR problem than it seems to be. Whenever it comes out that Google's real members are working on a neat AI or robotics problem, everyone who's stuck working on some dead-end maintenance project for some terminal middle manager ought to go to a VP and say, "I want on this cutting-edge technology now or I will fucking quit." That 18-months bullshit should be cause for shit to get blown up.
Right... And someone needs to maintain the boring systems so Google can operate their core services (search and ad sales, say) to pay for the neat stuff that the (ahem) 'real' Googlers do.
Some employees may be more easily replaced than others, but those dull jobs are often equally important.
If you have an open allocation system where people are free to work directly for the company, then people spend some time on the research work that interests them, and some on the maintenance and upkeep of critical systems. Why do they volunteer for less attractive projects? Because they actually care, because the company is (imagine this) worth caring about. Once the maintenance work is done by volunteers rather than extortion victims, it starts getting a lot of respect and people to do it to be "heroes". So yes, it still gets done.
On the other hand, if you work in a careerist closed-allocation hellhole where your boss has unilateral authority to whip it out and flow a shot on your performance reviews/"calibration score" (i.e. managerial extortion) then, obviously people are going to look out only for themselves and the maintenance won't get done unless someone's forced to do it (in which case, it's done very badly). People will not freely participate in a closed allocation company's upkeep because the work culture of a closed-allocation firm is not worth caring about or protecting.
They're both equilibrium states. In one (open allocation) people see themselves as citizens and do the full mix of the work: the important and fun stuff, but also the less-fun but critical "hero" work. In the other (closed allocation/extortion economy) people realize that the company has no consideration for them and that no one's looking out for their careers, so they take anything that's not nailed down and the critical upkeep work doesn't get done.
The way I see is, there is always going to be a 'somebody has to do this dirty work' mentality everywhere. No matter where you work at.
What work you get is very similar to being born. A baby born could have easily been somebody else. If you look at this way, you are almost definitely not going to get those big projects unless you are into some kind of a political game or are simply good enough and get your due chance.
One thing I've learned the hard way is, a person must not 'wait'. He must not wait for chances to come, or the ecosystem to help him, or somebody else to do it for them. Couple of days back I was reading Aaron Swartz's essay on productivity. In which he mentions a very important point- Always choose the most important problem to work on. And if you follow that advice seriously. You will someday find yourself working on most important problems in the world.
In the end, its just comes down to you. In large corporation project allocations are random at best, completely devoid of merit.
If you look at this way, you are almost definitely not going to get those big projects unless you are into some kind of a political game or are simply good enough and get your due chance.
You would have had a more accurate statement if you truncated it before the "or". Closed-allocation companies always have the most important work done by the politicians, not the people most adept at doing it. There are no exceptions.
In which he mentions a very important point- Always choose the most important problem to work on.
This will get you fired. It means that you are pursuing your own career goals (and benefiting the company, but not your immediate managers) rather than your boss's and you will be shit-canned as soon as he finds out.
You will someday find yourself working on most important problems in the world.
No, you will be long-term unemployed if you follow that strategy.
I have a lot of respect for Aaron Swartz, but look at what the fuckers in power did to him.
Ex-googler: While I think open allocation is toxic and the reason I left, the best way to get into one of these projects is to get Acquihired into it.
That said, obviously, many of those there are more than willing to do the dull work in exchange for the very nice perks and compensation. I just wasn't one of those people.
Ex-googler: While I think open allocation is toxic and the reason I left
I think you mean "closed allocation".
the best way to get into one of these projects is to get Acquihired into it.
Isn't that fucked up? What does it say about a company when it can't trust the people who've been there for years to do any of the real work and it, instead, buys mediocre talent at a panic price (typically $3-6 million per head) on the acq-hire market?
google has done a great job so far of serving their customers and shareholders. do you have any evidence that forcing open-allocation on google as a whole will improve the results they are able to deliver?
I feel like this should be much more of an HR problem than it seems to be. Whenever it comes out that Google's real members are working on a neat AI or robotics problem, everyone who's stuck working on some dead-end maintenance project for some terminal middle manager ought to go to a VP and say, "I want on this cutting-edge technology now or I will fucking quit." That 18-months bullshit should be cause for shit to get blown up.