7 ms·

Its the London Cabbie(1) method. They're not looking to fill any particular role. They're just looking for smart people (for the value of smart that fits their

Its the London Cabbie(1) method. They're not looking to fill any particular role. They're just looking for smart people (for the value of smart that fits their biases). They just need as many warm bodies as possible to ram through their test so that a few trickle out the bottom of the funnel to keep the ranks from shrinking. If too many started getting hired, they'd add competitive basket weaving to the skillset if that's what it took to balance it. (1)http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/special-features/2014/08/140808-london-cabbies-knowledge-cabs-hansom-uber-hippocampus-livery/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/special-features/201...

ryandrake 10y ago
> They're not looking to fill any particular role. They're just looking for smart people I've found this to be decidedly not true, from many recruiter contacts. They have a role in mind they're trying to fill and if you point out that it's far more junior than what you're looking for, the conversation's over. Think about how must companies hire. The hiring manager fights internally and finally gets a req for a very specific role. They have to fill that role. Having a generally smart person would be great but they have this immediate need and they can only hire one person. And once that req is filled, no more hiring until you get another req. I'd love to see a company literally just looking to snap up smart people and then have them come in and kind of define their own role, one where they can add the most value. Nobody does this!
- Le_SDT 10y ago
  I think Valve works a bit like that from what I've read.
- rarec 10y ago
  Nobody does that because being smart is of no guarantee that this person can be of any use to a business.
  - the_watcher 10y ago
    Are you entirely excluding university recruiting from this? Because consulting firms and investment banks routinely recruit smart people without any demonstrable experience doing what those companies plan to train them to do.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - VLM 10y ago
      That's almost exclusively ivy. We need a Yale guy, any Yale guy, doesn't matter who, just need it for the list of accomplishments. Then we can use our new "ivy atmosphere" to get that specific guy from Stanford or whatever. The only place hiring generic warm bodies at random state-U is Starbucks.
      - the_watcher 10y ago
        Consulting firms and investment banks recruit plenty out of my alma mater, UCLA (a public, state university that isn't considered part of the Ivy Plus). They did the same at University of Texas, where I went to graduate school, another public, state university.
  - Arnt 10y ago
    You make it sound as if some other hiring method provides a guarantee.
- jowiar 10y ago
  Google is a little bit of both. At least from having gone through the process (and ultimately turning down an offer due to the ridiculousness of the process). There's a massive funnel where they're trying to bring in a bunch of smart people, then teams basically say "I have this position available, who has gone through the funnel that is a skills match for our specific teams". > I'd love to see a company literally just looking to snap up smart people and then have them come in and kind of define their own role, one where they can add the most value. Nobody does this! At least with hiring out of college, a lot of companies do the "Let's snap up smart people, then train them to do the specific job we need done". In my experience, this has been particularly prevalent among the big consulting firms.
- btilly 10y ago
  I've seen the opposite, from close observation on both sides. The recruiter may start out with a role that they are trying to fill, but they have plenty of other roles that they could be happy to put you in. And furthermore for the right candidate, they don't have to figure out the role up front. When I was hired by Google, SRE poached me out of a pipeline to a different group. (Accepting that offer was a mistake on both sides, but it was a learning experience.) When I was hired by Amazon, I was contacted for a job in Seattle, then got hired in Orange County. That said, plenty of candidates start the process by being too arrogant about what they can demand. Recruiters know to look for that and stop wasting their own time taking these people seriously. That's why pointing out that a proposed role is too junior for you is likely to result in being dropped.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    Interesting, thanks for the insight. Funny how two people can look at the same recruiting environment in the same industry and have two totally different experiences. > That said, plenty of candidates start the process by being too arrogant about what they can demand. Recruiters know to look for that and stop wasting their own time taking these people seriously. Maybe, but I think it saves both sides time. If I'm shopping for a new sports car and a salesman approaches me with a great deal on a 10 year old pick-up truck, it's helpful for both of us if I make my expectations clear right away. Most Recruiters: "I have this role you'll be great for! Let's see if it's a great match!" Better Recruiter: "What are you looking for? I work with a lot of companies and probably have a great match!"
    - btilly 10y ago
      Yeah, I've seen those recruiters. And they tend to not be honest about who they are actually working for. So, for example, you'll get contacted by someone who is recruiting for a job at a big name company, from someone who isn't from that company and doesn't know what is actually available from there. They only know about the one role that they were told about. These things are generally a mess if you start out that way. Waste of time and money on both sides.
  - chris11 10y ago
- nolemurs 10y ago
  > I'd love to see a company literally just looking to snap up smart people and then have them come in and kind of define their own role, one where they can add the most value. Nobody does this! I don't know about letting people "define their own role", but a lot of the biggest companies are constantly hiring without a specific role in mind. If you've got thousands of employees then your best strategy is just hire the smartest people you can find, and figure out how to use them effectively - you have enough roles available that you'll find something for anyone to do, and while not every role you need filled is someone's dream job, a combination of internal mobility between teams and great benefits and pay will attract a lot of good candidates.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    The problem, from my perspective, is that I (as a candidate) have certain things I want to work on. You might have something I can do, but is it something I want to do? I don't want to be hired into a general pool; I want to be hired for one of the specialties I am interested in.
    - fixermark 10y ago
      The problem is that what interests you now may not be economically valuable next year. They want you there past one project, because the future is too murky to guarantee your current role will continue to be needed. Google et. al. are hiring generalists because they want people of a mindset such that when the entire special-purpose they hired them for dissolves, they're willing and eager to ramp up on a new project and new challenges instead of saying "Well, the foo project is closing down and foo's pretty much what I wanted to do, so I guess I'm going to quit (and take all the knowledge and skills Google spent time and money to train me up on with me)."
      - vonmoltke 10y ago
        You are taking a much too narrow view of "specialization". If project foo is really the only project at Google that uses the skills I like and know best, I am probably not going to apply there. I get that there are people who don't care (much) what kind of code they are working on. If those are the people Google exclusively wants, that's fine. I just won't have a place there. I do not think this is a generally-advisable strategy, though, as the GGP I was responding to indicated. In fact, I'd argue that well-crafted teams of specialists are superior to, but harder to staff than, teams of generalists.
arielweisberg 10y ago
And in theory it should totally be worth it as a candidate unless they are coasting on reputation. Otherwise the supply of candidates would dry up. In practice it wasn't for me, but I refused to tell them how much I made just to see what would happen. If you interview at Google and they ask how much you make you should probably tell them or you might get a weak non-negotiable offer. Unless what you make is already far less than their "standard offer." It would be a shame to waste all that effort by sticking to negotiation techniques that maybe don't work on Google for regular candidates.
- beachstartup 10y ago
  refusing to tell your prospective employer how much you want to get paid is a 'negotiation tactic'?
  - gcp 10y ago
    I thought it was pretty well understood that you should never name a number, and if you're forced to, you should say 5 times the number you had in mind.
    - beachstartup 10y ago
      that's absurd. you should name the price you expect, and not go below your minimum. would you hire a plumber that refuses to name his rate, and then when pushed, tells you a number 5 times higher than normal? why do you think any other employment negotiation is any different? if you "never name a number", the person on the other end is going to know you're inexperienced and operating on cargo cult mythology, and will simply take advantage of you.
      - Apocryphon 10y ago
        The 5 times part is surely a joke, but not naming a number is like HN-promulgated salary negotiation 101 http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ https://www.twilio.com/blog/2016/02/patrick-mckenzie-on-salary-negotiation-job-hunting.html https://www.twilio.com/blog/2016/02/patrick-mckenzie-on-sala... Definitely would be good if someone wrote a counter-response to this prevailing meme
Spooky23 10y ago
There are a few different processes imo. I have been through what you describe. A recruiter reaches out and tries to get you in their funnel. For me, it's a no-go because of my college background. (Unsexy school, shitty grades.) A family member was pursued by them very aggressively after making some presentations at significant conferences and getting praise in a book written by a high level business exec. This family member was received borderline harassing levels of outreach from recruiters from Google. It's pretty obvious there is some sort of targeted hunting list and KPIs associated with it.

ryandrake 10y ago

> They're not looking to fill any particular role. They're just looking for smart people I've found this to be decidedly not true, from many recruiter contacts. They have a role in mind they're trying to fill and if you point out that it's far more junior than what you're looking for, the conversation's over. Think about how must companies hire. The hiring manager fights internally and finally gets a req for a very specific role. They have to fill that role. Having a generally smart person would be great but they have this immediate need and they can only hire one person. And once that req is filled, no more hiring until you get another req. I'd love to see a company literally just looking to snap up smart people and then have them come in and kind of define their own role, one where they can add the most value. Nobody does this!

Le_SDT 10y ago
I think Valve works a bit like that from what I've read.
rarec 10y ago
Nobody does that because being smart is of no guarantee that this person can be of any use to a business.
- the_watcher 10y ago
  Are you entirely excluding university recruiting from this? Because consulting firms and investment banks routinely recruit smart people without any demonstrable experience doing what those companies plan to train them to do.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - VLM 10y ago
    That's almost exclusively ivy. We need a Yale guy, any Yale guy, doesn't matter who, just need it for the list of accomplishments. Then we can use our new "ivy atmosphere" to get that specific guy from Stanford or whatever. The only place hiring generic warm bodies at random state-U is Starbucks.
    - the_watcher 10y ago
      Consulting firms and investment banks recruit plenty out of my alma mater, UCLA (a public, state university that isn't considered part of the Ivy Plus). They did the same at University of Texas, where I went to graduate school, another public, state university.
- Arnt 10y ago
  You make it sound as if some other hiring method provides a guarantee.
jowiar 10y ago
Google is a little bit of both. At least from having gone through the process (and ultimately turning down an offer due to the ridiculousness of the process). There's a massive funnel where they're trying to bring in a bunch of smart people, then teams basically say "I have this position available, who has gone through the funnel that is a skills match for our specific teams". > I'd love to see a company literally just looking to snap up smart people and then have them come in and kind of define their own role, one where they can add the most value. Nobody does this! At least with hiring out of college, a lot of companies do the "Let's snap up smart people, then train them to do the specific job we need done". In my experience, this has been particularly prevalent among the big consulting firms.
btilly 10y ago
I've seen the opposite, from close observation on both sides. The recruiter may start out with a role that they are trying to fill, but they have plenty of other roles that they could be happy to put you in. And furthermore for the right candidate, they don't have to figure out the role up front. When I was hired by Google, SRE poached me out of a pipeline to a different group. (Accepting that offer was a mistake on both sides, but it was a learning experience.) When I was hired by Amazon, I was contacted for a job in Seattle, then got hired in Orange County. That said, plenty of candidates start the process by being too arrogant about what they can demand. Recruiters know to look for that and stop wasting their own time taking these people seriously. That's why pointing out that a proposed role is too junior for you is likely to result in being dropped.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Interesting, thanks for the insight. Funny how two people can look at the same recruiting environment in the same industry and have two totally different experiences. > That said, plenty of candidates start the process by being too arrogant about what they can demand. Recruiters know to look for that and stop wasting their own time taking these people seriously. Maybe, but I think it saves both sides time. If I'm shopping for a new sports car and a salesman approaches me with a great deal on a 10 year old pick-up truck, it's helpful for both of us if I make my expectations clear right away. Most Recruiters: "I have this role you'll be great for! Let's see if it's a great match!" Better Recruiter: "What are you looking for? I work with a lot of companies and probably have a great match!"
  - btilly 10y ago
    Yeah, I've seen those recruiters. And they tend to not be honest about who they are actually working for. So, for example, you'll get contacted by someone who is recruiting for a job at a big name company, from someone who isn't from that company and doesn't know what is actually available from there. They only know about the one role that they were told about. These things are generally a mess if you start out that way. Waste of time and money on both sides.
- chris11 10y ago
nolemurs 10y ago
> I'd love to see a company literally just looking to snap up smart people and then have them come in and kind of define their own role, one where they can add the most value. Nobody does this! I don't know about letting people "define their own role", but a lot of the biggest companies are constantly hiring without a specific role in mind. If you've got thousands of employees then your best strategy is just hire the smartest people you can find, and figure out how to use them effectively - you have enough roles available that you'll find something for anyone to do, and while not every role you need filled is someone's dream job, a combination of internal mobility between teams and great benefits and pay will attract a lot of good candidates.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  The problem, from my perspective, is that I (as a candidate) have certain things I want to work on. You might have something I can do, but is it something I want to do? I don't want to be hired into a general pool; I want to be hired for one of the specialties I am interested in.
  - fixermark 10y ago
    The problem is that what interests you now may not be economically valuable next year. They want you there past one project, because the future is too murky to guarantee your current role will continue to be needed. Google et. al. are hiring generalists because they want people of a mindset such that when the entire special-purpose they hired them for dissolves, they're willing and eager to ramp up on a new project and new challenges instead of saying "Well, the foo project is closing down and foo's pretty much what I wanted to do, so I guess I'm going to quit (and take all the knowledge and skills Google spent time and money to train me up on with me)."
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      You are taking a much too narrow view of "specialization". If project foo is really the only project at Google that uses the skills I like and know best, I am probably not going to apply there. I get that there are people who don't care (much) what kind of code they are working on. If those are the people Google exclusively wants, that's fine. I just won't have a place there. I do not think this is a generally-advisable strategy, though, as the GGP I was responding to indicated. In fact, I'd argue that well-crafted teams of specialists are superior to, but harder to staff than, teams of generalists.

arielweisberg 10y ago

And in theory it should totally be worth it as a candidate unless they are coasting on reputation. Otherwise the supply of candidates would dry up. In practice it wasn't for me, but I refused to tell them how much I made just to see what would happen. If you interview at Google and they ask how much you make you should probably tell them or you might get a weak non-negotiable offer. Unless what you make is already far less than their "standard offer." It would be a shame to waste all that effort by sticking to negotiation techniques that maybe don't work on Google for regular candidates.

beachstartup 10y ago
refusing to tell your prospective employer how much you want to get paid is a 'negotiation tactic'?
- gcp 10y ago
  I thought it was pretty well understood that you should never name a number, and if you're forced to, you should say 5 times the number you had in mind.
  - beachstartup 10y ago
    that's absurd. you should name the price you expect, and not go below your minimum. would you hire a plumber that refuses to name his rate, and then when pushed, tells you a number 5 times higher than normal? why do you think any other employment negotiation is any different? if you "never name a number", the person on the other end is going to know you're inexperienced and operating on cargo cult mythology, and will simply take advantage of you.
    - Apocryphon 10y ago
      The 5 times part is surely a joke, but not naming a number is like HN-promulgated salary negotiation 101 http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/ https://www.twilio.com/blog/2016/02/patrick-mckenzie-on-salary-negotiation-job-hunting.html https://www.twilio.com/blog/2016/02/patrick-mckenzie-on-sala... Definitely would be good if someone wrote a counter-response to this prevailing meme

Spooky23 10y ago

There are a few different processes imo. I have been through what you describe. A recruiter reaches out and tries to get you in their funnel. For me, it's a no-go because of my college background. (Unsexy school, shitty grades.) A family member was pursued by them very aggressively after making some presentations at significant conferences and getting praise in a book written by a high level business exec. This family member was received borderline harassing levels of outreach from recruiters from Google. It's pretty obvious there is some sort of targeted hunting list and KPIs associated with it.