Wow.. this needs some more upvotes.
I recommend reading the whole chain.
- Google acqui-hired a company of 5. A CEO, 3 engineers and the designer (who is the poster).
- 4 of them were offered cash/stock deals. The designer was offered a deal, but it never materialised. During this phase, the remaining 4 agreed terms leaving designer in the lurch.
- Designer was told they weren't an "area expert".
- Designer is the only female of the 5.
There are some other details I'm not confident on; 4 were offered 5m in stock/shares and designer "given" 10k. Not sure if this means designer received money, or was still left out.
Bottom line, her CEO let her down majorly and Google seems to have screwed her over enormously.
I'm not entirely clear on the relevance of her gender is, either in this post or the source secret thread.
She's been royally fucked of that there's no doubt but there seems to be a lot of people talking about gender when she mentions she wasn't offered anything because she wasn't an area expert.
For the record, I am neither passing judgement nor placing importance on her gender regarding said judgement.
I am merely bullet pointing the facts.
The rest is up to you.
So typically as a woman when you experience gender discrimination you are told something like "you're not an area expert." :P It's not like they're going to come out and say they're not hiring you because you're a woman. But I do agree there's not enough context here to understand the real reason she wasn't taken along.
It's a long shot I know but it could be that Google were always just after the engineering talent in the company and not another designer. Who knows other than those involved.
It certainly isn't a stretch to picture Google only being interested in picking up engineers and not designers though although the way it's been "reported" by this single, anonymous source certainly shows they've got very little class about how they recruited in this case (not to mention the co-workers).
Someone on the original thread wrote, "understand that this has happened because our sexist industry does not value human skills (what it calls "soft" skills) as much as the ability to generate algorithms in code, part of its systematic devaluation of tasks typically performed by women."
I say we should speak like experts, as we totally know what really happened.... even if none of us can name the starting letter of the company in question.
Let's do it.... everyone with me?!?!?!?
Holy shit. I hope this lady gets the attention she seems to deserve.
This entire thread highlights how important it is to trust the people you start a company with. Any doubts or reservations you have about your co-founders early on will probably be the reason why your company will fall apart in front of you.
Interesting- first time Secret has produced meaningful conversation AFAIK. Is this an example of designers getting shafted in favor of engineers? Does Google legitimately not appreciate designers (perhaps). Is is a female/male thing? I would be inclined to say no. I would love to see the work this woman produced and if Google really just sees designers as replaceable commodities whereas they see engineers as core composers of a product.
Interesting- first time Secret has produced meaningful conversation AFAIK.
Halfway down the thread, I thought the exact same thing. Really interested in learning more concrete details.
first time Secret has produced meaningful conversation AFAIK
Actually one of many that I've seen. Tons of crap gets posted to Secret too, sure, but I've witnessed a lot of very interesting debates take place as well. I think this is where Secret is turning out to be a great product — the ability to have conversations about controversial subjects with friends/FoFs/industry people. These discussions never would have manifested themselves if real identity were attached to them.
Honestly I have the opposite reaction. All I see it doing for our industry is breeding drama and gossip. Though I read the comments and agree with some of the insight people provide her, overall it still seems like an incredibly childlike way to discuss a professional issue.
EDIT: Oops, I don't know how this reply got double-posted, and DN seemingly lacks a way of deleting comments. Sorry!
Is this an example of designers getting shafted in favor of engineers? Does Google legitimately not appreciate designers (perhaps). Is is a female/male thing?
I'd say it's both. Design is often described using language colored by gender, like when the job is described as "making things pretty." Designers get asked to adopt ways of working that conform to expectations for women in the workplace: empathy, collaboration, diplomacy, patience, humility, acting as a "facilitator" and not a leader.
The status of women and designers in tech companies is closely linked.
I call shenanigans.
Unless the companies lawyer did some serious dirty work to screw her over I don't see how this isn't easily resolved by looking at the operating agreement for the business previous to the Google acquisition. She either owned a certain portion of the company and deserves an equal amount of stock (5m as the post says) or she didn't. It' pretty simple.
agreed, this reeks of bullshit. if she was actually a co-founder, either her share was 1/500 of the others' or she's lying. the only case in which this scenario could have happened would be if no legal documents were signed.
regardless, i don't understand the point of complaining about this anonymously. if someone was cheated out of $4,990,000, they should speak up. loudly and publicly. it's not like she's under duress.
Note: I haven't read the details.
FWIW I know Google does entrance interviews with companies they acquire to ensure (at least the key roles) everyone is up to Google standards
I definitely believe someone was left out of an acquisition, but I'm wondering about the circumstances.
Terribly unfortunate. I hope everything works out for her. I've long heard about how designers are secondary citizens at the googs.
Google will never crack this one. "Who leaked this secret" they'll say, and details like "They gave me 10k- everyone else got 5m packages. So yes, I got fucked." will only add more layers to the mystery.
It's common to see this. The last public story I knew was this teenager who sold the app to Yahoo. Only 2 from a 5 member team went there. I don't know the details but I'm sure Yahoo! interviewed the 5 member teams and found out who were interested or not to do the future job. In the end, most of these companies are funded on frustrated people. Look out the innovation and you will see it. If you're desperate for fun, you will not join big C, you willl go startup like.
I'm pretty dense and don't know what company this is about :(
It is hard to pass judgement without the quality of design work, however that shouldn't matter. As design professionals we know the frustration we feel when needing to justify that our contributions are equal to any other team member. Designers are problem solvers just as developers are, and are vital to making a great product. And the contributions this designer added to her startup were varied and necessary.
It is impossible to comment on the circumstances, but it does seem that somebody are walking around with a bad taste in their mouth and screwed her on the deal.
I edited myself: Horrible move from Google by letting the company do an internal carnage and a really sucky move from the company to not reward properly the people who helped you reach a Google deal.
I know and accept that Google can choose who enters their circle or not as worker. In the end, being there is described either as a depressing experience or a lotery-like one. That is not the problem. What I do not accept from this "uncertain" story is the company decides 1 team member did something so meaningless that its worth less that 1 year 3rd world salary compensation. It sounds cruel and senseless to me.
In a company, everyone participates, that's why it's called "company" not "few-selected-ones".
Did she mention she was a female or was this all assumed?
If you scroll down through the chat, OP reveals her gender.
Ah thanks Zethus! And hello to you sir!