Google Faces Employee Retention Challenge 339
prakslash writes "60% of Google's 1900 employees now hold stock options worth at least one million dollars. According to experts in this Reuters article, it is now imperative for Google to maintain its sense of mission. If it fails to do so, a whole slew of employees facing post-IPO burnout and boredom will leave the company to go back to school, start a new company, or join the ranks of high-tech early retirees. Such a mass cashing-out could lead to a decline in Google stock price and intellectual brain-drain. Oh how I wish I worked for Google."
You wish you worked for google? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, we must not waffle or send mexed missages even if presented with new facts.
Google is now a public company. Many
Let's hope that Google continues to change the way things are done. If they become myopic about short-term profits, they will be screwed in the long run.
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:4, Funny)
What, are you running as an incumbent US president?
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:5, Insightful)
They weren't trying to rape their IPO buyers. They were trying to prevent Google from being raped buy the investment banks who traditionally lowball the IPO price knowing there will be a huge first day appreciation as the market prices the stock closer to what it's worth (to the market, that is), and the ibanks and their large institutional investors (mutual funds, pension funds, etc.) can pocket the float. But that float doesn't belong to the iBanks, it is value created by Google and no one else, and it should rightfully be pocketed by Google. The ibanks get it only because they control the financial system - they're the gatekeepers, and the toll has been massive, until Google executed the first Dutch Auction with a high float price. So I have no problem with what Google has done, which is basically to ensure they get roughly what they have earned.
IMHO it will be a great day when open electronic IPO networks make the market more freely accessible to new companies looking to go public, and they'll no longer have to go through the ibanks in the manner they do now. A similar paradigm shift happened when stock trading went online in the 90s, and then went to no/low-fee trades. Banks hated it, but consumers loved it, and some banks adapted and learned to profit from it. I think other areas of finance, IPO's for one, are ripe for such a change. I don't expect to see it soon, and don't pretend it will be technologically or politically easy, but hopefully it will happen one day, and I think Google may have taken the first small step in that direction.
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:2)
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe in 3 - 5 years, when most of the millionaires have left, but I would certainly NOT join Google right now, unless my stock options strike price was at pre-IPO levels (which it won't).
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe in 3 - 5 years, when most of the millionaires have left, but I would certainly NOT join Google right now, unless my stock options strike price was at pre-IPO levels (which it won't).
I've got to second this. Joining google right now:
1. Get Options at current price.
2. 500-1000 millionairs leave during the 5 years it takes to become vest
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:2)
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:3, Interesting)
To take the analogy into the porn industry...I wouldn't want to work for a porn movie studio where all the other porn stars got penis enlargement treatment, and I did not, because you joined the studio after the "Enlarge Your Penis Day".
Not that I would need one, of course *grin*
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans use the term CVs as well. Americans with advanced degrees. If you want a seriously nerdy position at google (instead of clerical), you'd do better with a CV instead of a resume.
Feel free to use a dictionary and note the difference between the two terms. I have both a CV and a resume and I'm still an American.
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I can look in a dictionary for a difference, but this is one of those cases where 'one language, two meanings' really comes into play for the English language. Both words, of course, are not English, but French (resume - OK I can't be bothered to get acutes into slashcode) and Latin (CV ). Both words have been adopted by English common usage, but English does not have an acute on 'e' in its scope so 'resume' [raesumae] cannot be an 'English' word, and CV is just a couple of letters, not a word.
Curriculum Vitae: Loosely translated, this means "course of one's life" [Latin does not translate directly].
Resume: Summary [more or less]
BTW I'm not a great one for direct translation of languages as nuances and subtleties are often lost
But lanaguage is functional. A CV could be a one page document, if one were succinct, a resume could be a summary, but a summary of what (resume with no context means nothing), a document entitled 'John Doe - Resume' surely means a summary of John Doe (if one were to interpret in English), so what is the difference of 'John Doe - CV'?! Defining the difference between the terms is looking for a difference for a difference's sake.
A CV refers to what someone would submit for a job application, as would a resume. Someone would be mad to write a 10 page essay about their life [common interpretation of 'CV'] equally someone would be mad to submit a 2 line summary of their skills and previous position titles [possible interpretation of 'resume']. Drawing a distinction between the two, or saying one is better than the other is folly. I would be interested in what others think, but in the US a resume seems to be a 1-2 page document, a CV a long document, in the UK a CV is a 1-2 page document, the term resume is rarely used, what about Canada, Australia, countries for which English ios a second language?
Basically, adapt your resume/CV/description to what you apply for: list in descending chronological order (with some potential variation of importance), add some 'summary paragraph' that sells yourself near the top, stay relevant. Always include a covering letter.
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:4, Funny)
That is, if you love your country.
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:2)
Re:You wish you worked for google? (Score:2, Informative)
Free lunch? (Score:5, Funny)
The Way Things Are (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing to understand is that like other cutting edge Internet companies, Google is no longer what it was. It is now a publicly held company with ONE SPACIFIC THING in mind for its mission: Produce cashflow for its stockholders. This is now Google's "mission". One day, it will be the mission of many of today's successful Open Source brainiacs. This is the way things tend to flow in a free society, people for the most part are driven by th
Re:The Way Things Are (Score:3, Informative)
From Google's prospectus:
Our mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. We believe that the most effective, and ultimately the most profitable, way to accomplish our mission is to put the needs of our users first. We have found that offering a high-quality user experience leads to increased traffic and strong word-of-mouth promotion. Our dedication to putting users first is reflected in three key commitments we have made to our users:
* We will do o
Re:Free lunch? (Score:2, Funny)
It's a problem, but it's already solved. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only do they have the problem of suddenly having a few hundred jobs to fill, but they also have the problem that nearly everybody in the world would like to work for them. By setting up such qualifying quizes before even asking for a resume, Google's trying to filter out the best applicants early in the process so that they don't waste their time on pursuing people they'll not end up hiring.
So, yes, Google's going to lose some key talent because they've just created a bunch of modern-era dot-com millionaires. However, they'll just hire somebody else to replace anybody they lose and will move on.
Billboard 'recruitment' test? Marketing. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they really wanted to use that sort of approach to resumé filtering they'd have used a hard puzzle and put a time limit on it. In reality, it was a marketing tool - albeit quite a good one, in my opinion.
Re:Billboard 'recruitment' test? Marketing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Billboard 'recruitment' test? Marketing. (Score:3, Insightful)
I tried that on a test once. They didn't buy it then, either.
Re:It's a problem, but it's already solved. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's a problem, but it's already solved. (Score:2)
Turnover will hurt any company, but I think Google is stable enough to handle it.
Re:It's a problem, but it's already solved. (Score:2, Funny)
Answer is 7427466391.com [7427466391.com] thanks to a google search
Re:It's a problem, but it's already solved. (Score:5, Interesting)
All the option apologists say options are necessary to motivate employees.
And yet, when successful, it seems options just motivate them to leave.
Funny.
Just remember where all the money to create those millionaires comes from - the shareholders. If existing shareholders are willing to suffer dilution and buyback expenses just to "motivate" talent, why not just pay them the equivalent in cash? It would save a whole lot of paperwork & accounting nightmares.
oh right I forgot, that doesn't let them move billions of compensation expenses out of the expense column and into the "financing activites" column.
Re:It's a problem, but it's already solved. (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends how you set up vesting. Sure all those people might be wealthy on paper, but how many can actually cash out even if they wanted to? Usually options vest over 3 or 5 years. That means after the first year after the IPO, you can exercise only 1/3 or 1/5 of you options. By that time, as many dotcommers discovered, they might be underwater.
It would save a whole lot of paperwork & accounting nightmares.
I agree that a fai
Not facing it, in reality (Score:4, Interesting)
Now they probably need to keep the servers up and running, and that can probably be done with a few colos located in various countries with cheap labor and moved around as necessary.
So cut the workforce, move all essential server capacity to India, China, and Eastern Europe, and let those millionaires go off and start other companies. God knows they've probably got some good ideas for other products, better to see them deliver those ideas from their own small company than to see it bastardized by a large Google (product placement and marketing and all that).
Braindrain at Google could be just what our ailing tech sector needs.
Re:Not facing it, in reality (Score:5, Insightful)
No company can create something and just sit on it and remain in a market position. If MS couldn't parlay its success with MS-DOS into its success with Windows 95 into its success with IE and 98 and XP...
Yeah. Nobody would still be using MS-DOS today. They'd all be using Linux or BSD or something.
So Google does need talent to stay competitive.
Re:Umm... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Umm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yahoo itself was a search engine company/portal and with its acqusition of Overture, it now also incorporates technology and algorithms from Altavista and Inktomi as well.
I am not surprised at all that Yahoo's search results are just as good as Google's, if not better.
Re:Not facing it, in reality (Score:2)
that is just an example of some of the ongoing problems a search engine has to face, they're number one but the quality of the results degrades then I among others will be switching to something else.
Re:Not facing it, in reality (Score:2, Interesting)
Servers cost pretty much the same in the US, China or Eastern Europe - in hardware terms (and are perhaps cheaper after import taxes etc). The manpower requirement isn't a large part of ongoing expenses - manpower 'costs' Google in the development areas (direct in these workers, plus indirect from their assistants, people running the canteen etc; I'm
Doing something interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Who really cares about money? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Who really cares about money? (Score:4, Insightful)
As it's often been pointed out, there are practically no scientists out there who have achieved any great/notable work after they were married and had kids. This is no accident.
When you make the decision to start a family, you effectively trade off much of your former "free time" in an attempt to reap the benefits and experiences/insights gained from bringing a new child into the world and from forming a "life partnership" with someone else, to solve day-to-day matters together.
The "free time" you would have had before that is the commodity used by inventors and creative types to come up with innovative/original ideas and works.
Well good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well good. (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe not that bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it is only subject to capital gains taxes, that takes a bite too. The article only says at least one million... doesn't say what the average is or anything. Also, it doesn't mention any selling restrictions.
The way the market goes with these things, I don't expect the valuation to stay at 180 P/E for all that long... I could be wrong, but I suspect this will be a self correcting "problem".
I sure wish I had the problem. [4 time stock option looser]
Re:Maybe not that bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
and they must have quite a number of people with 10m+ too.. who got those options by being in important positions.. you can only buy loyalty so far before you've given so much money they don't need you anymore(at which point you gotta think of some other stuff like giving them intresting jobs to keep 'em).
Re:Maybe not that bad... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Maybe not that bad... (Score:2)
What they found was that on average, people at every income level felt they should be making about twice what they were.
In other words, weath & poverty (above a certain minimum) are largely relative, and contrary to left leaning thought, no matter how much you give people they'll always want, or say they need, more.
Re:Maybe not that bad... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe not that bad... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, what would it take? $3 million, $5 million? Even that won't be enough if you don't figure out how to manage you new wealth very quickly.
Si
Totally expected (Score:3, Insightful)
When you're hiring someone, it's absolutely CRITICAL not to pay someone enough to be "comfortable". It removes all motivation, and makes for unmotivated and uninterested employees.
Management 101, and a quick lession any hiring manager would learn if they didn't already know.
Giving people piles of cash in options, is one of the mistakes startups make over and over and over. And this is normal to the process.
But, that's the fun isnt it
Re:Totally expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Totally expected (Score:5, Insightful)
If all you hire is people wanting to move up to $70K a year, instead of people looking for new cool things to do, then, yes, you create the lack of motivation that money seekers get.
Re:Totally expected (Score:2)
Pay them too little (your point) and they wait to bail. Pay them too much, and they don't need the job.
Re:Totally expected (Score:2)
Seriously, I enjoy what I do, and it gives my life real structure; if someone gave me a million, great, I could finally buy a house, but I wouldn't quit my job.
Re:Totally expected (Score:2)
Well, theres a limit to this thinking though. It's not possible to make enough at my current company to even but a shitty condo where we are located.
The end result for is not motivation, it's de-motivation. I.e. "what the hell am I even working for if I can't even afford to live here?"
Everybody's different, but if I was "c
Re:Totally expected (Score:3, Interesting)
It's even more critical that you pay them well enough that they won't jump ship for a better salary at the first available opportunity.
Management 101, and a quick lession any hiring manager would learn if they didn't already know
Actually, I've taken Management 101, and you clearly haven't. Money is what behavioral psychologists call a "hygiene factor". Lack of a hygiene factor can make a person miserable
*Maintain* it's sense of mission? (Score:5, Interesting)
Another challenge they need to get a grip on is a release culture. Up to now, most of their products and services have been in perpetual beta. If they want to expand, they need to get a mentality that sets targets, and makes releases. Right now they look like Netscape did. Their most visible product, the Google search engine, has way more features, many of which are useful, than any competitor. In terms of search quality, though, I think they already fall behind the new MSN search. If all they do is tack more features on and add new beta products they will fall behind. Granted, they have a long time to make it work, with that mountain of cash, but that won't sustain them forever.
Google needs to decide on a new vision that is grand, but reachable with the money they have now. Then they need to execute their new plan successfully. Neither staying where they are, or growing at their current rate, is a viable option. They need big changes. They may well be up to it, but we won't know for certain for a few more years.
Re:*Maintain* it's sense of mission? (Score:2)
Google Labs (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's new quitting policy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Google's new quitting policy (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, it is easier to get hired than to quit!
That's like so cool dude!
Harder to recruit? (Score:2, Interesting)
Salaries were not competitive with the market as recently as 4 months ago. Of course, back then they were still "Pre-IPO." IMHO, You'd have to be foolish or a huge gambler to take a meager salary in lieu of options at the current strike price.
So once the brain-drain starts... there may be no way for Google to staunch it... unless they start hiring very competitively (and presumably, retro-compensating current employees).
reminds me of... (Score:5, Insightful)
They interviewed some ex Microsoft employees. All of them are millionaires due to stock options. Now they are mostly in their late twens wondering what to do with their existence for the rest of their time (one of them - living in his huge mansion alone said that he pretends to be into IT consulting on dinner parties, because saying that you basically do nothing is kind of embarrassing).
It makes me wonder if stock options are really a sustainable way for both sides to grow. Wouldn't it be better to have more employees at a lower wage like 500 grands a year? Every ex MS worker being part of the documentary suffered some kind of burn out syndrome, so it might make sense to reduce their workload at the same time.
Re:reminds me of... (Score:2)
I'm surprised at this. I'd understand it if we were talking about people who weren't particularly interested in what they were doing and just did it to earn a living, say clerical workers and management types, but I would have expected programmers to have their own interests to which they would be happy to be able to devote their time once freed of the need to support themselves. Most programmers I know have a project they'd like to work on, a business they'd like to start, or strong non-programming intere
Re:reminds me of... (Score:3, Interesting)
since you mention it - one guy put his money into a .com startup distributing sheet music. After the bubble bursted he had to accommodate to a quite moderate lifestyle. He's still running this company, but the server is in his basement and he had to fire his employees...
btw: who told you that clerical employees don't have aspirations?
Re:reminds me of... (Score:2)
Fair enough, up to a point. I really meant to say two separate things. One was that programmers often like programming, so they'll still do it, either purely as a hobby or by starting their own business, even if they no longer need to support themselves. To my knowledge there aren't an awful lot of people who do clerical work because that's what they like to do.
Secondly, lots of people, including programmers and clerical workers, have o
Re:reminds me of... (Score:5, Funny)
Being rich does not make you happy, but it is easier to cry in a Rolls-Royce
Re:reminds me of... (Score:2)
What's wrong with people when "I'm rich" immediately leads to "I have nothing to do with my life"? There's more to life than getting rich!
Re:reminds me of... (Score:3, Funny)
Dude! Two chicks at the same time!
Re:reminds me of... (Score:2)
Re:reminds me of... (Score:2)
Re:reminds me of... (Score:2)
Re:reminds me of... (Score:2)
this article is worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
Recently I was interviewing with Google in Mountain View (and I'm posting AC for that reason) and I didn't meet a single person there who seemed like the IPO had affected them at all. Some engineer made the comment to me "Yeah, I ended up with a lot of money after the IPO, and the thought crossed my mind to leave, but what would I do? I can't think of any place I'd rather work."
Everyone loves to hate on Google now that they're no longer the scrappy underdogs. But after walking around the "Googleplex" I can't say I've ever seen a company where the engineers were happier.
Re:this article is worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the usual Slashdot jeasously. Anyone who has any sort of success must be torn down. I'm a loser so I'll sit around Slashdot pumping myself up by putting others down.
Hmmm, kind of like I just did.
C'ya Slashdot. Over and out...
Operation: Shootfoot (Score:5, Funny)
CEO: The deuce you say, George. There's only one thing to do.
CFO: What's that?
CEO: George, we have to tank the company. When the stock bottoms out, we'll buy back those options and correct the retention problem. We must destroy Google to save it.
CFO: OMFG, you're brillant. But how will we devalue the company? Google is doing great.
CEO: We're going to need help. We need someone with experience in this sort of thing. Get Carly at HP on the phone, quick!
Google has been recruiting in Redmond (Score:5, Informative)
It looks like they are agressively trying to make sure that they keep on top of the talent curve. MS has always made an effort to grab up all the most talented engineers coming out of school. Google might try to give them a run for the money.
This is the best kind of "brain drain" (Score:3, Insightful)
Cash out and retire, or buy a house and be broke? (Score:2)
Of course, they could always retire and move someplace sane.
vesting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Options usually vest over a number of years, so while they may be worth a paper-$1m, they're only going to see real-$1m if (a) they keep working hard/smart enough to keep the paper-value high, (b) they keep working long enough to cash in the paper-value to get real-value.
This is exactly what options are designed to do!
With regard to "brain drain", for a company like Google, it would have people champing at the bit to work there: so any lost talent is easily replacable with new hires, if they keep standards up in the hiring process. And, it's good to have fresh talent come in over time to keep revitalising the place.
Finally, as others have mentioned, many of these types of people actually like what they are doing. I can tell you that if I were a millionaire, I'd live a nice lifestyle, but I'd still be pottering around on code or doing something creatively interesting -- (a) because that's what I like to do, (b) I'm just not the type of person to laze around doing nothing.
There are _many_ examples of serial millionaries and creative types who do what they do because they love the creative elements.
Is this supposed to be bad? (Score:4, Funny)
CASH OUT NOW ! (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank you GOOGLE!!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
America is still the land of hope and promise, even though our leaders are trying to crush the hopes and dreams of the American spirit with FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, and DOUBT! Thanks again GOOGLE, you are a bright ray of light peeking through the gloom.
Re:Thank you GOOGLE!!!!! (Score:2)
Re:Thank you GOOGLE!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank you GOOGLE!!!!! (Score:2)
Former chef to the Grateful Dead... (Score:4, Funny)
For a moment I thought that read "an in-house massage
"And zeez is how weee tenderize zee meat before we apply zee hot sauce... bork! bork! bork!"
Now wonder there's so much outsourcing (Score:2)
What if the unthinkable happens? (Score:5, Insightful)
What better place to increase your own wealth but where you have had and can continue to have influence on its growth.... as opposed to some disconnected, abstracted stock market game of chance...
Imagine what those who got out early with MS would regret now!
On teh more intelligent side of this, don't ya think the google guys would have considered this... especially given all the apparent presidence...???
Re:What if the unthinkable happens? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Short-term capital gains @ ordinary income. Ouch. Tax man cometh. Depending on what the new president does with the tax laws.... 35-39% for federal, maybe up to 10% for state. All the folks espousing their liberal viewpoints I trust will enjoy giving up 45% - 50% to Uncle Sam because they are now "evil rich people".
2. People who receive a windfall of money, such as lottery ticket holders, about 95% of them blow the money within 3 years. If you didn't earn it by struggling, you're not going to struggle on keeping it. Sorry to say, but they will also probably not go to see a NAPFA-certified [napfa.org], fee-only financial planner, either.
Think of how many True Hollywood Stories you've watched on E! that have the same sob story.
3. The exception to this is when it is annuitized, which would provide a certain amount of money per year for a certain amount of time. In which case, it would be more like a salary without work.
4. A lot of these people are not vested. By the time they're able to exercise their options, the stock will probably be down at a level more in line with reality. If you're not liquid, you're only a millionaire on paper.
5. Some people may own restricted stock, so this would impede their ability to convert it to cash. Again, another liquidity issue. By the time they are able to sell the stock, the price will have deflated.
6. Money doesn't buy happiness. Most people would not enjoy laying around all day, past maybe 1 year, because your purpose in life becomes basically to consume. There are only so many cars and so many Rolex watches one can buy before it becomes old really quick. People need purpose and vision.
There are actually psychologists who specialize in treating folks who receive a windfall of money. You don't realize that, when you receive a large sum of money or inherit something grossly large, some of your dreams, aspirations, and hopes are destroyed.
Helpful hint that no one does. Here's how to turn into a "rich person" while keeping sane. If you save just 10% of your income, starting today, each year, in 20-30 years, you'll be right there... but you'll have done it organically and have your common sense about you.
Don't worry it's all bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
On paper is one thing, real value is quite another. Millions of dotbombers know the reality of stock option accounting and if they were worth 'millions' from the get go they'd be warrants or gifts not options.
"Oh how I wish I worked for Google." (Score:5, Funny)
Pass the Champange (Score:5, Insightful)
Its worse than that: (Score:4, Insightful)
Another problem are the 40% of people who AREN'T going to be millionares. When your co-workers who don't get to quit start driving into work in expensive cars, etc, its going to be hell on morale.
Grab while the grabbing's good (Score:3, Insightful)
As such they will clamp on to their options and shares, linger on and eventually see their value erode, like so many engineers have seen past the bubble. To add insult to injury they will have paid taxes on the options.
So here's a sound advice to anyone in a similar position: grab while the grabbing's good. If you linger, the grabbing times might pass you by.
Re:FOD (Score:2)
Wouldn't that boss be in violation of Google's "Don't Be Evil" policy in the first place?
Re:FOD (Score:5, Interesting)
Yesterday, I worked 19 hours.
The days before, I worked something on the order of 13-14 hours.
I'm working on a project that's pretty damn important to my company, and I've got to put lots of late hours in. My boss makes me do this.
She does this by working harder, and often longer, than I do. This morning, when I left at 4am, it was only about 45 minutes after she left.
She does this by telling me how much she appreciates what I do, and the impact I make.
She does this by providing me with all the snacks and soft-drinks I can drink, and by making sure that when I work late I'm well starbucked and fed.
She does this by paying me a pretty darn decent wage, and letting me know that when this company can afford to pay me more, they will.
She does this by looking at the fact I worked while on vacation and letting me determine how many days of vacation I really officially took, if any.
And so in return, I spend 70-80 hours at work during crunch times and make sure that what needs to get done gets done.
Everyone I know at Google is like this in this regard. I suspect their managers are like my manager in these regards. I suspect "FOAD" is not normally something a Googler ever considers wanting to tell their boss.
Re:Total percentage? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Total percentage? (Score:3, Funny)
2004-1990 does equal 14, so you can subtract, but it's obvious you can't read.
Re:google share are just hype (Score:2)
GM's market cap: about 25 billion.
Anyone out there *really* think Google is worth 20% of GM?
Re:google share are just hype (Score:3, Insightful)