Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Google+ project and exec team

threader.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 187 posts

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#121

Post by RichardCA »

It's a real shame, because I can definitely see a way for Google to do social networking in a way that would pull me away from Facebook. Basically I could connect with people and put their feeds into channels sort of like Slack (one for family, one for work, one for recruiters so I could get rid of Linkedin). But I'd have control over each channel and (this is important) people could message me in a way that worked like Gmail, but I wouldn't have to fork over my Gmail address.

For me that was the critical omission, the idea that we can be "friends" on Google+ but you have no way to message me. It never made any sense. And I'm not even that smart.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#122

Post by ganeshkrishnan »

tylerl wrote: post #116
dunkelheit wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breaking promises is considered unethical in most cultures, not just in silicon valley. Maybe "walking all over you" is an overstatement, but an egregious thing that has happened to you doesn't make what happened to the OP less bad. I've heard this is standard behavior for google - completely disregarding what an applicant wants to work on and putting them instead on a project chosen by the hiring committee. Consider…

You've heard that, huh? HC doesn't pick your job, they decide whether or not to hire you. Hence the name. At Google it's typically trivially simple to switch teams (this article notwithstanding), so teams don't recruit and hire independently like happens in many companies. So after a hire is approved, they have to be matched up with a team. Teams decide whether or not a hire is appropriate for their team, and candida…

Exactly the same at Ibm, eBay and jp Morgan when I worked there. There were even programs to let you try out new projects before you commit to them.

All it took was the dev to say that he preferred working on a specific project. Some teams even have further internal hiring processes from the talent pool.

I am not even sure OP knows that team switching was possible and how internal recruiting works for large organizations

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#123

Post by ganeshkrishnan »

rabidrat wrote: post #105
ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees like these quickly wear you down if you are leading then. I am surprised Google is not doing a personality test before recruiting. When I was a recruiter for ibm I always made sure to check if the potential was an asshole or not before going ahead with tech. Talent can always be learned by those willing. Attitude is permanent.

You've got that backwards. Attitude can be adjusted, but only if the person is willing. Talent can't be learned--at least not by most people, and not on the timescale of an actual job to be performed.

You are entitled to your opinion but in my life as tech recruiter or even for my startup my priority has always been culture fit aka don't be an asshole. The rest is negotiable.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#124

Post by ganeshkrishnan »

brianberns wrote: post #55
ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's extremely common to get project reassigned especially since he was recruited three months later. What i guess happened was that Google found candidates for their chrome project and put him in their backlog. Later when they had one more vacancy they went thru this backlog and made offers

I agree. They just need to make this clear to him before he agrees to the job.

Job offers don't come with project guarantees. What next? A guaranteed table spot next to the window?

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#125

Post by rifung »

rabidrat wrote: post #105
ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees like these quickly wear you down if you are leading then. I am surprised Google is not doing a personality test before recruiting. When I was a recruiter for ibm I always made sure to check if the potential was an asshole or not before going ahead with tech. Talent can always be learned by those willing. Attitude is permanent.

You've got that backwards. Attitude can be adjusted, but only if the person is willing. Talent can't be learned--at least not by most people, and not on the timescale of an actual job to be performed.

Hm strangely I find the opposite to be true. I actually think personality is really hard to change but if you aren't good at something you can be trained.

Without the right attitude though it's hard to train someone.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#126

Post by ganeshkrishnan »

Novashi wrote: post #90
ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this your definition of "walking all over you"? How much of a bubble is silicon valley? I have worked in the biggest bank in Australia where subcontractors were siphoning away the source codes and customer data via mobile hotspots. I blew the whistle to data security and got fired in return. Company later paid me huge chunk of money in return for silence. Sometimes you just gotta walk away to better deals. Life is…

>Is this your definition of "walking all over you"? How much of a bubble is silicon valley? Yeah it is, but I don't live in the valley. I mean, your example fits my definition too. I just have a much lower threshold that I tolerate apparently. But lets wait for someone else to come by with a more impactful story than yours and we can reset the goal posts.

Sure. Also there was a guy complaining that free food in Google was an execuse to keep employees longer in office to make them work.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#127

Post by peatfreak »

Yeah..... I'm not buying into this 100%...... it sounds like typical corporate BS that he is complaining about, and it was his choice to work instead of being with his family during a serious time of ill health.

Like others have mentioned, I get the impression there are many sides to this this story, just like any other story. And yes, it does come across as extremely whiny. And also somewhat naive.

Yaaaawwwwwwn.... I'm not exactly sitting on the edge of my seat for part II.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#128

Post by beaconstudios »

goliatone wrote: post #89
otabdeveloper2 wrote: post #44

Megacorps don't work to make products. They work to keep their top-dog status perpetual. One way to do this is to hire smart people and keep them locked away wasting time. Two benefits: them not working productively at a competitor's place is one, and them losing the skills and drive to make real-world useful things after a few years is another.

Ive read other post basically making the same claim, Google is happy to create, fund, and hire for projects just to capture/retain talent and remove it from the hiring pool. Is that HN folks reading too much between lines or is it a thing?

I don't think it's true. I'm more inclined to believe that as companies become large the amount of politics and bureaucracy takes over to the point where the company constantly self-sabotages.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#129

Post by peatfreak »

allenu wrote: post #19

I tried reading this, but it is just stream of consciousness writing and littered with unnecessary details. It comes across as petty and the author doesn't seem to be good at communicating what he wants. For instance, he's whining about a 9am meeting with a coworker. If it's such a big deal, why didn't you ask for a later meeting?

Exactly!! If a meeting time is unsuitable I just tell the other person and they almost always agree to move it. Even most manager types (resonable ones anyway) don't schedule non-critical meetings for 9am the next morning.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#130

Post by rdiddly »

Novashi wrote: post #42
ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is changing projects a punch? Haven't been longtime in a permanent position but there never was a project guaranteed during recruiting, only the skills and type of work. Even if the project was guaranteed, things happen. Roll with it. Building resentment you are just hurting yourself. Fuck, posts like these piss me off so much. There are so many candidates who would give their arm and leg to work at Google. Heck,…

Bait and switch, where they try to convince you to take a lowball offer because you'll work on prestigious projects like Chrome, then turn around and put you on G+ is most definitely a punch. Just because it happens (regularly) doesn't mean you should just roll over and take it. There could be inaccuracies here, it's a twitter rant after all, but as presented, that would demoralize a lot of people. You don't have to…

It's tempting to think of Google as a monolithic entity that "has a will" and "says things" and "makes promises," but in fact what happened was probably more like...

He didn't get the Chrome job.

His resume was "kept on file" as they say.

Months later a different job came up with a totally different team of people, and someone on that team remembered him and recommended him. (Slap of ingratitude to that guy I guess. Just one of many things this guy got wrong.)

Post reply on HN