The tech layoffs have catalyzed a conversation about which jobs are necessary and what the purpose of jobs even is. At a macro level, there has definitely been bloat and unnecessary work happening at big tech companies. At a micro level, ambitious individual tech workers given wide latitude to “think big” ended up creating gargantuan piles of labor for themselves.
How did we get to a place of such excess? Massive amounts of wealth were funneled into the private tech sector over the last two decades, which resulted in a couple things. One, high-status tech jobs attracted highly ambitious young people – especially millennials – who were looking to “make their mark” and rocket into an impactful, successful career. Second, these companies had near-infinite cash reserves that they used to bankroll the pet projects and intellectual explorations of these ambitious individuals. One thing that’s become clear to me after a decade working in tech is that the best idea does not necessarily result in the most successful product. The assumption that those are linked is kind of like the myth of meritocracy: a widely-held belief that gives people something to strive for, but doesn’t reliably predict who ultimately wins and fails.
When I was working at Google I saw some incredible, beautiful, sophisticated ideas hatched by deeply thoughtful, exceptionally bright individuals. Some of these projects came to fruition. Most did not. Which projects actually did work, and deliver value for the company? Boring display ads that hadn’t been redesigned since the early 00s but drove a ton of revenue. Or standard workaday applications like Gmail and Google Calendar that served basic but crucial functions. These are great products, but they weren’t necessarily brilliant or paradigm-shifting. (In fact, the products that were hyped the most often succeeded the least.)
Let’s take email for example. Many, many interesting email clients have been created to try and overtake Gmail, and all have failed. Google even made one, and it was better: a more thoughtful, well-designed product. But factors like simplicity, user habit, and market timing play much more of a factor than we like to admit. Meanwhile, Gmail simply works and it turns out that’s good enough!
The other day while trying to find some information about my local coffee roaster, I came across their site. Its simple UI would have been destroyed in a design critique but it actually gave me what I needed and led to a fantastic user experience that ended with me shaking hands with someone at their warehouse who handed me two bags of delicious fresh espresso beans.
What is my point with all this? Am I saying we should kill our darlings and be less ambitious with our tech products? Yeah, kinda!
Media coverage of the recent tech layoffs has focused on the fact that a lot of these companies hired too quickly and had organizational bloat. That’s true. The other half of the story, though, is that a lot of these companies have been focusing on generating hype rather than solving real problems, thereby spending furiously in areas that are misaligned with what people actually want or need (ahem). A lot of people forget that the AI hype cycle already happened! Like, not that long ago! There was already an AI assistant wave in 2013-2016 that promised to change the world in the same way ChatGPT is currently promising to change the world.
Meanwhile, the web is inaccessible, sites are unreliable, and a long list of “boring” user stories piles up while we gaze skyward for divine inspiration.
The last 10 years of tech has seen us pour our heart, soul, and intellect into our work, and maybe it’s simply not the best use of resources. Instead of philosophical design exercises, maybe we should focus on ensuring the text is legible to users with low-vision. Instead of debating the value of corner radii, maybe we should question whether our product even needs to exist. Maybe we should accept the role of the cog – after all, they are really important parts of a well-functioning machine!