I think Google could go a long way towards addressing their current woes by doing away with their blind allocation policy. During my brief tenure there, the number of times I was told that Google runs on generalists and not specialists was ridiculous. Seriously, would you allow a podiatrist to do your heart transplant because the heart surgeon was too busy with his many proctology patients? That said, the food was great and TGIF was always fun.
Google is Losing Top Talent; Twitter is Growing It
11–19 of 19 posts
Re: Google is Losing Top Talent; Twitter is Growing It
#12[deleted]
I had an awesome post and you firsted me. Damn...
Re: Google is Losing Top Talent; Twitter is Growing It
#13Google will just acqui-hire new talent.
Too bad that strategy almost never works.
Re: Google is Losing Top Talent; Twitter is Growing It
#14Re: Google is Losing Top Talent; Twitter is Growing It
#15I think Google could go a long way towards addressing their current woes by doing away with their blind allocation policy. During my brief tenure there, the number of times I was told that Google runs on generalists and not specialists was ridiculous. Seriously, would you allow a podiatrist to do your heart transplant because the heart surgeon was too busy with his many proctology patients? That said, the food was gr…
The blind allocation policy exists because a lot of the work at Google isn't very interesting.
Re: Google is Losing Top Talent; Twitter is Growing It
#16I think Google could go a long way towards addressing their current woes by doing away with their blind allocation policy. During my brief tenure there, the number of times I was told that Google runs on generalists and not specialists was ridiculous. Seriously, would you allow a podiatrist to do your heart transplant because the heart surgeon was too busy with his many proctology patients? That said, the food was gr…
Re: Google is Losing Top Talent; Twitter is Growing It
#17I think Google could go a long way towards addressing their current woes by doing away with their blind allocation policy. During my brief tenure there, the number of times I was told that Google runs on generalists and not specialists was ridiculous. Seriously, would you allow a podiatrist to do your heart transplant because the heart surgeon was too busy with his many proctology patients? That said, the food was gr…
The blind allocation policy exists because a lot of the work at Google isn't very interesting.
That was precisely my experience, but I did see a lot of things going on around me that were both interesting and for which I was far better qualified than what was assigned to me. The dealbreaker for me was when it was made abundantly clear that there was a near zero chance of transferring off my assigned gig, and given that I had plenty of other options besides Google, I quit and moved on to one of them.
Re: Google is Losing Top Talent; Twitter is Growing It
#18I think these numbers need to be scaled by the total number of employees at each company for them to have any real meaning. Consider that Apple and Zynga appear, on the first chart, to be doing similarly poorly in the "keeping key talent" department. However, Apple lost one key employee per 7,000 employees, and Zynga lost one per 250 employees. Obviously larger companies will have more key employees, spread out over…
Another vague thing is, how do they define "key employee"? The article describes it as, "those notable enough to make it into the tech news". How does one get to be so notable? Having a high-responsibility job at an important company probably helps a lot. So by the term's own definition, you're naturally going to find that big companies like Google are where "key employees" are grown and exported.
Re: Google is Losing Top Talent; Twitter is Growing It
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
The blind allocation policy exists because a lot of the work at Google isn't very interesting.
That was precisely my experience, but I did see a lot of things going on around me that were both interesting and for which I was far better qualified than what was assigned to me. The dealbreaker for me was when it was made abundantly clear that there was a near zero chance of transferring off my assigned gig, and given that I had plenty of other options besides Google, I quit and moved on to one of them.
The dealbreaker for me was when it was made abundantly clear that there was a near zero chance of transferring off my assigned gig, and given that I had plenty of other options besides Google, I quit and moved on to one of them.
Yes, that's horrible. It's harder to get a decent transfer than a promotion, but if you start out on a dud, you're not going to get either on a decent schedule.
Did they say why they were keeping you stuck there? Don't they realize that they're losing good people with these policies?
For most people (the 80% that will never get anything interesting, but that Google will happily use for grunt work) Google is culturally a halfway house for those who are afraid of adult life. You have foosball tables but no chance of getting on a good project. It's infantilizing.