Why Google's hiring process is broken • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Google's hiring process is broken

#161

Post by nigelk » Wed, May 18, 2011, 2:13 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #155

nigelk wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My hiring process at Google was reasonably long and rigorous, but it certainly wasn't a horror story. I left about six months ago, and while there were things I didn't like about the hiring and interview process, it was still significantly better than any other place I've worked.

Really? I went through the Google interview process back in 2006, and I had a fantastic time. The level of transparency was a little frustrating, but everyone I was in contact with was polite and responsive, and I never found myself waiting for replies. The on-site interviewers were really fun to talk to, and I left with a great impression. But I wouldn't call the process significantly better than anywhere else. I've…

Sorry, I wasn't particularly clear there.

From the viewpoint of interviewer and hirer rather than interviewee, I thought the process was better than anywhere else I've worked.

I liked the expected level of rigor, I liked the decisions being made by a separate committee, and I liked the salary package being set by yet another group.

The main problems I saw were: * recruiters dropping the contact chain with the candidate * interviewers not preparing enough * not enough of a feedback cycle to interviewers about their performance.

Re: Why Google's hiring process is broken

#162

Post by geebee » Wed, May 18, 2011, 4:18 PM UTC

I haven't interviewed at Google, but I've interviewed at a few other companies that seem to follow a similar style.

I'd agree that the hiring process may be broken, but that these companies don't completely realize it. I have no problem with the intensely rigorous emphasis on CS (and math, sometimes), but I've been on these interviews and realized that (after seven hours of interviewing) we still haven't discussed what the company actually does.

Here's the thing - when you're interviewing a very experienced candidate, the candidate may know more than you do about how to write the software. They may know things you haven't even thought to ask about. This isn't a reason to skip the technical grilling, that's a critical background. My problem is that these companies heap it on and on and on, and then they make an offer based on compensation for someone who can survive a technical grilling.

What if this candidate has experience writing software in your domain? What if the candidate has a deep understanding of the business space and knows a lot about what those customers are looking for? What it there's a completely different approach that you haven't even considered?

A candidate like that is, quite frankly, probably worth much more than someone with a strong theory background but no real domain knowledge (though I would still hire that guy). So I suspect that these interviews are good at establishing a high bar, but aren't so good at identifying certain types of developers who could be absolute game changers for the company.

Ironically, the only time a company did do this for me, I didn't get the offer ;) It was at netflix, and (after the obligatory data structures grilling), they talked to me about all their data mining needs. I told them I didn't have much of a data mining background, but discussed how they might approach these problems a completely different way.

A few days later: thanks but no thanks, they wanted a data miner. Oh well ;) Still, it was one of the best interviews I've been on, actually fun and energetic. And I felt that if they'd made me an offer, they'd know why.

This is what may be missing from a lot of these interview processes, which is why they may be "broken" in the sense that they don't really get at why you'd want to hire a specific person, beyond the fact that he cleared a high technical bar.

Re: Why Google's hiring process is broken

#163

Post by nostrademons » Wed, May 18, 2011, 6:08 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #154

nostrademons wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's done to eliminate bias. Remember how a couple days ago, there was a story on HN about how interviewing really sucks, because ultimately, what determines whether you get the job or not whether you happen to have a personal rapport with your interviewer? People end up caring more about how you present yourself socially than what you know. The hiring committee is Google's answer to that. The idea is to completely…

That's done to eliminate bias... But it remains written, so that all your unconscious biases about people stay out of the decision, and at least in theory, it's all based on hard data. Impossible. The interviewers, just like us, are human. They come with a bunch of built-in biases that will show through in any contact they have with the hiring committee, whether it's verbal or written. I just don't see your "theory"…

Did you read my response to gergles? No, you'll never get a perfectly unbiased process. But having to justify your opinions with written data forces you to delve a little deeper than you otherwise would, and expose facts that might qualify or disqualify a candidate, not just impressions. It's still wrong, but it's less wrong.

Culture fit is one of the dimensions that candidates are evaluated on. But again, feedback needs to have supporting data. If you didn't like a candidate, you have to say "Didn't have a firm handshake" vs. "Appeared combative and arrogant when faced with a problem he couldn't solve; said 'Google's interview process is a bunch of technical trivia bullshit' before stomping out of the room", so that the hiring committee can judge whether this is just a nit specific to the interviewer or an actual problem that will impact the candidate's prospective teammates.

The reason why new hires don't know their teams is because of Google's corporate secrecy policies: most of the time, the projects they're working on haven't launched, and therefore can't be talked about outside the company. Even then, there are exceptions. When I was hired, I was told which department I'd be working in before I signed my offer letter, who my manager and his manager were, and was given the option of working elsewhere in the company if I really disliked that. My teammate actually negotiated the specific project he'd be working on, and they created the project for him. You need to have negotiating leverage to do this, though: they not only have to want you enough for you to get hired, they have to want you more than the vast majority of other hires, enough that they're willing to bend the rules a bit.

The recruiting/interview process at Google has a lot of problems, but I don't think that either the interviewer/HC split or the whole-company teams-later approach are part of them. Both of these were created to solve specific problems that have crept into the hiring practices of other big companies, and by and large, do a better job at it than the alternatives.

Re: Why Google's hiring process is broken

#164

Post by dclowd9901 » Wed, May 18, 2011, 6:40 PM UTC

javert wrote: post #85

dclowd9901 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your intentions are undoubtedly admirable, and you certainly more than likely have very valid reasons for not "pulling crap like this" (not burning bridges, for one), I hope you're not mistaken by some baseless belief that any company would extend you the same courtesy.

Meh. I think it's pretty rare for a company to tell someone "Yes, you can definitely work for us, here is a contract for you to sign and a start date and how much you're going to make" and then revoke that. Which is the equivalent to me telling a company I'll work for them and then reneging. But of course, yes, they could do it, and you're right that people and companies aren't always courteous.

I'm glad your experiences have been so plush. In my past as a graphic designer (this doesn't happen anymore in web development, mind you), I've been hired and then let go in the span of a few months, due to cuts and layoffs. Maybe I'm burned and a bit cynical, but the lesson I've taken away is that business is business.

Re: Why Google's hiring process is broken

#165

Post by Tangaroa » Wed, May 18, 2011, 7:45 PM UTC

yid wrote: post #16

My 2 cents: I was contacted by a recruiter, unsolicited through a referral, and asked if I was interested in interviewing. At the time, I already had an offer from one of the other big companies, which I was upfront about. The recruiter said it was ok, and would set me up for the first round of interviews. After about a week of emails, I just simply stopped hearing from the recruiter. Not a single interview, no reaso…

A similar thing happened to me. A Google HR staffer sent me an unsolicited offer for a job at YouTube. I accepted, and...

A week later I sent an email asking "how long is the usual turn-around time on this?" Google's HR person said she would let me know by the end of the day, and that was that last I ever heard from her. All further communications were black-holed. I suppose I was unusually lucky to get that last message.

Re: Why Google's hiring process is broken

#166

Post by adnam » Wed, May 18, 2011, 8:58 PM UTC

javert wrote: post #52

adnam wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why didn't you just say "yes". You can always change your mind.

I guess you're saying, why didn't I just tell the other company "yes," and then reneg if Google accepted me? For one thing, I don't like pulling crap like this. I might have anyway, except that it would have damaged existing and longstanding relationships in the other (non-Google) company that are worth maintaining to me.

It's not "pulling crap", as you say. For one thing, until you sign the contract, you're not bound in any way. Even then, the first few months are typically defined as a trial period, in which both parties are free to walk away. Better opportunities always crop up, and you can just say "sorry, a better offer has popped up".

Re: Why Google's hiring process is broken

#167

Post by foocar » Wed, May 18, 2011, 11:17 PM UTC

ballgoogler wrote: post #59

yid wrote: post #16

My 2 cents: I was contacted by a recruiter, unsolicited through a referral, and asked if I was interested in interviewing. At the time, I already had an offer from one of the other big companies, which I was upfront about. The recruiter said it was ok, and would set me up for the first round of interviews. After about a week of emails, I just simply stopped hearing from the recruiter. Not a single interview, no reaso…

You know who complains about Google's hiring process... people that don't get hired by Google. I've never heard anybody who WAS hired by Google complain about anything. Maybe you all just weren't good enough. That's OK, not everybody is the creme-a-la-creme. Look at Google's market cap and Android and Chrome's growth (not to mention their dominance in search and advertising)... Google doesn't need you, and that's why…

That's simply false. Lots of googlers complain about the hiring process they went through (common complaints: way too slow, not enough communication, getting tossed around between groups, too many rounds of interviews, stalled process in hiring committee). That's why the process keeps changing, usually for the better.

Re: Why Google's hiring process is broken

#168

Post by itswindy » Thu, May 19, 2011, 6:24 AM UTC

citizenkeys wrote: post #100

Google's process is broken because it generally presumes job candidates know what specific job they want, and they don't. To put it in contrast, I also applied to Microsoft and they immediately assigned me a specific recruiter that I could email directly. Google needs to give job candidates a person to contact rather than expecting talent to go online and do that weird "job shopping cart" thing they have on their web…

Google still think it's the Google of old days where stock options were plentiful and Google ruled the press. But the truth is that their stock isn't moving anywhere, so you are working for a paycheck in a has-been company with over 20,000 employees. And just Bing "Google is evil" ;)

Re: Why Google's hiring process is broken

#169

Post by itswindy » Thu, May 19, 2011, 6:26 AM UTC

VBprogrammer wrote: post #28

Call me old fashioned but I think Google keeps having slightly embarrassing failures because it tries to copy ideas, without significantly improving on them, where the dominant player has already gained a critical mass of users.

Instant search - copied Background image - copied Search display - copied

Panda? Still a freaking mess

Oh, 7 years after FB Google wants to get in the action.

Re: Why Google's hiring process is broken

#170

Post by visakhcr » Thu, May 19, 2011, 6:31 AM UTC

relaia wrote: post #149

citizenkeys wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I re-read my comment. The flaw in my reasoning seems to be that Google still needs a way to know the talent exists. So you still gotta get Google's attention somehow before they can recruit you. Still, though, that "job shopping cart" thing is lame. As somebody that's actually tried it, having to look all around the site and find a specific job just doesn't work. In simple terms, it would be better for Google to have…

This 'job shopping cart' thing is interesting to me, as is your desire to 'let Google match the skills up with a set of jobs', because basically I had the complete opposite experience when (successfully) applying for an internship with Google (Europe Middle East Asia (EMEA), btw, not American). I was essentially unable to reply for anything other than "Software Engineer Intern". They took my resume, and a cover lette…

btw, EMEA is Europe Middle East and Africa. Asia is APJ (Asia Pacific and Japan).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe,_the_Middle_East_and_Afr...