5 ms·

The experiences that people describe here just confirm something that many of us has learned a long time ago: NOBODY HAS "FIGURED OUT" HIRING ! Not Google, no

The experiences that people describe here just confirm something that many of us has learned a long time ago: NOBODY HAS "FIGURED OUT" HIRING ! Not Google, not Apple, no one. Sure, some places (and individual interviewers) are better at it than others. But at the end of the day, hiring is a deeply subjective process with lots of error and uncertainty built into it's nature. The subjectivity is intrinsic. Places like Google can afford to be nonsensically picky and not suffer drastic consequences from it. They have a thick, never-ending stream of highly qualified candidates. At their volume of hiring, it doesn't matter to them if they screen out some folks that would have been brilliant hires, nor does it matter if they hire some promising but ultimately disappointing duds. All of that is OK. Sadly, however, it seems that small shops are trying to cargo-cult Google's hiring practices. That IS harmful to the company and the candidates, IMHO. I think folks in these non-FAANG companies should get trained on how to conduct interviews, especially if they're interviewing non-senior candidates. Interviewing is a skill in itself. It's not something that comes automatically with expertise nor is it something that can be left entirely to HR drones.

ghaff 5y ago
Or you hire people you know. Which isn't perfect, has it's own set of problems, and doesn't scale. But I can't really complain given it's how I've gotten every job (just a few) after grad school and my interviews have been mostly perfunctory.
- blacktriangle 5y ago
  Here on the other side of the FAANG spectrum working with and for other independent contractors and various small (5-20ish devs) consultancies, I'd say that hiring based on who you know and you your peers recomend is far and away the primary way work is done. The good news is, it's a very open network. We have a highly active Meetup scene, pretty regular public hackathons, annual small software conferences and un-conferences, and coworking spaces are (well were) packed. For the most part this has worked, people new to the community are able to find jobs and the people hiring them know what hey are getting. But also like you say, this doesn't really scale to larger operations.
- ghaff 5y ago
  >The good news is, it's a very open network. I'll accept the statement. But I will say that hiring from a network is at least a very different thing from hiring through a grueling set of often artificial interview hoops. It requires a potential candidate to have genuinely interacted at a higher than superficial level with a lot of people in a professional capacity. Which may not be harder than "leet code" but is certainly very different. And yes, all the big companies have referral programs but that's mostly just a very rough first pass as a lot of referrals are basically I'm connected with this candidate on linked in. Referral bonus please.
woofie11 5y ago
Pretend there's a Programming Quotient (PQ) which is like IQ. Let's say Google would like candidates with PQ>130 with 95% confidence. Google has an error with std. div. of 15 points in measurement of PQ in jobs interviews. Google then needs to set the hiring bar at 160 PQ in order to get those candidates. This: - screens most qualified candidates out; but - most candidates who do screen in are qualified Statistics would suggest this leaves you with 95% qualified candidates. A more precise Bayesian analysis will show you don't end up with 95% qualified employees, but the basic idea works -- it's still a majority. You set an impossibly high bar, so that candidates hired need to be qualified AND lucky. You discount unlucky candidates, but you don't hire (many) unqualified ones. The problem, of course, is that all Googlers are convinced they all have a PQ>160, and are superior to everyone else. That's where you get the obnoxious Google incompetent arrogance.
- cbm-vic-20 5y ago
  > all Googlers are convinced they all have a PQ>160, and are superior to everyone else. And likewise, other employers looking to hire ex-Googlers are convinced of the same.
  - wsc981 5y ago
    Well no-one ever got fired for buying IBM.
    - russh 5y ago
      They do now.
- CoolGuySteve 5y ago
  I’ve used Google’s software. I’m not sure they’re all that great. Someone just released a product that offloads Chrome to the cloud. Gmail has a very long loading screen. Hangouts was replaced by something like 4 incompatible apps. Android phones are significantly less power efficient than iPhones. YouTube copyright notices are trivial to game. Etc
heywherelogingo 5y ago
There's nothing to figure out. Relationships aren't a maths sum. They work out to varying degrees, and have too many variables and depth to predict. But the group of people with a reputation for having maths skills, a reputation for not have social skills are going to figure it out - what could go wrong?
nobleach 5y ago
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've been on both sides of the desk so many times. When I'm hiring, I'm trying so hard to recognize the person is nervous, probably interviewing at multiple places, and they don't want to be asked to solve stupid algorithmic puzzles that will never come up in their daily work. While interviewing, I try to recognize that they NEED to ascertain whether I can actually solve problems performantly and quickly. They also need to quickly decide if I'm worth the high dollars they're about to offer me. Because of this, I often hire people I've already worked with. I'm also often hired by people who've already worked with me. I hate that this leads to a very homogeneous experience... or even what might seem like gatekeeping. I've just found that the best indicator of how a person will perform, is already being familiar with their work.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
> Sure, some places (and individual interviewers) are better at it than others. In my, admittedly not super extensive experience, I tend to believe that about 1 in 10 companies actually knows how to run a hiring process. I'm not sure precisely what kind of error bounds I'd put on that, but I doubt I'm off by more than a factor of 2 either way.
ricardobayes 5y ago
we have, we don't have technical interviews anymore, just a 'cultural fit' discussion. coding has become so trivial anyone with a brain can piece together snippets from stackoverflow. do yourself a favor and if all you do is crud operations in a web app, don´t even bother with tech rounds.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  I'm really curious what company "we" is.

ghaff 5y ago

Or you hire people you know. Which isn't perfect, has it's own set of problems, and doesn't scale. But I can't really complain given it's how I've gotten every job (just a few) after grad school and my interviews have been mostly perfunctory.

blacktriangle 5y ago
Here on the other side of the FAANG spectrum working with and for other independent contractors and various small (5-20ish devs) consultancies, I'd say that hiring based on who you know and you your peers recomend is far and away the primary way work is done. The good news is, it's a very open network. We have a highly active Meetup scene, pretty regular public hackathons, annual small software conferences and un-conferences, and coworking spaces are (well were) packed. For the most part this has worked, people new to the community are able to find jobs and the people hiring them know what hey are getting. But also like you say, this doesn't really scale to larger operations.
ghaff 5y ago
>The good news is, it's a very open network. I'll accept the statement. But I will say that hiring from a network is at least a very different thing from hiring through a grueling set of often artificial interview hoops. It requires a potential candidate to have genuinely interacted at a higher than superficial level with a lot of people in a professional capacity. Which may not be harder than "leet code" but is certainly very different. And yes, all the big companies have referral programs but that's mostly just a very rough first pass as a lot of referrals are basically I'm connected with this candidate on linked in. Referral bonus please.

woofie11 5y ago

Pretend there's a Programming Quotient (PQ) which is like IQ. Let's say Google would like candidates with PQ>130 with 95% confidence. Google has an error with std. div. of 15 points in measurement of PQ in jobs interviews. Google then needs to set the hiring bar at 160 PQ in order to get those candidates. This: - screens most qualified candidates out; but - most candidates who do screen in are qualified Statistics would suggest this leaves you with 95% qualified candidates. A more precise Bayesian analysis will show you don't end up with 95% qualified employees, but the basic idea works -- it's still a majority. You set an impossibly high bar, so that candidates hired need to be qualified AND lucky. You discount unlucky candidates, but you don't hire (many) unqualified ones. The problem, of course, is that all Googlers are convinced they all have a PQ>160, and are superior to everyone else. That's where you get the obnoxious Google incompetent arrogance.

cbm-vic-20 5y ago
> all Googlers are convinced they all have a PQ>160, and are superior to everyone else. And likewise, other employers looking to hire ex-Googlers are convinced of the same.
- wsc981 5y ago
  Well no-one ever got fired for buying IBM.
  - russh 5y ago
    They do now.
CoolGuySteve 5y ago
I’ve used Google’s software. I’m not sure they’re all that great. Someone just released a product that offloads Chrome to the cloud. Gmail has a very long loading screen. Hangouts was replaced by something like 4 incompatible apps. Android phones are significantly less power efficient than iPhones. YouTube copyright notices are trivial to game. Etc

heywherelogingo 5y ago

There's nothing to figure out. Relationships aren't a maths sum. They work out to varying degrees, and have too many variables and depth to predict. But the group of people with a reputation for having maths skills, a reputation for not have social skills are going to figure it out - what could go wrong?

nobleach 5y ago

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I've been on both sides of the desk so many times. When I'm hiring, I'm trying so hard to recognize the person is nervous, probably interviewing at multiple places, and they don't want to be asked to solve stupid algorithmic puzzles that will never come up in their daily work. While interviewing, I try to recognize that they NEED to ascertain whether I can actually solve problems performantly and quickly. They also need to quickly decide if I'm worth the high dollars they're about to offer me. Because of this, I often hire people I've already worked with. I'm also often hired by people who've already worked with me. I hate that this leads to a very homogeneous experience... or even what might seem like gatekeeping. I've just found that the best indicator of how a person will perform, is already being familiar with their work.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

> Sure, some places (and individual interviewers) are better at it than others. In my, admittedly not super extensive experience, I tend to believe that about 1 in 10 companies actually knows how to run a hiring process. I'm not sure precisely what kind of error bounds I'd put on that, but I doubt I'm off by more than a factor of 2 either way.

ricardobayes 5y ago

we have, we don't have technical interviews anymore, just a 'cultural fit' discussion. coding has become so trivial anyone with a brain can piece together snippets from stackoverflow. do yourself a favor and if all you do is crud operations in a web app, don´t even bother with tech rounds.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
I'm really curious what company "we" is.