4 ms·

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

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.
- fixermark 10y ago
  Ah, I see what you mean and I think I agree; "well-crafted teams of specialists" are, hypothetically, one of the advantages of attempting to tackle a problem as a startup company as opposed to pulling the resources together within a large corporation to skunkworks the problem (though in terms of eventual success or failure, I don't know where to place that advantage relative to, say, having the luck / foresight to choose a problem that the market needs to solve and doesn't have a good solution already in the pipeline somewhere [and will need to solve long enough for a startup to reach minimum viable product] and the startup's capacity to trade equity for a staff that will work their bloody asses off).
- nolemurs 10y ago
  I definitely don't think that the generalist hiring practice is the best for all purposes - just that it makes a lot of sense for the bulk of the hiring at a large company, and that most the big tech companies do it. The big tech companies do also build well-crafted teams of specialists where appropriate (for instance, Google's Deep Mind team is all AI specialists). I don't know what sort of hiring process they use for those roles, but I would wager the process is a little more personalized, and also substantially more selective.
- marssaxman 10y ago
  The funny part is that for all the work Google has done building a hiring process that searches for talented generalists, the actual work they have to offer is really boringly specialized. Most of what's going on in there is just stacks upon stacks of web-service middleware, endlessly slinging RPCs back and forth at each other. If that's your bag, then yay, Google is a great place to work! - but for me it was really discouraging to realize, four months in, that no more than ten per cent of Google was doing anything I was ever likely to care about. I didn't last long, and wouldn't go back (not that they'd be likely to want 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.

fixermark 10y ago
Ah, I see what you mean and I think I agree; "well-crafted teams of specialists" are, hypothetically, one of the advantages of attempting to tackle a problem as a startup company as opposed to pulling the resources together within a large corporation to skunkworks the problem (though in terms of eventual success or failure, I don't know where to place that advantage relative to, say, having the luck / foresight to choose a problem that the market needs to solve and doesn't have a good solution already in the pipeline somewhere [and will need to solve long enough for a startup to reach minimum viable product] and the startup's capacity to trade equity for a staff that will work their bloody asses off).
nolemurs 10y ago
I definitely don't think that the generalist hiring practice is the best for all purposes - just that it makes a lot of sense for the bulk of the hiring at a large company, and that most the big tech companies do it. The big tech companies do also build well-crafted teams of specialists where appropriate (for instance, Google's Deep Mind team is all AI specialists). I don't know what sort of hiring process they use for those roles, but I would wager the process is a little more personalized, and also substantially more selective.
marssaxman 10y ago
The funny part is that for all the work Google has done building a hiring process that searches for talented generalists, the actual work they have to offer is really boringly specialized. Most of what's going on in there is just stacks upon stacks of web-service middleware, endlessly slinging RPCs back and forth at each other. If that's your bag, then yay, Google is a great place to work! - but for me it was really discouraging to realize, four months in, that no more than ten per cent of Google was doing anything I was ever likely to care about. I didn't last long, and wouldn't go back (not that they'd be likely to want me).