4 ms·

I'll disagree on the notion that Google's hiring practices don't allow a small error to derail the entire process. Basically, within Google we haven't noticed

I'll disagree on the notion that Google's hiring practices don't allow a small error to derail the entire process. Basically, within Google we haven't noticed any of the problems around our hiring practices enough to solve them. The problems are clear; unfocused interview loops leading to poor feedback, much too long process between phone screen and receiving approval from MTV, a focus on hiring those good at interviewing and not those good at engineering (hiring scores do not correlate with performance scores), and ignoring experience by offering salaries or positions significantly below candidate's current levels in the industry. We end up being a place which is great for college hires and those getting their first chance, e.g. moving from test to dev, but not for experienced hires. And the effect is larger in some groups than others, but the senior engineers on my floor are mainly those without motivation to advance their careers and move on, even to internal projects.

btilly 17y ago
Let's walk through the criticisms you make. unfocused interview loops leading to poor feedback Yes, and it sounds like that is an issue they are trying to address that. much too long process between phone screen and receiving approval from MTV Absolutely. I am an outlier there. I took over a year from initial interview to hire thanks to the hiring freeze. I'd like to see us A/B test different interview formats to figure out how much of the process we can remove without hurting the performance of the people we hire. a focus on hiring those good at interviewing and not those good at engineering (hiring scores do not correlate with performance scores) This is not so simple. There is a skill to impressing people, and everyone has trouble limiting its impact on interviews. My impression is that Google does much better than most. For instance how many times have you heard someone say that their impression was really good, but when they went through the notes the person wasn't as good as they seemed. That is a case where someone's interview skills didn't have its usual impact. The best anyone has managed do with any hiring process is to filter out the vast majority of bad people. Successfully ranking the best is pretty much impossible. The toy model I offer at http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-intelligence.html http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-intelligence.ht... is a pretty good explanation of why. Just replace TST with "interview skills", INT with "actual performance" and IQ with "hiring scores". Since both actual performance and ability to interview affect your interview results, being really selective winds up with people who are good at both, and not those whose performance is truly exceptional. ignoring experience by offering salaries or positions significantly below candidate's current levels in the industry. This I'll actively disagree with. Google is in a strong negotiating position. They would be amiss to their shareholders to not negotiate well. Particularly since the ability difference between "got in solidly" and "just missed the cut" is rather small. But even so, if you're good at negotiating, the salary drop is much less. And there are various kinds of incentives that make your overall compensation significantly more than just your salary. Besides, whenever you put people into a different kind of job than they have had before, you run a real risk that they will prove not to be a good fit. A drop in compensation is only appropriate in that situation. And Google's environment is different enough that lots of people wind up in that situation. (For instance I'm an SRE. That's a Google role that you don't find elsewhere.)
- privacy_token 17y ago
  This I'll actively disagree with. Google is in a strong negotiating position. They would be amiss to their shareholders to not negotiate well. For someone with a short tenure at Google, I'm worried that you haven't seen the larger picture yet. The corporate policy is to hire the best and treat them well. But we are not hiring the best with consistency, instead often weighing cost and patience higher than talent and experience. Ask around about your colleague's referrals. For the very few that get through HC, many of those engineers pass up the opportunity to work at Google precisely because our offers were to drop them a level or two and 10-15% salary. Make no mistake, that this hurts Google. We would be much stronger to have the talent from Cisco, Amazon, and Microsoft that I've seen turn away Google.
  - btilly 17y ago
    If you only look at the people who would have been better than average here and get lost for that reason, sure. What happens if you include the people who would have been worse here and get lost for that reason? Unless you can make the case that the ones who are unwilling to come really are better than the ones who do come, then there is no net difference. Given the difficulties with measuring relative talent at that level, this is a really hard case to make. (You could try to do it by A/B testing two different hiring processes...) In fact my inclination is to believe the opposite. People who are more excited by the culture, co-workers, and problems that Google has are generally willing to take that drop. Which is a sign that they will fit in better here in the long run.
nandemo 17y ago
I don't understand why people think that some company's hiring process is broken because they reject good or even excellent people. A hiring process is bad only if it leads you to hire incompetent people or -- to be more precise -- people who you later regret having hired. > ignoring experience by offering salaries or positions significantly below candidate's current levels in the industry. I've heard Microsoft also does that. Though I don't know their rationale, I think it's in line with these two assumptions: 1) There's a large variation in skill among programmers 2) There's no strong correlation between programming skill and years of experience So while newly grads with no work experience will likely get an above average pay in those companies, more experienced people might take a pay cut. I think it makes sense.

btilly 17y ago

Let's walk through the criticisms you make. unfocused interview loops leading to poor feedback Yes, and it sounds like that is an issue they are trying to address that. much too long process between phone screen and receiving approval from MTV Absolutely. I am an outlier there. I took over a year from initial interview to hire thanks to the hiring freeze. I'd like to see us A/B test different interview formats to figure out how much of the process we can remove without hurting the performance of the people we hire. a focus on hiring those good at interviewing and not those good at engineering (hiring scores do not correlate with performance scores) This is not so simple. There is a skill to impressing people, and everyone has trouble limiting its impact on interviews. My impression is that Google does much better than most. For instance how many times have you heard someone say that their impression was really good, but when they went through the notes the person wasn't as good as they seemed. That is a case where someone's interview skills didn't have its usual impact. The best anyone has managed do with any hiring process is to filter out the vast majority of bad people. Successfully ranking the best is pretty much impossible. The toy model I offer at http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-intelligence.html http://bentilly.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-intelligence.ht... is a pretty good explanation of why. Just replace TST with "interview skills", INT with "actual performance" and IQ with "hiring scores". Since both actual performance and ability to interview affect your interview results, being really selective winds up with people who are good at both, and not those whose performance is truly exceptional. ignoring experience by offering salaries or positions significantly below candidate's current levels in the industry. This I'll actively disagree with. Google is in a strong negotiating position. They would be amiss to their shareholders to not negotiate well. Particularly since the ability difference between "got in solidly" and "just missed the cut" is rather small. But even so, if you're good at negotiating, the salary drop is much less. And there are various kinds of incentives that make your overall compensation significantly more than just your salary. Besides, whenever you put people into a different kind of job than they have had before, you run a real risk that they will prove not to be a good fit. A drop in compensation is only appropriate in that situation. And Google's environment is different enough that lots of people wind up in that situation. (For instance I'm an SRE. That's a Google role that you don't find elsewhere.)

privacy_token 17y ago
This I'll actively disagree with. Google is in a strong negotiating position. They would be amiss to their shareholders to not negotiate well. For someone with a short tenure at Google, I'm worried that you haven't seen the larger picture yet. The corporate policy is to hire the best and treat them well. But we are not hiring the best with consistency, instead often weighing cost and patience higher than talent and experience. Ask around about your colleague's referrals. For the very few that get through HC, many of those engineers pass up the opportunity to work at Google precisely because our offers were to drop them a level or two and 10-15% salary. Make no mistake, that this hurts Google. We would be much stronger to have the talent from Cisco, Amazon, and Microsoft that I've seen turn away Google.
- btilly 17y ago
  If you only look at the people who would have been better than average here and get lost for that reason, sure. What happens if you include the people who would have been worse here and get lost for that reason? Unless you can make the case that the ones who are unwilling to come really are better than the ones who do come, then there is no net difference. Given the difficulties with measuring relative talent at that level, this is a really hard case to make. (You could try to do it by A/B testing two different hiring processes...) In fact my inclination is to believe the opposite. People who are more excited by the culture, co-workers, and problems that Google has are generally willing to take that drop. Which is a sign that they will fit in better here in the long run.

nandemo 17y ago

I don't understand why people think that some company's hiring process is broken because they reject good or even excellent people. A hiring process is bad only if it leads you to hire incompetent people or -- to be more precise -- people who you later regret having hired. > ignoring experience by offering salaries or positions significantly below candidate's current levels in the industry. I've heard Microsoft also does that. Though I don't know their rationale, I think it's in line with these two assumptions: 1) There's a large variation in skill among programmers 2) There's no strong correlation between programming skill and years of experience So while newly grads with no work experience will likely get an above average pay in those companies, more experienced people might take a pay cut. I think it makes sense.