4 ms·

On average, Google takes about 45 days to hire. This struck me as exceedingly slow (I know that my friend got an offer in 10 days start to finish, but he's pr

On average, Google takes about 45 days to hire. This struck me as exceedingly slow (I know that my friend got an offer in 10 days start to finish, but he's probably an anomaly since he had multiple offers already). Is this in line with other software companies this size? I also wonder if this varies with function. That fifth person is a “shadow interviewer” who is simply training to conduct interviews for future job seekers, and that person’s analysis isn’t included in the decision-making process. This is hilarious! It's just like the ETS (education testing services) that runs all the US based standardized tests.

packetslave 13y ago
This is hilarious! It's just like the ETS (education testing services) that runs all the US based standardized tests. What is "hilarious" about it? How would you propose that new-hires learn how to interview?
- hkmurakami 13y ago
  Why would you throw out the new hires' interviews entirely at all? Why not use it, even if you give it a lower weight?
  - mvgoogler 13y ago
    Shadow interviewers don't do a separate interview. They typically observe an interview done by an experienced interviewer and then write up feedback. It is primarily meant to be a learning experience for the shadow interviewer. They will get to see the feedback written by the primary interviewer, and the primary interviewer will usually critique the feedback from the shadow interviewer. The feedback from the shadow interviewer isn't actually dis-carded - it gets sent to the hiring committee, with the indication that it is from a shadow interviewer. It can be given less weight by the hiring committee members, but I've been on hiring committees where the shadow interviewer picked up on something that the primary interviewer missed that affected the hiring decision.
    - hkmurakami 13y ago
      ah interesting. So basically the article got it completely wrong (how am I not surprised? :P)
wallflower 13y ago
> Is this in line with other software companies this size? Large companies, yes. Not sure about software. And the thing that struck me as Monty Python ludicrous is that no one from the actual team is interviewing you! Almost every large company and most smaller companies have you interview on site with your actual team members. Is Googlish really that strong a predictor of team fit?
philwelch 13y ago
45 days seems exceedingly slow to me as well, based on my experience with another large tech company. Though I can't say for sure the end-to-end time of the whole process, we can generally get from an onsite interview loop to a hiring decision within 24 hours, and HR takes another day or two to generate the first verbal offer. So that's what, three days? As I recall it didn't take anywhere near 42 days to go from resume submission to onsite interview, either. How on earth does any company take 45 days!?
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  It's not really slow if the "time to hire" is the time from an inbound resume, to an outbound written offer (or even longer, an accepted offer). (A verbal offer is great, but nobody generally accepts a verbal offer, they have to sign some kind of agreement to formally accept the job.) The screening process takes a week or two (14 days) and then you have to schedule an on-site interview loop, which can often take a week or two lead time (since many interviewers have to travel to SF, and you have to schedule the interviewers as well) and that only leaves a week or two at best to issue a formal written offer. I've seen it take a lot longer than in total at many good companies.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    > (A verbal offer is great, but nobody generally accepts a verbal offer, they have to sign some kind of agreement to formally accept the job.) Well, you'd want to call someone on the phone and get a verbal OK before sending them the offer letter, right? From verbal to written shouldn't be more than a 24 hour turnaround. So that's the day of the interview, the day after the interview to make the decision, and three more days (so the rest of the week) to generate and send out a written offer that the candidate may or may not have already verbally okayed. That's 5 business days, or 5-7 calendar days. > The screening process takes a week or two (14 days) 14 days to look at resumes and do a phone screen or two? Maybe at maximum, if you have to bounce the resume between teams to find the best fit. > and then you have to schedule an on-site interview loop, which can often take a week or two lead time (since many interviewers have to travel to SF, and you have to schedule the interviewers as well) Why would the interviewers have to travel? Don't you interview people on the same campus where most of the interviewers actually work? Why would it take two weeks to book a couple of hours on k different people's calendars (hopefully most of them selected from a pool of size n >> k)? Sorry, I think that timeline is way too padded.

packetslave 13y ago

This is hilarious! It's just like the ETS (education testing services) that runs all the US based standardized tests. What is "hilarious" about it? How would you propose that new-hires learn how to interview?

hkmurakami 13y ago
Why would you throw out the new hires' interviews entirely at all? Why not use it, even if you give it a lower weight?
- mvgoogler 13y ago
  Shadow interviewers don't do a separate interview. They typically observe an interview done by an experienced interviewer and then write up feedback. It is primarily meant to be a learning experience for the shadow interviewer. They will get to see the feedback written by the primary interviewer, and the primary interviewer will usually critique the feedback from the shadow interviewer. The feedback from the shadow interviewer isn't actually dis-carded - it gets sent to the hiring committee, with the indication that it is from a shadow interviewer. It can be given less weight by the hiring committee members, but I've been on hiring committees where the shadow interviewer picked up on something that the primary interviewer missed that affected the hiring decision.
  - hkmurakami 13y ago
    ah interesting. So basically the article got it completely wrong (how am I not surprised? :P)

wallflower 13y ago

> Is this in line with other software companies this size? Large companies, yes. Not sure about software. And the thing that struck me as Monty Python ludicrous is that no one from the actual team is interviewing you! Almost every large company and most smaller companies have you interview on site with your actual team members. Is Googlish really that strong a predictor of team fit?

philwelch 13y ago

45 days seems exceedingly slow to me as well, based on my experience with another large tech company. Though I can't say for sure the end-to-end time of the whole process, we can generally get from an onsite interview loop to a hiring decision within 24 hours, and HR takes another day or two to generate the first verbal offer. So that's what, three days? As I recall it didn't take anywhere near 42 days to go from resume submission to onsite interview, either. How on earth does any company take 45 days!?

tomkarlo 13y ago
It's not really slow if the "time to hire" is the time from an inbound resume, to an outbound written offer (or even longer, an accepted offer). (A verbal offer is great, but nobody generally accepts a verbal offer, they have to sign some kind of agreement to formally accept the job.) The screening process takes a week or two (14 days) and then you have to schedule an on-site interview loop, which can often take a week or two lead time (since many interviewers have to travel to SF, and you have to schedule the interviewers as well) and that only leaves a week or two at best to issue a formal written offer. I've seen it take a lot longer than in total at many good companies.
- philwelch 13y ago
  > (A verbal offer is great, but nobody generally accepts a verbal offer, they have to sign some kind of agreement to formally accept the job.) Well, you'd want to call someone on the phone and get a verbal OK before sending them the offer letter, right? From verbal to written shouldn't be more than a 24 hour turnaround. So that's the day of the interview, the day after the interview to make the decision, and three more days (so the rest of the week) to generate and send out a written offer that the candidate may or may not have already verbally okayed. That's 5 business days, or 5-7 calendar days. > The screening process takes a week or two (14 days) 14 days to look at resumes and do a phone screen or two? Maybe at maximum, if you have to bounce the resume between teams to find the best fit. > and then you have to schedule an on-site interview loop, which can often take a week or two lead time (since many interviewers have to travel to SF, and you have to schedule the interviewers as well) Why would the interviewers have to travel? Don't you interview people on the same campus where most of the interviewers actually work? Why would it take two weeks to book a couple of hours on k different people's calendars (hopefully most of them selected from a pool of size n >> k)? Sorry, I think that timeline is way too padded.