Perhaps using the crying manager example was a bad idea on my part. What I can stand behind is having an org structure that encourages managers and execs to treat their employees well. It sounds like Google has done a better job than most. I'm sure there are managers and engineers crying in private in every big company out there. What I'm trying to say is even though a lot of people like to assume that people work for Google and stay there just for the money, Google probably does some things very well to keep all the talent despite the negative press it gets. And I think a major factor is how empowered a "regular" engineer feels in the company. It sounds like a step up from many other companies in that regard.
- "I'm sure there are managers and engineers crying in private in every big company out there": You're not excusing google here, just expanding the range of companies whose apparent behavior is mortifying a couple of people in this thread.
- "Google probably does some things very well to keep all the talent despite the negative press it gets.": probably. They probably do a lot of a/b testing to dial in the compensation/retention ratio they're looking for, or maybe they just heap rewards onto engineers because they can afford it. Be that as it may, some people think that what google's doing is detrimental to society, or at least the problems are bigger than a salary or even a total compensation package should make up for.
I don't see any problem because I agree with what you said. Work shouldn't be so stressful that you cry in private. Google should do more "good" for the world.
I still think Google stands as an attractive workplace for reasons that are not just compensation and resume boost, though.
