3 ms·

Google's recruiting system isn't "failing" unless they're hiring unqualified devs. Google gets tons of applicants. The point isn't to prevent qualified applica

Google's recruiting system isn't "failing" unless they're hiring unqualified devs. Google gets tons of applicants. The point isn't to prevent qualified applicants from being rejected, it's to prevent unqualified applicants from being hired. They can do whatever arbitrary, unfair filters they want as long as they still have at least some applicants left, and as long as those people are adequate.

kevingadd 5y ago
If your teams desperately need qualified staff to get things across the finish line and you can't hire them, your recruiting system is failing. This is a real problem Google has had in the past (I don't know if they've fixed it since I left.)
- Jensson 5y ago
  That is the main feature of the recruiting system, the whole reason they do it is so that managers can't circumvent the standard process no matter what. It might lead to some problems you don't have in the old nepotism ridden systems, but it also solves many of the problems the old systems created. So you can't say it is failing just because it doesn't do everything right.
perl4ever 5y ago
I agree in part, but they are failing if their system is imitated by everyone else. Every time there is a thread on HN where people are debating the right way to filter applicants, the premise that goes unexamined is that there is one optimum, whether it's Google's procedures or something else. But it's not just Google that can't hire everyone qualified. It's every employer. Say, for simplicity, that any employer is only able to hire 1% of their applicants. If they all used some optimal procedure, then they will all be fighting over the same 1% and the other 99% will be unhireable and start a revolution or something. This is inescapable, I think, no matter what the so-called optimum is. It's like...a Doomsday Schelling Point. Each company can disregard the fate of those filtered out, but only if their methods are sufficiently diverse.
cratermoon 5y ago
They could be hiring unqualified developers, there's nothing that can determine with certainty that the ones they are hiring are any more qualified than the ones that fail for arbitrary reasons, or are simply unable to hire more qualified people because nobody really good wants to put up with the pointless gantlet. Or, they could be hiring developers that, although qualified by the standards of the hiring process, are in fact unsuited to implement things Google needs to retain customers and stay profitable, but that's something we'll find out later. In either case, the assertion that the system is correctly separating the qualified from the unqualified is unproven.

kevingadd 5y ago

If your teams desperately need qualified staff to get things across the finish line and you can't hire them, your recruiting system is failing. This is a real problem Google has had in the past (I don't know if they've fixed it since I left.)

Jensson 5y ago
That is the main feature of the recruiting system, the whole reason they do it is so that managers can't circumvent the standard process no matter what. It might lead to some problems you don't have in the old nepotism ridden systems, but it also solves many of the problems the old systems created. So you can't say it is failing just because it doesn't do everything right.

perl4ever 5y ago

I agree in part, but they are failing if their system is imitated by everyone else. Every time there is a thread on HN where people are debating the right way to filter applicants, the premise that goes unexamined is that there is one optimum, whether it's Google's procedures or something else. But it's not just Google that can't hire everyone qualified. It's every employer. Say, for simplicity, that any employer is only able to hire 1% of their applicants. If they all used some optimal procedure, then they will all be fighting over the same 1% and the other 99% will be unhireable and start a revolution or something. This is inescapable, I think, no matter what the so-called optimum is. It's like...a Doomsday Schelling Point. Each company can disregard the fate of those filtered out, but only if their methods are sufficiently diverse.

cratermoon 5y ago

They could be hiring unqualified developers, there's nothing that can determine with certainty that the ones they are hiring are any more qualified than the ones that fail for arbitrary reasons, or are simply unable to hire more qualified people because nobody really good wants to put up with the pointless gantlet. Or, they could be hiring developers that, although qualified by the standards of the hiring process, are in fact unsuited to implement things Google needs to retain customers and stay profitable, but that's something we'll find out later. In either case, the assertion that the system is correctly separating the qualified from the unqualified is unproven.