Ask HN: I joined a FAANG and it is awful
Instead, I'm on a team that has and horrendous turnover and is staffed with below-average IQ people.
This company builds EVERYTHING in house, and the toolset is like going backwards in my career 10 years.
If I do want to stick this out and turn this team around, I'm going to be working nights and weekends for at least a year - there's just too much to fix.
I've told this to lots of people who work in other division (that I can trust) and they've said the easiest thing is to just accept it as it is and coast. I've never done that in my career and don't think I could do that.
Has anyone been in the same boat? I'm told that it becomes easier to switch teams after a year.
I feel like I've made a terrible decision and don't know what to do next.
Any advice is appreciated.
254 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 300 ms ] threadBy all means raise these concerns and suggest improvements, but ultimately if a FAANG wants to waste its money and be stupid, let them be and enjoy part of that money. In a small startup where you have significant financial upside in it succeeding my advice would be different, but here just lay back and enjoy the paychecks.
Given your description of the team it seems like you should be able to outperform them without any trouble.
Is this really what people think when joining a large company such as FAANG ? I mean not everyone can be an A player in a company with 1000s of employees, correct ? Also not every team is going to be solving hard problems. Someone has to do the dirty things. Isn't that understood ?
Not trying to shit on you OP but I would have tried to learn more about the team in interviews if possible or is that just not a thing with FAANG interviews ?
FAANG usually don't hire for a specific team, you get matched after. It's a crapshoot where you end up, but they usually let you transfer relatively easily if positions are opened.
On top of their hoop jumping game.
This right here is exactly the problem. In the interview you are expected to write a fault tolerant k-way distributed sort and publish it to production, in 3 hours. Once you are embedded in your team they'll have you fixing typos on the landing page.
"Our interview process is good at finding people who are good at interviewing, not good at their job." ~ Someone I follow on Twitter
None of the interviews had any filter for finishing tasks on time, writing good tests, improving team cohesion, or any of the many important characteristics of a great software developer.
But, gosh, I can definitely explain how Aho-Corasick works.
Similarly, you could test for ability to architect a Git commit history. Git uses some important algorithms (e.g. content addressable store, tree traversal) and people who demonstrate an understanding of how to leverage it well are likely to be more effective candidates.
There is actually an incredible amount of technical nuance in this question and you can ask this both on junior interviews and senior ones.
I've interviewed at a few and they were the hardest interviews I've had. So it stands to reason that the people making it through must be good.
Of course you could claim the people making it through just "leetcode" all day or whatever. But still we all know these companies because they're omnipresent in our lives, we use their products, we assume they've got smart talent internally.
Eh. IMHO they are a group of super good test takers and white board ninjas.
Depends on the FAANG, but a lot of them do pooled interviews and assign a team later. Some do a weeks long orientation/training and you have some ability to more or less interview for final placement, and there's some other styles as well. For important teams that have trouble hiring, probably some people get selected into it without a lot of choice.
Either way, in a pooled hiring environment, you're probably not meeting with people on the team you'll work for before you join, although maybe you'd get to talk to a hiring manager after an offer; maybe.
FAANG companies certainly have a lot of very bright engineers. There's no disputing that. And they contend with some really thorny problems that admit no easy solutions, such as scale and content moderation.
But there's also plenty of smaller companies that have difficult problems with very sharp coworkers. Of course, they don't have the same prestige.
Or money.
Or visibility.
Or value on your resume (in certain circles).
But what smaller companies have that I've found big companies don't: a distinct lack of places to hide.
Sure, you can get folks who don't work out (I've been one!) but at all the small companies I've worked out, everyone is pulling together and no one is really slacking. My theory is that it's too easy to see when someone is slacking at a smallco, so folks don't do it.
I find that delightful.
With any company of any size the scale of grunt work / tedious maintenance and troubleshooting old stuff is going to grow massively.
Being Google or anyone will not change that.
With any company of any size the scale of grunt work / tedious maintenance and troubleshooting old stuff is going to grow massively.
Being Google or anyone will not change that.
Perhaps that startup history with greenfield type situations blinded OP to that reality?
Well if you pay top salaries and have a tough recruitment process maybe. They claim to hire the best from all over the world.
Maybe they let the newbie to clean the dojo floor, and sweep the garden, and cut the wood, and take out the garbage, and paint the walls, and so on for a while and then he learns the ropes and knows more he could find himself a team that is more to his taste.
It is not weird to churn around early in your career to find the right fit. Try not to do it too much but one or two rapid hops on a CV is not strange.
From there, it's building relationships, documenting what gets accomplished, and trying to meet people where they are so that they can maybe get something done (and not break other things.)
That's from a managing perspective, but if you are determined to not coast, that may be what you'll be doing.
In my experience, you'll only really get to solve problems at a startup. At a FAANG-sized many decisions are likely made "by committee" or by some higher up, and your project is always at risk of getting blocked for political reasons.
If you enjoyed working at startups in the past, I'd go work for a new one that you're finding exciting!
Are you able to switch teams? Can you find or take ownership of a specific part of a project that’ll keep you sane and motivated? Are you able to fix the specific tooling on your team or for your project that you don’t like?
Is the tooling really backwards 10 years, or is it that you’re unfamiliar with it and just out of your comfort zone?
I've also worked with people at both FAANG and non-FAANG where the issue is motivation and not "intelligence", so I would frame it to myself as that.
Depending on the company, you might be able to switch sooner once you have your first performance rating. Most FAANG companies try to have managers support what's going to give you lasting longevity at the company, not necessarily on the team.
This is one of the reasons I usually disqualify people with long stints at FAANG on their resume.
If you plan to get back into startups, you may not want to stick around for too long. Another option is to jump to another FAANG where maybe you’ll be lucky to find better people/culture.
You're not at a startup where "fix all the things ASAP or we die" is the driving force. Settle in and work on making things better, even if it's just to keep you in play as you investigate other options.
A year of improving a team would give you a solid foundation for an internal transfer, for example.
I have no idea what you mean about "working weekends." It sounds like you just made up a line in your head "1 year" and then made up a story "I'll be such a victim if I have to fix every single thing myself in 1 year, it will require such suffering." Except nobody told you that you have to fix every single thing on your team in 1 year, why don't you fix half of it in 40 hour weeks, and if it's things people agree are problems and you outshine your team so much then I think you'll find it's nice to be appreciated.
This plus the IQ comment, plus the nature of the question (how much deep down did you turn to HN because you thought we'd give you a simple quick fix? how much did you ask this "question" just to vent?) makes me think you might be a challenging person to work with. This could be a great opportunity for you try to attain technical mastery of yourself, your presentation, and your emotions/attitude.
I'm not sure why your co-workers' IQ is your concern. To come out of the gate with a comment like this sounds like you have a strong disdain for them.
Part of your reason for joining the company was the paycheck. I assume the checks aren't bouncing.
My advice is the same advice I would give to many people: Learn from your coworkers. Understand the problems that the team and the company face. Make incremental improvements.
If you really want to you can work late every day and at weekends. It's your choice. Bear in mind your job won't love you back.
I was fortunate enough to work in an environment, where I was the "below-average IQ person," and I am not below-average, but I worked with some fairly smart cookies.
I know that some of my co-workers looked at me with disdain; but I was honored that most did not.
Working with frustrating people has been a very useful part of my career. As a manager, I had to make life-changing decisions for employees, and it was important for me to be empirical in my decision-making.
It appears that working for FAANGs is a "mark of distinction," these days. I know they pay ridiculous salaries. I'm pretty much aware of the working environment, and don't find the prospect enticing.
In NY, I know many, many folks that worked in the finance industry as brokers and traders. They got their licenses, and made a whole boatload of money in a few short years, while absolutely destroying their mental and physical health.
They then left, when they couldn't stand it anymore, and used the money they made to start companies, doing the things they liked doing.
Maybe that could be the approach the OP may want to take.
I had a rule after my time working a peer equivalent to FAANG: if I consistently find myself the obviously smartest person in the room, I should go else where. There has been so much joy working in an environment where there are people who are more experienced, skilled, and/or talented than me.
At my current startup, which has been just amazingly successful, our engineering team hires a lot of people who are a lot like how you sound: no dummy and also emotionally intelligent/mature. It's been such a wonderful experience. I never have to hear any silly debates over the nuances of some irrelevant issues so some people can proof their intelligence. People know what the company's business is and just worry about that. Most of the times we work a 9 to 5 (10 to 6 because of Bay Area traffic) and go home. It's taught me a lot about startups and what it takes to succeed. Having the smartest people around working for you is one possible path but there are other very viable alternatives. I've also worked at companies with lots of former FAANG engineers, several Ph.D., and 3 full CS professors that burned that down ignominiously.
Anecdotally, a lot of engineers (and especially managers) have this mentality where they don't treat the job as something that puts food on table and helps the company move their products forward in what ever pace the overall organisation is happy with. They want to get the high of entire life's achievement there which results in dissatisfaction/burnout.
Boomer?
The notion that any type of consistent "bar" exists for hiring at FAANGs is a myth. These companies are far too large to consistently apply hiring standards. Some teams intentionally have different standards, some teams unintentionally (due to the hiring managers or interviewers just not being on the same page) have different standards, even within their specific team. Some teams are so desperate for people that they'll hire anyone with a pulse, while others are so flooded with applicants that they don't hire anyone unless you have 6 PhDs and won a nobel prize.
At my FAANG, it's so well known that the "hiring bar" is bullshit that when someone wants to do a team transfer, we usually require them to go through a full hiring loop again, just like an external hire, because there are some teams/organizations within my company that we do not trust to have upheld a reasonable bar when initially hiring someone.
For what it’s worth, the process is becoming standardized at the L5 Industry hire level at Amazon as it was for most L4 new grads. The hiring bar being different across orgs is going away soon.
Before joining this company, I hired and managed teams across various startups. I don't think I would be speaking out of turn to say in every company we looked for aptitude and intelligence. I don't know what my previous or current colleagues literal IQs are, but you know a highly intelligent person when you meet and work with one.
Through my entire FOUR MONTH interview process, I met a dozen people, all of whom would be considered highly intelligent. Maybe I am naive to assume that's what that interview process was designed for.
And to be clear, those folks I interviewed with and many other people around me are highly intelligent. But the people I work with on daily basis, whom I did not meet in my interview, are categorically less intelligent and honestly at the root of most of the problems I've dealt with since starting.
Sorry if it is rude, but I think it's an honest depiction of the situation.
http://www.jokes.net/heavenandhell.htm
It reads as OP didn't indexed anything and just wanted to denigrate people around him to try to portray himself as some kind of ubermensch towering over his peers.
I get that it’s kinda rude to bluntly talk about IQ, but without a doubt intelligent colleagues make for a more effective work environment.
And it's not like OP gave his co-workers IQ tests.
* a) The main overall productivity issue * b) Making a more general point that they don't seem very bright, at least compared to former colleagues * c) Specifically mentioning IQ score
Yes even though the main topic is (a)... b/c is just extra context.
I think OP's goal was to make point b/c to give some further context on their perception of the situation (whether it's true or not doesn't matter, the point is explaining what they think).
Sure both (b) + (c) especially can make you look like a dick, but I don't think making the (b) point is totally irrelevant to the overall post. It at least gives us more insight into what OP thinks, even if they're wrong.
So perhaps going the (c) route (rather than b) was just an attempt at trying to be slightly more objective (even though there's obviously no evidence at all). (b) is vaguer than (c), so I don't see that (c) was completely irrelevant, even though it comes across arrogant.
Do you have source(s) for that?
edit: The top google scholar result for "IQ predict job performance" is Does IQ really predict job performance? (2015), a fascinating paper which discusses a lot of the relevant issues and their history.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10888691.2014.98...
"To supporters of IQ testing...the picture seems crystal clear. Job performance must be a good test of individual differences in intelligence. IQ test scores (or their surrogates) correlate significantly with ratings of job performance. As a result, IQ tests must be a valid test of intelligence.
What we actually have are scores from a predictor of nebulous identity correlated with ratings for a seemingly discrete construct that is turning out to be equally slippery. In other words, very strong conclusions are seemingly being drawn from correlations between two under-specified constructs. This makes interpretation of the (modest) correlations extremely difficult. In primary studies such correlations have generally left over 95% of the variance unexplained. Even the typical meta-analytic correlation of 0.5 still leaves 75% of the variance unexplained. This does not seem to us to constitute grounds for asserting test validation so strongly."
Their "summary of the main points":
"1. Much in developmental theory, and psychology in general, depends upon the validity of IQ tests. 2. In the absence of agreed construct validity this has weighed heavily on indirect validity using correlations with criterion outcomes among which job performance has a special status. 3. Hundreds of studies prior to the 1970s reported low and/or inconsistent correlations between IQ and job performance. 4. These correlations have been approximately doubled using corrections for supposed errors in primary results and combining them in meta-analyses. Such corrections have many strengths, theoretically, but are compromised in these cases by the often uncertain quality of the primary studies. 5. The corrections to sampling errors, measurement errors, and to range restriction have required making a number of assumptions that may not be valid and have created a number of persistently contentious issues. 6. The claim that the IQ-job performance correlation increases with job complexity is not born out in more recent studies. 7. A range of other—including noncognitive—factors could explain a correlation between IQ and job performance, and even constitute part or all of the enigmatic "general factor." 8. There remains great uncertainty about the interpretation of IQ-job performance correlations and great caution needs to be exercised in using them as a basis for the validity of IQ tests and associated concepts."
To me, this is more indicative of the company culture than your coworkers' IQ.
They learn by heart and are not interested in why something works. (For example, what a Fourier transform essentially does. A Fourier transform is essentially projecting a target function to the sinusoidal bases. That is what the dot product implies.) I don't think this is necessarily related to intellect. I think it is somewhat related to laziness and lack of interest or curiosity.
They use a bunch of formulas and code snippets and glue it together until it somehow works without understanding it.
I am a big believer in learning deeply by focusing on the fundamentals. Here's what I previously wrote about that very topic:
> Instead of APIs, learn the fundamental algorithms that those APIs provide. Instead of OpenGL, learn rendering algorithms (raserization, Bresenham etc.). The same applies for other frameworks such as Vue.js. Learn how to write a virtual DOM yourself. Learn how JS operates under the hood. Learn how to implement a hash table (std::unordered_map) and a dynamic array (std::vector); understand why you cannot simply delete a bucket when using the open addressing scheme. Learn C and memory management, since many other programming languages are influenced by C. Implement the algorithms in C if you are proficient enough in it (gives you a better understanding).
Or reading your or OP's comments and assuming that you have social and possibly serious mental health issues. Not very nice, right?
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/
FWIW, I agree with you and am in the same boat. I joined a FAANG so that I could work alongside and learn from truly impressive people. So far, after a few years of working at my FAANG, I have not worked alongside one single person who I would consider impressive. I won't go so far as to say they're "low IQ" or dumb or anything like that. I enjoy them as people and I like working with them, but they certainly don't inspire me and I do not feel like I am learning things from them that further my career. All of them, even the ones at higher levels than me, seem just as clueless and lost as I am. And that's an awful environment to be in.
It's frustrating, disappointing, feels like you were lied to, etc. My only advice to you is to just quit. Don't stick around searching for something that you already know isn't here. It's very unlikely to get better.
That being said, if you consider yourself intelligent, and wanted to work amongst "smart" people, you would have asked questions about the team and the process, and made your decision on that. And also not equate IQ and intelligence when talking about people.
The standard recruiting process for FAANGs seems to be that you are just a replaceable "human resource", and your team will be decided later (decidedly after signing an offer) and may change every now and then.
You may get better treatment with seniority, but I see people reporting that as the typical experience.
In other words, all you've done is attempt to establish that we should just trust you when you say they're "low IQ", rather than give us any actual evidence that they are, or even any elaboration of what you mean when you say that.
And how are they to work with otherwise? I've worked with many "high IQ" people who were awful colleagues because they had superiority complexes, had no concept of collaboration, were crap communicators, especially for audiences not familiar with their domains, etc.
Meanwhile I've worked with others who may not be traditionally smart, be deeply technical, etc. But they got people. And people liked talking and working with them. And that led to progress, alignment, and less stress.
I know who I'd prefer to work with any day of the week.
Perhaps you should reconsider selling out to the megacorp, and sell out to VC instead. Now that you're a Xoogler (or FANG-er, whatever), raising money will be easy.
I noticed that a lot in school/work. People can get good grades even without understanding the topic at hand. Many learn mechanistically and succeed with good grades.
I do the opposite, but it takes time and effort to learn a topic deeply using the Feynman method. Many are not interested in this. Many just apply formulas and code snippets, and they succeed nevertheless. Good for them!
I actually don't care about success or grades or whatever. I care about the topic, because I want to understand why it works. This is just me though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Best and funniest comment.
OP really should have a side project or something to keep skills nice and sharp but I don't see a reason to complain about working for CV companies like a FAANG making shovel-loads of cash from every orifice. Not sure what the downside is, maybe I've been too poor for too long.
I'd be more interested in productivity, adding value, understanding the problem space, leadership, communications, technical range, ability to listen.
I’ve also worked with people who are against trying something new or take forever (thanks processes) to do simple things. It doesn’t equate with how hard the interview and gatekeeping is. People know they can coast and riding out a year or two until the bottom 10% are weeded to make a half million or more is worth it to some.
All that being said yeah the comment was a bit crass for sure.
Many people in the industry have a very glorified view of FAANGs, and in particular one of the reasons that many people want to work at a FAANG is because of the idea of working and learning from the most impressive people in your field. If you've ever heard the saying "if you feel like you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room", I think that is a saying that these types of people ascribe to.
The problem is that oftentimes someone joins a FAANG and that glorified view is shattered. The reality is that the people at a FAANG are not necessarily geniuses (there are geniuses at FAANG, as there are at any company, but they are far and few between compared to the 'average' FAANG engineer). I work at a FAANG (look at my name and you can guess which one) and I would certainly say that it is very frustrating to me that my career has felt like it has effectively stalled ever since joining, because everyone on my team is just as clueless as I am and I do not find any of my direct or extended teammates particularly impressive or inspiring.
When this happens, the "shattering" reality that your new job isn't some wonderland and is full of all the same issues of your old companies can make you quite frustrated and dissapointed, and it's quite easy to place that blame on your coworkers or the tools they use. I don't think it's disdain as much as it is disappointment, and OP probably feels like they were sold a false bill of goods. I know I certainly relate to that a lot.
It's a concern as much as working with a smart person that can understand - and support, and improve on, and challenge if needed - your ideas is a delight and brightens your day. And working with somebody who can't get the basic things and you have to waste time on explaining the obvious and treading water instead of moving forward is a drag and makes your life hell. Of course we're not talking about IQ score on a puzzle test or something like that - I'm sure the OP talks about practical skills as seen in everyday interactions. I've been lucky to work mostly with very smart people - but occasionally there was a dud, and it's very annoying and sucks a lot of energy out.
OP should also consider being perhaps less inflammatory with his language. Be mindful of others.
Simply complaining won't help you, OP. Be proactive and seek to synergize[1]. If you are Einstein-level smart, then why don't you synergize with people instead? In a gearbox, every part counts. The smaller gears and the bigger gears do play a role in the final transmission.
Learn to make the best out of a given situation. If you can't or don't want it, you can leave and go somewhere else.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effecti...
The Big Head character from Silicon Valley is again proved to be (like all the characters) spot-on accurate. Mike Judge is sorely underappreciated.
My $0.02 advice: you seem smart, hard-working, and self-motivated. Become a consultant and be your own boss. Use the FAANG creds to demand a high rate. It's a market, and you can leverage your abilities as services you can offer. Work it to your advantage.
If you wanted to work on something interesting, you should have stayed at a startup. You wanted to make bank, and this is the price.
Use this as an opportunity to learn how to adjust your thinking so you can thrive personally in a challenging environment. You may never get to a point where you love it, but you can probably get to a place where you are successful and can focus on the positives.
Learn how to work well with challenging people. You'll encounter more of them later in your career. Again, adjust your thinking. These people almost certainly have their positive qualities. Work with those positive qualities and become a master at mitigating or avoiding their bad qualities.
As far as working nights and weekend goes... do you really have to do that? Are other team members doing that? Big companies are not like startups. All the things will never get fixed, and you simply need to do your best with things in a permanently semi-broken state.
I understand that you don't want to coast. You don't have to even if others are. Focus on doing an excellent job on your corner of the world. Your projects, your code, helping others, etc.. Worry less about the bigger picture.
Also remember that it's not forever. This is an investment in your future career.
Save all of the money and run away once you've lucked into a Google offer.
Nobody is stupid if they can pass Amazon's interview earnestly. But it is possible to lack motivation and professionalism. That's what I believe Amazon's SWE's are facing.
Yeah, that’s Google
But let’s say it is Amazon, and they are right that their coworkers are low IQ. I’m an Amazon engineer and have been for 3 years. Do you think I’m stupid too because I can’t get a Google offer? I contemplate suicide daily because of comments like this. Why should I continue if society and people like you think I’m never going to be worthy of anything?
Also, "below-average IQ people" really? that seems unnecessary.
There are literally hundreds if not thousands of teams at some of these companies. They are not all bad. Do your research. And put yourself on one you would enjoy.