Slashdot Mirror
Google Adjusts Hiring Processes
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Google is attempting to fine tune its hiring process as it ramps up recruiting to keep pace with its success, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'In Google's early years, [Sergey] Brin or co-founder Larry Page interviewed nearly all job candidates before they were officially hired. A former Google executive recounts how, on occasion, Mr. Brin would show up for candidates' job interviews in unconventional dress, from roller blades to a cow costume complete with rubber udders around Halloween. Even today, at least one of the co-founders reviews every job offer recommended by an internal hiring committee on a weekly basis, sometimes pushing back with questions about an individual's qualifications.' While the interview process can remain 'glacial,' Google's new head of human resources notes that the average number of in-person interviews for each candidate offered a job has declined to 5.1 from 6.2. The company continues to seek overqualified employees who can be promoted quickly."
I see two big hints they weren't going to hire you:
1) You paid for your own interview. Never do that. They've made no commitment to you beyond a bit of time.
2) During the interview, they're asking totally irrelevant questions.
The days when an interview were completely controlled by the employer left over a decade ago. Irrelevant questions should be answered shortly, and the questions should be dragged back to topic, or ask back directly if they have a prejudice for particular classes of schools and such.
The "Not qualified" might have simply been "won't survive in this corporate culture".
Sergey Brin is a University of Maryland graduate. You'd think he might be able to realize that there is more to a person than where they got their degree, but I guess they have classes to correct that at Stanford.
I know three employees of Google. The interview process is strictly standardized. One introductory phone interview from an HR person, followed by another, more technical, phone interview. If you make it past those two, they either fly you out to Mountain View (all expenses paid) for a tough in-person final interview. After that, you still may or may not have the job. I have also spoken to a Google recruiter out here Boston. She told me the exact same thing.
I'm not calling this guy a liar... but his story sounds odd. Seriously, even if he flew out to CA for a week to do interviews, how could it add up to $3000? A flight from NY to CA can be had for about $500 round trip... and that is coast-to-coast. Say $100/night for a decent hotel for a week. Plus $500 in food would make it $1500.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
I had some "hot seat" interviews in the past.
During one interview, every time I gave a response, the interviewer responded with "No, that doesn't work - the product won't do X" so I had to come up with another option. Finally, after about 4 go-rounds of this, I said "Well, at that point I'd go find the person who was responsible for us using this product, explain how it didn't remotely meet our needs, and rather than waste 10x more time trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole, we should start from scratch and consider it a lesson learned." The guy said "I see."
He then got up, walked out of the room, and 5 minutes later came back with someone from HR and a written job offer. "Everyone else kept going on and on and on and on and on trying to solve the problem by trying to work around something that was obviously broken - you're the only one who knew when to cut your losses and move on."
The point of an interview is to figure out how well the person will fit and how well they'll do the job. Clever hacks and workarounds are nice, but only when they are more efficient and effective than something not as clever would be. It seems like a lot of geek types forget that - it isn't about showing off.
I eventually became a hiring manager at that same company, and I would go out of my way to throw the candidates I interviewed off balance. My favorite technique was to ask them what their favorite tool was, then say "That's stupid" and see how they'd react. The worst response I ever got was "Well, I guess it is, sorry" and the best I ever got was "No, your dismissal without providing a counter argument is stupid. This tool is great for this task because x, y, z. Now tell me why using a tool that can do all that is stupid, and I'll see if you make any sense." People who can think on their feet and come up with practical solutions rather than get flustered or go into some kind of "best practices" parrot mode aren't worth a lot.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.