9 ms·

For some reason this made me think of Google and how they encourage movement between teams and projects. It seems to me that's probably a good way to keep high

by erydo 17y ago

For some reason this made me think of Google and how they encourage movement between teams and projects. It seems to me that's probably a good way to keep highly skilled employees riding the wave of that 'value apex', rather than just cresting over it and then leaving. Does anyone know what Google's turnover rates are compared to other technology companies? A quick search didn't turn up anything interesting, but I figure there might be some Googlers here with an idea...

illumin8 17y ago
I recently had a telephone interview with Google for a systems engineering position. I'm not incredibly impressed by their process of finding talent. Background: I provided the hiring guy with architecture diagrams of some pretty large scale systems that I had designed: database clusters with 1TB of RAM and 72TB of disk, 10GbE network, etc. I not only designed, I also implemented these systems, so I'm a pretty senior architecture engineer with 18 years of solid UNIX/Linux, SAN storage, and networking experience. Long story short, I missed a very basic question "what does setting the sticky bit on a directory do?" I blanked because I wasn't expecting to answer basic sysadmin questions, and hadn't honestly set the sticky bit on a directory for several years. So, they sent me a nicely worded email that after careful consideration, we don't have a position that matches you, etc. The hiring process at Google is really messed up. I gather that the only qualifications they are really looking for are: 1. Fresh college graduates that memorized man pages. 2. Willing to work 80 hour weeks. 3. Don't care about salary because we're not going to pay much. I mean seriously, you don't turn down a senior architecture engineer with 18+ years of experience because he blanked on a stupid memorization question that can be googled in 10 seconds.
- btilly 17y ago
  Within Google we've noticed that the people who complain about the process are most often the ones who don't get in. How do you know that the basic question is what sank you? Is it possible that the interviewer didn't like the architectures that you came up with? Or perhaps you left the impression that you would not like to find yourself in a hands on position where you have to do things like set the sticky bit? (Based on this post I'd get that impression myself. But everyone here is hands on. "Architecture Astronaut" is not a job type we want to encourage.) But whatever the cause, I absolutely guarantee that all three of the qualifications that you think we have are wrong. Because I am none of the three and managed to get hired.
  - eru 17y ago
    > Within Google we've noticed that the people who complain about the process are most often the ones who don't get in. Self-selection (in both directions)?
  - endtime 17y ago
    >Within Google we've noticed that the people who complain about the process are most often the ones who don't get in. Well, yeah. New employees aren't going to want to start off on a bad foot, so they won't say anything. But I have several friends who've been hired by Google and they all told me they found the recruiting process to be extremely frustrating and, at times, insulting. Their experiences are really no different than mine (I applied for an APM internship a couple years ago, and passed two rounds of interviews and submitted an essay before being turned down, so you guys must have been at least a little interested in me).
    - prospero 17y ago
      I've just gone through the process (succesfully), and while it dragged on longer than seemed necessary, I didn't find it insulting. What exactly happened?
      - timr 17y ago
        Part of what I found insulting when I went through it: I could have been interviewing for kitchen staff, for all the information I was given. I was being screened intensely on relatively arbitrary criteria by relatively unpleasant people (as far as I could tell!), but I could get no assurance from anyone that I was interviewing for a position that I would find interesting, or even that I would be working with people whom I liked. When you interview with Google, you're operating on faith that the interminable, silly process will result in a position that makes you happy. But there's rarely any assurance that you'll get a job that you enjoy, or even that you'll work with people that you don't find extremely annoying. This sort of interview process works better for inexperienced people than it does for more senior employees, who tend to want luxuries like career growth and cultural fit.

by erydo 17y ago

illumin8 17y ago

I recently had a telephone interview with Google for a systems engineering position. I'm not incredibly impressed by their process of finding talent. Background: I provided the hiring guy with architecture diagrams of some pretty large scale systems that I had designed: database clusters with 1TB of RAM and 72TB of disk, 10GbE network, etc. I not only designed, I also implemented these systems, so I'm a pretty senior architecture engineer with 18 years of solid UNIX/Linux, SAN storage, and networking experience. Long story short, I missed a very basic question "what does setting the sticky bit on a directory do?" I blanked because I wasn't expecting to answer basic sysadmin questions, and hadn't honestly set the sticky bit on a directory for several years. So, they sent me a nicely worded email that after careful consideration, we don't have a position that matches you, etc. The hiring process at Google is really messed up. I gather that the only qualifications they are really looking for are: 1. Fresh college graduates that memorized man pages. 2. Willing to work 80 hour weeks. 3. Don't care about salary because we're not going to pay much. I mean seriously, you don't turn down a senior architecture engineer with 18+ years of experience because he blanked on a stupid memorization question that can be googled in 10 seconds.

btilly 17y ago
Within Google we've noticed that the people who complain about the process are most often the ones who don't get in. How do you know that the basic question is what sank you? Is it possible that the interviewer didn't like the architectures that you came up with? Or perhaps you left the impression that you would not like to find yourself in a hands on position where you have to do things like set the sticky bit? (Based on this post I'd get that impression myself. But everyone here is hands on. "Architecture Astronaut" is not a job type we want to encourage.) But whatever the cause, I absolutely guarantee that all three of the qualifications that you think we have are wrong. Because I am none of the three and managed to get hired.
- eru 17y ago
  > Within Google we've noticed that the people who complain about the process are most often the ones who don't get in. Self-selection (in both directions)?
- endtime 17y ago
  >Within Google we've noticed that the people who complain about the process are most often the ones who don't get in. Well, yeah. New employees aren't going to want to start off on a bad foot, so they won't say anything. But I have several friends who've been hired by Google and they all told me they found the recruiting process to be extremely frustrating and, at times, insulting. Their experiences are really no different than mine (I applied for an APM internship a couple years ago, and passed two rounds of interviews and submitted an essay before being turned down, so you guys must have been at least a little interested in me).
  - prospero 17y ago
    I've just gone through the process (succesfully), and while it dragged on longer than seemed necessary, I didn't find it insulting. What exactly happened?
    - timr 17y ago
      Part of what I found insulting when I went through it: I could have been interviewing for kitchen staff, for all the information I was given. I was being screened intensely on relatively arbitrary criteria by relatively unpleasant people (as far as I could tell!), but I could get no assurance from anyone that I was interviewing for a position that I would find interesting, or even that I would be working with people whom I liked. When you interview with Google, you're operating on faith that the interminable, silly process will result in a position that makes you happy. But there's rarely any assurance that you'll get a job that you enjoy, or even that you'll work with people that you don't find extremely annoying. This sort of interview process works better for inexperienced people than it does for more senior employees, who tend to want luxuries like career growth and cultural fit.