21–30 of 43 posts
At a 100,000+ company it would be impossible to generalize
People can generalise about many millions in a country. I think with generalisations, some people forget its only generally true (or not).
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
The bulk of folks with myriad backgrounds would be in higher positions & most likely brought in by acquisitions or recommendations, but not from the typical interview cycle.
Current googler here - only for a few years, so I don't have years of comparison. My perception in general is that, as someone else has mentioned, the openness has been dialed back a lot. It used to be standard that basically anyone could read or look at almost anything aside from obviously sensitive information like revenue and earnings. Today, it can be annoying - things are default blocked off to particular produc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People can generalise about many millions in a country. I think with generalisations, some people forget its only generally true (or not).
Or never really true like with the case of of the average Air-force pilot. https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
On topic: I think the comments already give a broad overview of what to expect, and not the idealized but non-existent average. Though a lot posted here seems to be quite generic; I know some issues first hand though I never worked at a company that could compare to Google on matters of size (similarities might be related to the composition of employees and the maturity of the product and processes).
Serious question to current Googlers: what is the diversity and inclusion sitatuon like in your department? It is understood that Google is a large enterprise, and by no means a business unit represents the entire company culture. But it would be enlightening to hear what individuals views.
Complex.
The company is so large and hiring managers are so dependent on recruiters that actually having a diverse pipeline is difficult. There are processes that can help ensure that you hire from a diverse pool if it exists, but they can only do so much.
People from less represented groups consistently self-report lower scores on things like feeling included at the company or feeling like their voices are being heard. The scores aren't awful, but there is clearly a statistically noticeable effect. There are examples of people being treated badly that are heartbreaking.
Still, I see managers consistently taking bias and inclusion extremely seriously, especially regarding performance management. And not just for the obvious big categories (race, gender) but also for all sorts of other ways that a person might not fit the common mold. I've seen high level leaders take dramatic action to rescue people from bad situations.
I'm also somebody with a very typical background for a Googler, so I don't think I have a clear view of how everybody feels. My conclusion is that things definitely are not squeaky clean but I suspect that Google is a better place than many for people who don't fit the typical silicon valley mold.
For a place that prides on hiring people from all backgrounds for coding roles, it sure does a helluva job asking leetcode all the time. The bulk of folks with myriad backgrounds would be in higher positions & most likely brought in by acquisitions or recommendations, but not from the typical interview cycle.
Not sure about this anymore. You dont seem to get interviews at google anymore if you apply directly via the website. Much like the support policy for their "products," you need to know someone within, be aligned politically from your past with the person and only then get a call. In short, Google has become good at hiring cliques.
Present Googler. Been here 7 years. As with all these things, this depends largely on what you are looking for. This comment applies to engineering exclusivelyq. A good number of teams and products at Google are very mature with large teams working on them. This leads to slow growth and obviously less challenging work on one hand. On the other hand, if you would like an easy job with time to focus on personal priorit…
Unsure what you mean here. Do you mean because teams can only have so many heads at certain levels, the people who are holding those seats block others from getting promoted?
I'm a Xoogler. I joined in late 2016 and quit January 2021. In my opinion, the company didn't change much in absolute terms while I was there. It became more secretive, but overall the experience was similar in 2017 and 2020. It was generally good given the alternatives - no major complaints that don't apply to other software companies. Good work-life balance and good compensation. Many great people under-leveled (bu…
At a 100,000+ company it would be impossible to generalize