I want to give you my applause instead of condolences. You can't lose something without taking risks, and taking risks is what makes life interesting and worthy of living.
I'm sorry you lost your wife - it's one of the hardest things we can go through, but like all bruises and cuts, it's not gonna be permanent. All the best wishes for you.
Well said. Although I think part of the article is saying that as people, we shouldn't be afraid of stepping outside of our comfort zones to try something new, even if on the surface it doesn't immediately look like it's gonna be "greener pasture".
I think another thing to remember is that no matter how hard we try, it's not really possible to guarantee that our lives will always be "improving". Somewhere sometime we would all be better off learning to take the good with the bad - this will free us up to experiment and try new things without being completely reckless. As a result, I believe we'll all live more fulfilling lives.
Having read a bunch of the comments and the OP, I think everyone has shared something that makes good sense. The problem is, though, that as much as these "lessons" make sense to us when reading them, it makes absolutely no sense to try and apply these lessons to ANOTHER PERSON.
Each and every one of us have formed our own opinions about things, shaped by each and every one of our unique life experiences. To try and apply it to someone else is pointless, and futile.
Instead, be happy. Do whatever it takes to find happiness. Apply whatever lessons are necessary to find the motivation behind YOUR happiness, and go after it. Strong, focused motivation is the most scarce resource for a human's life, and the path to finding that motivation is different for every one of us.
We live for nothing else but the pursuit of happiness, and there's an infinite number of shapes it can be. Find yours.
I think the problem is the fact that we have two types of engineers: the academic geeks, and the creative geeks.
I wouldn't give anyone a pass if they show no personality, creativity and out-of-the-box thinking with good product intuition during my interview. Vice versa, I don't think any academic geeks would give me a pass if I couldn't solve their math puzzles with a proof.
I could be just talking out of my ass here, but it is nonetheless how I see this situation. I don't like it, but I don't see any evidence of it changing anytime soon.
In an interview, I have 30-60 minutes to figure out whether I want to hire you or not. My team writes a lot of code.
Therefore, I'm going to ask you what your favorite language is and then test your ability to write 10-20 lines of code in that language to solve a relatively simple problem.
If you can't do that, it seems to me that a) you don't like to write code and therefore I shouldn't hire you or b) you're out of practice and shouldn't have claimed expertise or c) you're a poser.
If your expertise is with something else, go apply for positions that require skill with said "something else" as we'll both be a lot happier that way.
It's a completely different situation if I know you personally but 95% of the time I don't and I have to make a quick decision.
Keep in mind that if we only have 30-60 minutes together, I'm going to be putting forth a lot of energy in determining if you are even worth working for or are just another bozo boss/company. It is just as risky on my part as it is yours. That doesn't leave a lot of time to think about any challenges you send my way, no matter how easy they may be.
It feels to me like such a process tries to shift the power towards the employer, to make it seem like you would be lucky to even have a chance to work there and focus the time wholly on the business needs, when it really should be a mutual discussion to see if both parties feel it is a good fit. Passing your test with flying colours only to find we are a terrible match is just as damaging as hiring a bozo to begin with, no?
Both are important; match is obvious, but what about the prospect of working at a place with a fair amount of deadwood? Even if they're on the way out, that's going to be ugly.
Failure to do the most basic of technical screening will result in the latter; as I've said in more detail before, in the '90s it was reverse a linked list in C/C++, look at this dozen or so lines of code and find some of the errors in them, and do some design (quiet, no one in the same room time allowed for that, with a discussion to follow). I didn't think it was too much to ask back then, but it sure weeded out a lot of people who couldn't program their way out of a paper bag.
I'm curious to know if you would reciprocate in kind? That is to send me code samples of the work your dev team has done on your company. Your goal is to ensure I'm not a bozo and my goal is to not have to work with bozo colleagues. Hence the exchange of code samples. Fair?
Before you spend those 30-60 minutes, I want to know if you're worth working for. If you go straight into coding tests, I a) know you're not, b) expect you to be a formalistic stickler, c) I know you haven't done enough homework to at least have a reason to believe I am good enough to have plenty of options.
If you have done your homework when interviewing me, you'll understand that you need to sell me on your company, your team and the position first to let me assess whether you're worth my time.
The candidates who will bend over backwards to satisfy your coding tests before you've spent at least 20 minutes explaining why they should care, are the candidates who are fanboys and/or don't have other decent options. You should ask yourself why.
I've called off interviews and called the recruiter back to tell them I don't want to deal with that company again over interviewers who conducted bad technical interviews, for the reason that I know my value and I know the value of my time.
Conversely, when on the hiring end, I don't want candidates that are happy to bend over backwards for me without any sales effort first, or who don't ask me pointed questions about the company, the job, the terms. It makes me immediately suspicious about why they are willing to make such a big decision without sufficient information to evaluate if it would be a good fit for them.
Take what Michael Church says with a grain of salt. I was around to observe his threads on the eng-misc mailing list while he was still at Google. Without his consent, I'd rather not say what went on, but I would advise you to get your information elsewhere.
I find it quite disconcerting when people write comments like this. If you're not willing to share what was said, so that we can judge whether or not it supports your veiled allegations, then don't make the allegations. It is in bad taste, and reflects badly on you.
I know it can be hard to resist talking if you believe you have inside information, but giving "warnings" like this without sharing details that are directly relevant to the claims he made in effect boils down to nothing more than an ad hominem supported by appeals to authority about the reasons for his claims.
what about anonymizing and cleaning the communication such that you cannot decipher any actual information, but can grasp the gist of the topic about which this thread discusses?
The negative comments here haven't really been my experience either. I once heard a VP say that perf is an "eventually consistent system", meaning that mistakes are often made over the short term (1 review cycle), but over the long term high performers get promoted. That's basically what I observed: it can be maddeningly slow for people to notice you've been working your ass off, but if you keep at it, they do notice and the rewards do come. If you stick around long enough for them.
The real world isn't all that different - if you found a startup, you're likely to go through 3-4 years of nobody giving a shit before everybody suddenly discovers your a genius.
If you identify high performance by the performance review system, and people who perform highly according to that system are more likely to be promoted than those who don't, then of course over the long term high performers are the ones who get promoted. And it might well be merely "eventually" consistent if a few dings early on (or later on!) don't destroy your chances to, over time, be considered a high performer by that system. It would be very hard for such a system to be anything but consistent, since the consistency is just self-consistency.
The relevant question isn't "do promotion decisions get made consistently with the tools used to rank performance" but "do the tools used to rank performance adequately track potential, and does the environment generally adequately make potential actual?". A system in which lots of people are dissatisfied and bored but some luck into positions for which they're suited, excel, and are promoted is, indeed, consistent, but it's also pretty wasteful.
I don't identify high performance by the performance review system. I identify high performance by "Who would I like to have on my team if I were to found a startup?" I've found a fairly high correlation between these people and the people who get promoted.
To be fair, Google has a lot of very good engineers, so of course there are a lot of great engineers who are getting promoted. I'm pretty sure you could find an equal number of good engineers who don't get promoted. The rank-and-file programmers are just very good, with almost no deadweight.
Google's promotion process isn't, as far as I can tell, that broken. What's broken is the policy of making political-success (or, "perf") scores part of the transfer process. It's mean-spirited and creates an autocorrelation in project quality that many people never overcome.
Google would be a real company with a culture actually worth caring about if the executives manned up and did the following:
1. Go to open allocation. When you have that much fucking cash, you can invest in employee autonomy. No excuses. Do it. Learn from Valve, because you're not a cultural leader anymore, Google. http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/tech-companie...
2. Get rid of the "calibration" nonsense. It's stupid, and it goes against the idea of a peer-review driven company because that bus is driven by managers only. Fire the B-student management consultants who came up with it. Get rid of the 5% firing rate, too. (I know that Google rarely actually fires people, instead humiliating them with those insipid PIPs and transfer blocks. No real difference. Firing people with a real severance package is a lot more decent than wasting their time with kangaroo-court PIPs and tearing up their careers slowly.) Firing should be saved for real problem employees, rather than a threat that turns no-fault lack of fit into a problem employee. This tactic of-- without a business need (such as in a cash-crisis layoff)-- firing some set percentage (who tend to just be unlucky) to keep people "on their toes" is mean-spirited thuggery that doesn't belong in this century.
While there's some truth in what you say, the glass ceiling is mostly within yourself.
In my experience, it's been the case that if you are actually taking actions to pursue females be it white or yellow or brown or red, rather than taking a backseat to complain and/or victimize yourself, you'll get somewhere. Provided that you are self-aware enough to learn lessons and improve your game. Also, a lot of white girls by way of social expectations might say things like they are not into Asian guys, but very few of them will actually turn you down if you pursue them, have some game and are not a complainer - certainly no more than the number of rejections white guys will get trying to woo Asian girls.
Also, most Asian females are not automatically more attracted to white males - it's highly dependent on their upbringing and aspirations. But if you are mainly into the barbie-doll type of sorority girls, then it's not exactly a surprise that girls like that are shallower than average and are more into money, status and how things look from the outside - all of which are more easily associable with the dominant ethnic group of the country - whites. There's also another subtle detail which is the fact that as Asian Americans males, we've done our fair share of suppressing our women in an environment where they have alternatives, but I'm not going into that in this comment.
One last thing I'd also like to add: make sure you are actually Brad Pitt before you go in hot and heavy trying to sweep Angelina Jolie off her feet. Actually even if you are Brad Pitt material it's likely that you'll have to work your way up to Angelina. I've seen too many Asian American guys who were brought up with too much of an introverted ego such that they won't go for the girls who are at their level whom could be a good match but are not 8s, 9s, or 10s. As a result, they flop and flop and flop again and start to believe that they are cursed by their Asian American identify.
background: I'm a Chinese guy who came to the US at age 15 not knowing how to speak much English at all with a single mother who was busting her ass getting a Doctorate from UC Berkeley. My current gf of 3 years is of Irish, English and Italian heritage.
I'm really happy with what Microsoft has been doing lately, but this presentation is kind of failing. It's not really getting the audience that excited. This doesn't affect my opinion of the new products, but it's not helping Microsoft's competitive mission, and that makes me cringe a bit.
Benioff is very very good at playing the publicity game. What was said is not important, that wasn't the reason why he said it. He said it in order to make front pages, and he did.
I'm sorry you lost your wife - it's one of the hardest things we can go through, but like all bruises and cuts, it's not gonna be permanent. All the best wishes for you.