7 ms·
They allow transfers from Google, rather than a full interview slate. My bet is transfers outweigh anything you're praising here.
by codemac 7y ago
They allow transfers from Google, rather than a full interview slate.
My bet is transfers outweigh anything you're praising here.
- wpietri 7y agoWow, that's clever. Also dangerous, of course. If I were at Google and had a direct report who was not up to snuff, I might point them at such a convenient option.
- sgtnoodle 7y agoInternal transfers still get interviewed to a degree.
- Shebanator 7y agoI believe the hiring manager has access to your perf history, which is far more valuable than interviews.
- mindvirus 7y agoThat's one way to look at it. The other is that it creates an internal market - as a manager, you have to make your team attractive or people will transfer away and people won't transfer to it.
- vl 7y agoIn reality, market is not that liquid: interesting projects have no headcount, problematic projects are available. At the end of the day you need to know people and come with recommendations to actually transfer to something good. Ask me how I know.
- username90 7y agoYou can do a 20% project for them even if they don't have headcount and managers can view your performance history so it is not hard to join an interesting project if you are good. Also if you are good enough they will add headcount to the team so you can join even if there weren't any before. Ask me how I know.
- vl 7y agoYou are just advancing my point. I agree with what you say, but my point is that what is taunted as egalitarian fair system - “once you are in, it’s easy to transfer, just click the Transfer button” in reality doesn’t work like this at all.
- username90 7y agoAh right, if your point is that you can't just transfer to a good team when you get in I agree, but it sounded as if being friends with the right people was required. It is all up to manager discretion, if they like you for any reason (beer or skills) you are good. Skills are usually easier to work with since it can be used to ask for more headcount while nobody would give you headcount so you can hire your beer buddy (I hope...).
- KKKKkkkk1 7y agoHow do you know?
- vl 7y agoChanged projects while at Google :)
- thedance 7y agoPeople who get bad ratings can't move as freely.
- cmrdporcupine 7y agoManager at the team you're transferring to gets to see your perf history before they accept.
- steelframe 7y agoVery, very few Googlers are "not up to snuff." As controversial as their interview process is, it does tend to let only highly capable people through. If a Googler is not meeting expectations, the vast majority of the time it's effectively remedied with the proverbial "new manager and 6 more months" treatment.
- rainyMammoth 7y agoDisagree. I have worked at Google, other startups and middle sized companies. By far the least productive place per employee was Google. Not that the average employee was stupid but the average output per engineer was comically low. A lot of Googlers take it very easy there and work 10 to 5. And to be more on point, I met definitely more than a couple subpar employee that would be fired after a couple months in a startup.
- riantogo 7y agoSeems like your key metric is “hours spent at desk”. By that measure, you are probably correct.
- rainyMammoth 7y agoNo, my metric is output per engineer which losely correlates with hours spent at desk. The output quality and quantity was the lowest at Google
- Panini_Jones 7y agoHow are you measuring this other than the hours-spent-at-desk metric? Quality and quantity of what output?
- C1sc0cat 7y agoVery loosely for example I was reviewing a well known uk job site just spending a couple of hours to check the site out And I diagnosed a serious problem and got a fix actioned - the problem had cost them > 500,000 k in less than a week.
- UncleMeat 7y agoAnd if I found out that a manager was shipping low performers to other people to deal with rather than doing their job and either helping that person or managing them out...