I'm an ex-google employee laid off as part of the 12000.
To answer your question, basically not at all. Half a year before the layoffs, they explicitly consolidated power towards your direct managers around the assignment of work and especially quarterly and yearly assessment.
Not just toward managers in general -- before that point there was a consolidation of power towards managers in general over the years, but luckily a group of manager's peers would balance out or question any extreme examples, which moderated a lot of what can sometimes go wrong.
But right before the layoffs the system was changed to have an explicit emphasis on your direct manager.
These shit-tests reveal things. When one side has power over the other, some things aren't meant to the tested unless you want to consistently discover how little people care about the folk that have very little impact over their lives.
Is anyone else sick of long-winded prefaces? If they don't get the point in the first paragraph, I just skip it and go to the comments. The top comment gives me the jist anyway.
To answer your question, basically not at all. Half a year before the layoffs, they explicitly consolidated power towards your direct managers around the assignment of work and especially quarterly and yearly assessment.
Not just toward managers in general -- before that point there was a consolidation of power towards managers in general over the years, but luckily a group of manager's peers would balance out or question any extreme examples, which moderated a lot of what can sometimes go wrong.
But right before the layoffs the system was changed to have an explicit emphasis on your direct manager.