5 ms·

Company pays you money. You work for them. They ask you to do something you're good at. Sounds good to me.

• esperluette 14y ago
  It's a ROI question: all that time, week after week, for two hires, one who lasted a year? That's not a great ROI for a good engineer's time.
  • Steer 14y ago
    I think that's the wrong way to look at it. The time she put in also meant that some people that could potentially have been a bad fit were not hired which was good.
    • JoachimSchipper 14y ago
      Note, however, that this may not be what the good engineer wanted to be doing. (Also, just not putting bad candidates on the good engineer's plate would be more efficient.)
    • kator 14y ago
      Exactly, and maybe the good ones did get hired and really knocked it out. That said it sounds like the quality of candidates sent to her were really low and the upstream recruiters should have been working to improver that.
    • georgemcbay 14y ago
      True, but based on her little "where are they now" aside, she could have just randomly selected 98%* of the candidates she interviewed for rejection and achieved nearly the same end result. (or whatever the actual percentage was, I don't know the total)
    • michaelt 14y ago
      While Google goes straight from application to a telephone interview, a lot of companies ask for a work sample test first - either by e-mailing them a problem and asking them to reply with a solution, or through automated systems like Codility. If you're spending a lot of employee hours filtering candidates who could have been filtered more easily through other means, I can understand feeling a bit indifferent about it.
  • marcosdumay 14y ago
    Depends on how good that other person is, doesn't it?
  • tinco 14y ago
    How did you calculate that ROI? To me it sounds like an excellent investment. The company invested 10% of your time, and gained 100% extra time (assuming the new hire's time is worth as much as your own). It is the sort of ROI that can scale a company from 20 to 20000 employees in just a couple of years :)
• tptacek 14y ago
  Company pays everyone comparable amounts of money. Company demands a basket of different deliverables that are (a) not comparably pleasurable to generate and (b) not comparably important to the company when seen through the lens of employee rewards. Company starts with the premise that all employees will share the load on the whole basket, but later looks at performance on deliverables to allocate specific employees for specific deliverables. Result: all rational incentive is to do a terrible job on those deliverables that are least pleasant and/or least rewarded. It's a simple point. I'm surprised you missed it.
  • nostrademons 14y ago
    The effective response to that is to say "I'll do a good job on this task, but I can't do it all the time, because I have other important tasks to get down." Save the passive-aggressiveness for when the company disrespects your "No". There're many other tasks like this - usually the reward for being good at your work is to get more work. And the way out isn't to be shitty about doing your work, it's to ask for what you want in return for doing well at your work. That could be a raise, or the freedom to work on interesting projects of your own choosing, or more personal time, or it could just be "I don't want to do interviews this quarter so I can focus on my professional goals". I think there's a legit problem at Google in that interviewing isn't rewarded highly come performance review time, so it doesn't translate into bigger raises or better projects. But there're mechanisms in place for saying "Please don't send me interviews" or blocking off days where you won't be scheduled for one. If the best interviewers take advantage of them and then HR finds out that there's a shortage of good interviewers, that sends a strong signal to the company that they need to increase the rewards for interviewing.
  • rheide 14y ago
    To tell you the truth, I didn't miss it, but I thought it was worth pointing out that without including the comparison against colleagues, it would be a different situation. You are of course right that it's not right to treat colleagues differently, especially if some of them are also 'well-calibrated'. An incentive program would've been a better solution that a penalty system, perhaps.
• vacri 14y ago
  It's not good for the company if it disturbs you so much that you leave them.