I wonder what the process was for choosing specifically 10%. Why not 8.7%? Or 13.9%? Surely an efficiency drive would have some sort of structured/analytical approach to it?
After an engineer is there long enough, theyâre likely to become a manager. Theyâre way more expensive to keep around. Google wants to lay them off and churn them for college grads. Looks better for PR if they say itâs an âefficiency pushâ rather than âwe donât like to retain employees because itâs expensive.â So this was definitely an arbitrary number
To be fair, it's totally possible that they just have too much management. Then you get into a case where a very large portion of everyone's job is endlessly trying to keep in any with various management and you end up with too many managers competing for not enough work which makes the environment more political
Certainly possible, and Iâve definitely been a part of orgs with just too much management, but Iâm wary of Google saying that, considering how many products they kill every year. Iâm sure there would certainly be space for their employees to expand horizontally if their product lineup wasnât so volatile
This isn't as true in tech companies as it was in traditional companies years ago. Most high level engineers take an individual contributor role that allow you to be promoted without becoming a manager. At Google it's called a staff role. At Amazon it's a principal role.