4 ms·

IMO, any strategy or attempt to filter out the "right" candidates can always be gamed that a change of culture is inevitable. Iron Law of Bureaucracy. You can d

IMO, any strategy or attempt to filter out the "right" candidates can always be gamed that a change of culture is inevitable. Iron Law of Bureaucracy. You can delay it, but it will happen. Just look at Google today despite their massive investments in the hiring process. I think if you really want to preserve your culture long term, you need to start looking to exporting your culture outwards into general society rather than filtering things in. Try to make the general candidate more like you in the first place.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Your solution is "change society" because you think that's easier than fixing your hiring process???
- passion__desire 2y ago
  In order to make an apple pie, first invent the universe.
- tylerchilds 2y ago
  That's roughly how Apple became Apple. Computers as a lifestyle. Google could have made the world googley, but they kept the googley to themselves.
  - busterarm 2y ago
    Every single successful Google product except Search, Gmail and Chrome was an acquisition. The last two almost didn't even get released and the third relied on poaching a bunch of Firefox engineers. Google can't build anything, only buy.
    - tylerchilds 2y ago
      and when they can build things, like google inbox, the project gets shut down for being too productive, decreasing time on site and negatively affecting revenue.
- corimaith 2y ago
  I agree it's hard, but it is A solution rather than no solution. I just don't think you can "fix" the process with a purely isolationist approach. You either change the world or the world changes you.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    Well, frankly, I think your diagnosis is woefully incorrect. Google made 2 very straightforward conscious decisions regarding hiring that are responsible for their current problems: 1. They quite obviously put the bean counters in control. Google famously originally said "they were a different kind of company", and early on, they were. But it was a leadership decision to forever squeeze each additional penny out of their ads systems. I think some people may put the "turning point" as to when Ruth Porat joined, but I think it's colossally unfair to blame her - after all, she did a phenomenal job raising the stock price, which is basically the job of the CFO. But setting the vision and goals for the company comes from the very top. 2. Regarding their lack of ideological diversity, that was also a very conscious decision. I went to a Google hiring event about 8 or 9 years ago, and the hiring manager was very clear that her number one goal was increasing diversity by raising levels of underrepresented groups, and it was stated as a source of pride. Not technical excellence, not innovation, etc. If anything I think that mindset was inculcated at some of the elite tech companies before society at large.
busterarm 2y ago
Given how the culture of every company I've ever worked for was a stinking, nasty, high-school environment and how the companies' values did nothing but encourage ineptitude and mediocrity, I'm glad that companies absolutely suck at exporting their culture as much as they suck at building it. Your suggestion will give me nightmares for weeks.
- corimaith 2y ago
  I'd agree that whether a specific culture is worth preserving or not is another question. Change by itself is not necessarily good or bad. But my point of how internal culture gradually changes is in effect an exportation from another culture to this one. If the toxic practices you are describing were to begin to become relentlessly exported to the environment around you, remaining defensive dosen't work long term. You'd need to push back.
raincole 2y ago
Isn't Google the exact example of "exporting your culture outwards"...? It popularized algorithmatic puzzles via Google Code Jam way before LeetCode was a thing. I might be completely mistaken, but Google seems to be the one company that popularized free food among SV companies. And they have a slogan that became a meme, while not necessarily in a positive way.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

Your solution is "change society" because you think that's easier than fixing your hiring process???

passion__desire 2y ago
In order to make an apple pie, first invent the universe.
tylerchilds 2y ago
That's roughly how Apple became Apple. Computers as a lifestyle. Google could have made the world googley, but they kept the googley to themselves.
- busterarm 2y ago
  Every single successful Google product except Search, Gmail and Chrome was an acquisition. The last two almost didn't even get released and the third relied on poaching a bunch of Firefox engineers. Google can't build anything, only buy.
  - tylerchilds 2y ago
    and when they can build things, like google inbox, the project gets shut down for being too productive, decreasing time on site and negatively affecting revenue.
corimaith 2y ago
I agree it's hard, but it is A solution rather than no solution. I just don't think you can "fix" the process with a purely isolationist approach. You either change the world or the world changes you.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  Well, frankly, I think your diagnosis is woefully incorrect. Google made 2 very straightforward conscious decisions regarding hiring that are responsible for their current problems: 1. They quite obviously put the bean counters in control. Google famously originally said "they were a different kind of company", and early on, they were. But it was a leadership decision to forever squeeze each additional penny out of their ads systems. I think some people may put the "turning point" as to when Ruth Porat joined, but I think it's colossally unfair to blame her - after all, she did a phenomenal job raising the stock price, which is basically the job of the CFO. But setting the vision and goals for the company comes from the very top. 2. Regarding their lack of ideological diversity, that was also a very conscious decision. I went to a Google hiring event about 8 or 9 years ago, and the hiring manager was very clear that her number one goal was increasing diversity by raising levels of underrepresented groups, and it was stated as a source of pride. Not technical excellence, not innovation, etc. If anything I think that mindset was inculcated at some of the elite tech companies before society at large.

busterarm 2y ago

Given how the culture of every company I've ever worked for was a stinking, nasty, high-school environment and how the companies' values did nothing but encourage ineptitude and mediocrity, I'm glad that companies absolutely suck at exporting their culture as much as they suck at building it. Your suggestion will give me nightmares for weeks.

corimaith 2y ago
I'd agree that whether a specific culture is worth preserving or not is another question. Change by itself is not necessarily good or bad. But my point of how internal culture gradually changes is in effect an exportation from another culture to this one. If the toxic practices you are describing were to begin to become relentlessly exported to the environment around you, remaining defensive dosen't work long term. You'd need to push back.

raincole 2y ago

Isn't Google the exact example of "exporting your culture outwards"...? It popularized algorithmatic puzzles via Google Code Jam way before LeetCode was a thing. I might be completely mistaken, but Google seems to be the one company that popularized free food among SV companies. And they have a slogan that became a meme, while not necessarily in a positive way.