Daniel McKinnon returned to Meta to work on the Ray-Ban AI glasses project.
Most professionals wish to work for companies that offer work-life balance, stability, comfort, flexibility in work and better pay. Some of the best companies in the world which offer such facilities to their employees are Google, Amazon, Meta etc. Recently, a product manager at Meta who also worked at Google, discussed the differences between the two tech giants. Daniel McKinnon was a product manager at Meta from 2018 to 2022 before joining Google. He returned to Meta in February to work on the Ray-Ban AI glasses project.
In a recent blog post, he said, "At face value, Meta and Google are similar companies. They both sell ads on the internet. They both build iconic consumer products used by a huge fraction of humans on Earth. They both encourage bottom-up innovation. They both built similar internal tools. They both use the same employee leveling system. However, product management at these two companies is quite different. There are certainly people who thrive in all environments, but I think that it is easier to be successful if you align your employer's values with your own."
Mr McKinnon listed important differences to take into account for prospective employees, including prospects for advancement and work-life balance. He pointed out that while both companies provide fantastic growth prospects, those looking for quick progression could find Meta to be a better fit. However, Google might be the best option for people who value stability, employment security, and work-life balance.
"Meta and Google are both phenomenal technology companies where great PMs can thrive. If you are looking for convexity and growth at the expense of stress and pressure, Meta is probably a better fit. If you would like to prioritize work-life balance, stability, and job security, Google could be a great place for you," Mr McKinnon said in his blog post.
Highlighting other differences between working for the two companies, Mr McKinnon stated that the atmosphere at Google was more reserved and Meta was a more transparent organisation. "I think that transparency at both Google and Meta has declined, but Meta still feels like a flat, transparent organisation. I regularly learn about other teams' priorities through their Workplace posts and dashboards (and not infrequently contribute where I can) and have a good sense of what the company is up to. The expectation is that PMs lead frequent reviews up to the VP or C level and are held accountable for delivering on the conclusions."
"It is much harder to find out what is going on inside of Google. Unlike Meta, where almost all important company information is posted to open Workplace groups, Google operates mostly via emails and chats, which aren't particularly discoverable. At the top, I never felt like Sundar was able to candidly answer TGIF questions the way Mark does at Q&A. And even within an org, it was never really clear to me how decisions were made or what work execs wanted out of their PM teams," he wrote.
The product manager said that the organisation style at Google is not "great" for those who are looking at learning and growing. "In my 18 months at Google, I signed up for office hours with a VP a few times, but I rarely got any kind of leadership feedback on my work. Every time I brought up ratings or promos with a manager, I got brushed aside or asked, 'why do you want to get promoted?' Compensation is subject to more manager discretion and can vary across a team controlling for level and rating. While this isn't great for those looking to learn and grow, this organisational style makes it much easier to let work drift into the background when other life priorities need your attention," Mr McKinnon concluded.