3 ms·

I always hate this sort of phrasing, because it sounds to me like they're employees who are being laid off who get an "opportunity" to submit their resumes agai

I always hate this sort of phrasing, because it sounds to me like they're employees who are being laid off who get an "opportunity" to submit their resumes again as applicants. Might as well send your application to SpaceX and see if you can reach a higher altitude.

unishark 5y ago
Yeah IBM or anyone else could say the same thing. "Many of our layed-off employees will be able to find jobs at Google so it's cool."
kmonsen 5y ago
That is not how it worked when I was in Google, regular developers were given as much chance possible to find another team. I am sure it sucks and was not nice, but they did really try their best to find other positions for people.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lclarkmichalek 5y ago
Pretty easy to find another role internally though. Few hiring managers want to take a risk on a random external candidate over an internal transfer that knows how things work
erhk 5y ago
The process is equivalent to the internal team transfer process which is incredibly fluid and accommodating. Sometimes people are encouraged to switch teams every 2 years for however long their tenure is in the name of knowledge breadth and transfer. New eyes on an old project are valuable.
jowday 5y ago
If it's anything like my experience switching between Alphabet-owned companies, it's a lot like switching teams at Google. A couple of chats with a manager and you transfer to that team. Managers almost always take internal transfers over external hires, since they have a good idea of your performance, plenty of references, and knowledge that you'll require much less ramp up time. It's not at all like submitting your resume again as an external applicant.
- jopsen 5y ago
  I'm guessing your resume didn't have to pass through two levels of committees either? (right?)
  - Google234 5y ago
    Loom hiring already went through that - if it getting what you are saying.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- saalweachter 5y ago
  Also the internal job boards are much more detailed than the external "engineers wanted" posting, and you can ping people internally to chat, so it's much less of a "jump into the unknown" than your typical job hunt.
- xiphias2 5y ago
  The usual problem is that to get promoted to the next level, you have to start building your promotion package again from 0, so these random moves can take away years of life from someone's carrier. At the same time Loom was quite visible project, so I guess it was easy to get promoted there.
  - andrewmcwatters 5y ago
    This is such a wild concept to me, along with the promotion committees, or whatever they’re called.
  - wanderingshi 5y ago
    that's part of the risk you take when you pick a team
- steelframe 5y ago
  > Managers almost always take internal transfers over external hires, since they have a good idea of your performance, plenty of references, and knowledge that you'll require much less ramp up time One of my biggest mistakes as a newly promoted manager at Google was to take an internal transfer without asking enough questions as to why that person was transferring. It turns out that sometimes an internal transfer is happening because their current manager is desperate to get rid of that employee, and it's much, much easier to do so via an internal transfer rather than going through a separation. It turned out that the employee who transferred to my team, while technically competent in most ways, was extremely frustrating to work with because of the degree to which they refused to accept feedback and change their behaviors. While they acted very pleasant and always used the "right" words in communications, if you tried to give them any feedback on their code, they would litigate every single last detail of the feedback and simply would never accept something like, "All of your peers think this change makes the codebase harder to read and maintain for reasons [X] and [Y]. If you did things this other way instead, see how that's more elegant?" Their response was habitually, "Well it adheres to the letter of the style guide, and there are no specific rules supporting your requests, so I won't change anything you're asking me to change because I don't think that's reasonable." Repeat that for literally every single comment in every single code review, and you can see how nobody would want to work with this person. After several months of seeing first-hand what the problematic behaviors were and their pernicious impact on team morale, I was finally able to "read between the lines" in that employee's previous peer feedback, since none of their previous peers felt comfortable being direct and forthcoming in the written perf feedback about how working with that employee made them feel. All of the feedback simply focused on the technical quality of that person's work, which appeared fine for someone in that role and level. Eventually after enough damage was being done, my own management asked him to transfer to a more experienced manager elsewhere in the org who then helped "manage out" the employee after their behaviors yet again caused rifts in that new team. Lesson learned. I will never again just look at the role, level, and historical performance scores of an internal transfer candidate and "trust the system," but I'll instead really dig as deep as I can and try to arrange for some trial tasks with the team before accepting a formal transfer. For the record, just looking purely at the statistics of my team over several years, the new external hires ended up being less of a risk than the internal transfers.
smadge 5y ago
Transferring to a new role within a large company is a completely different process than applying externally.

unishark 5y ago

Yeah IBM or anyone else could say the same thing. "Many of our layed-off employees will be able to find jobs at Google so it's cool."

kmonsen 5y ago

That is not how it worked when I was in Google, regular developers were given as much chance possible to find another team. I am sure it sucks and was not nice, but they did really try their best to find other positions for people.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lclarkmichalek 5y ago

Pretty easy to find another role internally though. Few hiring managers want to take a risk on a random external candidate over an internal transfer that knows how things work

erhk 5y ago

The process is equivalent to the internal team transfer process which is incredibly fluid and accommodating. Sometimes people are encouraged to switch teams every 2 years for however long their tenure is in the name of knowledge breadth and transfer. New eyes on an old project are valuable.

jowday 5y ago

If it's anything like my experience switching between Alphabet-owned companies, it's a lot like switching teams at Google. A couple of chats with a manager and you transfer to that team. Managers almost always take internal transfers over external hires, since they have a good idea of your performance, plenty of references, and knowledge that you'll require much less ramp up time. It's not at all like submitting your resume again as an external applicant.

jopsen 5y ago
I'm guessing your resume didn't have to pass through two levels of committees either? (right?)
- Google234 5y ago
  Loom hiring already went through that - if it getting what you are saying.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
saalweachter 5y ago
Also the internal job boards are much more detailed than the external "engineers wanted" posting, and you can ping people internally to chat, so it's much less of a "jump into the unknown" than your typical job hunt.
xiphias2 5y ago
The usual problem is that to get promoted to the next level, you have to start building your promotion package again from 0, so these random moves can take away years of life from someone's carrier. At the same time Loom was quite visible project, so I guess it was easy to get promoted there.
- andrewmcwatters 5y ago
  This is such a wild concept to me, along with the promotion committees, or whatever they’re called.
- wanderingshi 5y ago
  that's part of the risk you take when you pick a team
steelframe 5y ago
> Managers almost always take internal transfers over external hires, since they have a good idea of your performance, plenty of references, and knowledge that you'll require much less ramp up time One of my biggest mistakes as a newly promoted manager at Google was to take an internal transfer without asking enough questions as to why that person was transferring. It turns out that sometimes an internal transfer is happening because their current manager is desperate to get rid of that employee, and it's much, much easier to do so via an internal transfer rather than going through a separation. It turned out that the employee who transferred to my team, while technically competent in most ways, was extremely frustrating to work with because of the degree to which they refused to accept feedback and change their behaviors. While they acted very pleasant and always used the "right" words in communications, if you tried to give them any feedback on their code, they would litigate every single last detail of the feedback and simply would never accept something like, "All of your peers think this change makes the codebase harder to read and maintain for reasons [X] and [Y]. If you did things this other way instead, see how that's more elegant?" Their response was habitually, "Well it adheres to the letter of the style guide, and there are no specific rules supporting your requests, so I won't change anything you're asking me to change because I don't think that's reasonable." Repeat that for literally every single comment in every single code review, and you can see how nobody would want to work with this person. After several months of seeing first-hand what the problematic behaviors were and their pernicious impact on team morale, I was finally able to "read between the lines" in that employee's previous peer feedback, since none of their previous peers felt comfortable being direct and forthcoming in the written perf feedback about how working with that employee made them feel. All of the feedback simply focused on the technical quality of that person's work, which appeared fine for someone in that role and level. Eventually after enough damage was being done, my own management asked him to transfer to a more experienced manager elsewhere in the org who then helped "manage out" the employee after their behaviors yet again caused rifts in that new team. Lesson learned. I will never again just look at the role, level, and historical performance scores of an internal transfer candidate and "trust the system," but I'll instead really dig as deep as I can and try to arrange for some trial tasks with the team before accepting a formal transfer. For the record, just looking purely at the statistics of my team over several years, the new external hires ended up being less of a risk than the internal transfers.

smadge 5y ago

Transferring to a new role within a large company is a completely different process than applying externally.