6 ms·

Didn't Google admit recently that there was not a strong correlation between how well a developer did on their interview questions and how well they performed w

Didn't Google admit recently that there was not a strong correlation between how well a developer did on their interview questions and how well they performed within the company?

r0naa 12y ago
citation needed...
- jnbiche 12y ago
  The interview with Google HR stating this finding right is here (Googled "google" + "interview" + "correlation"): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-b...
  - r0naa 12y ago
    I am not sure if you read the article but they never claim that they have found a correlation between performance on technical interviews and ability on the job. Yes, brainteasers are worthless and "structured behavioral" questions yield better informations but there is a gap between claiming that technical interviews are worthless and that. Also, it is usually the duty of the author to support their claims with a direct reference to sources not the opposite.
math 12y ago
Probably, but you'd expect that because the interviews only test part of what is required to be a good employee. It's just a in-precise filter - a bar they force you to jump over, which if you manage to do so pretty much proves you're not hopeless (and have enough dedication to learn the material). So amongst the guaranteed-non-hopeless people there is fairly random distribution of ability to perform well in the company.
- math 12y ago
  user CHY872 says it much better than me :-)
CHY872 12y ago
that's actually what you want, though. It's because only successful candidates appear in the statistics. If Google let everyone in, you'd see a good correlation between how well developers do in the interviews and how well they do at Google. If you dump the 95% of people who don't perform well in the phone interview, then what you're left with is a bunch of high performers who performed well to different extents (where the purpose of the interview is not to gauge ability but to demonstrate minimum ability), where the extent to which they performed well is largely noise. Either a positive or negative correlation would be bad in this case.
- Retric 12y ago
  You’re assuming everyone did well at their job. Google selects a lot of terrible people suggesting their process is broken.
  - CHY872 12y ago
    No such assumption made. If you have a positive correlation in your data, you're probably not placing enough weight on your interviews in your hiring process (i.e. you knew people weren't as good at interview but you still hired them). If you have a negative correlation you're similarly placing too much emphasis on interviews; you're likely hiring people who interview well over people who'd be better in the job. You might still hire bad engineers, but the uncorrelated nature of your interview/job performance data won't help you explain that.
kagamine 12y ago
Considering how many google products have failed in the past and are how divided users are on the existing ones I would question whether google's culture is worth anything at all. Seems to me that many of the big tech companies are losing the reality plot like coked up Hollywood starlets. I think we might see a paradigm shift in tech again soon including how recruitment is carried out.
- diminoten 12y ago
  > I would question whether google's culture is worth anything at all. Uh, how about $385.46Bn?
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    You think Google's products and assets are worth zero?
- serge2k 12y ago
  I would much rather work at a company that is willing to risk failed projects than one which refuses to take risks.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jonas21 12y ago
No, what they found was that there was no correlation between doing well on brainteasers (like "How many golf balls can you fit into an airplane?") and job performance.

Didn't Google admit recently that there was not a strong correlation between how well a developer did on their interview questions and how well they performed within the company?

r0naa 12y ago

citation needed...

jnbiche 12y ago
The interview with Google HR stating this finding right is here (Googled "google" + "interview" + "correlation"): http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-big-data-may-not-be-such-a-big-deal.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/business/in-head-hunting-b...
- r0naa 12y ago
  I am not sure if you read the article but they never claim that they have found a correlation between performance on technical interviews and ability on the job. Yes, brainteasers are worthless and "structured behavioral" questions yield better informations but there is a gap between claiming that technical interviews are worthless and that. Also, it is usually the duty of the author to support their claims with a direct reference to sources not the opposite.

math 12y ago

Probably, but you'd expect that because the interviews only test part of what is required to be a good employee. It's just a in-precise filter - a bar they force you to jump over, which if you manage to do so pretty much proves you're not hopeless (and have enough dedication to learn the material). So amongst the guaranteed-non-hopeless people there is fairly random distribution of ability to perform well in the company.

math 12y ago
user CHY872 says it much better than me :-)

CHY872 12y ago

that's actually what you want, though. It's because only successful candidates appear in the statistics. If Google let everyone in, you'd see a good correlation between how well developers do in the interviews and how well they do at Google. If you dump the 95% of people who don't perform well in the phone interview, then what you're left with is a bunch of high performers who performed well to different extents (where the purpose of the interview is not to gauge ability but to demonstrate minimum ability), where the extent to which they performed well is largely noise. Either a positive or negative correlation would be bad in this case.

Retric 12y ago
You’re assuming everyone did well at their job. Google selects a lot of terrible people suggesting their process is broken.
- CHY872 12y ago
  No such assumption made. If you have a positive correlation in your data, you're probably not placing enough weight on your interviews in your hiring process (i.e. you knew people weren't as good at interview but you still hired them). If you have a negative correlation you're similarly placing too much emphasis on interviews; you're likely hiring people who interview well over people who'd be better in the job. You might still hire bad engineers, but the uncorrelated nature of your interview/job performance data won't help you explain that.

kagamine 12y ago

Considering how many google products have failed in the past and are how divided users are on the existing ones I would question whether google's culture is worth anything at all. Seems to me that many of the big tech companies are losing the reality plot like coked up Hollywood starlets. I think we might see a paradigm shift in tech again soon including how recruitment is carried out.

diminoten 12y ago
> I would question whether google's culture is worth anything at all. Uh, how about $385.46Bn?
- tedunangst 12y ago
  You think Google's products and assets are worth zero?
serge2k 12y ago
I would much rather work at a company that is willing to risk failed projects than one which refuses to take risks.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jonas21 12y ago

No, what they found was that there was no correlation between doing well on brainteasers (like "How many golf balls can you fit into an airplane?") and job performance.