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."

6 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. Study hard at school kids by bloodredsun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA: "[Google] has traditionally focused a lot on candidates' academic performance and favored those who went to elite schools"

    Nice to know that the new hotness is still the same old and busted.

    1. Re:Study hard at school kids by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...Or rather they can't accept that someone who went to a worse school could be more intelligent than them." ...or, first interview stages come from HR people, not the technical ones. As the old motto says 'you'll never be fired from choosing IBM'. Well, you'll never be fired from choosing Stanford, either. From HR point of view, it is not about hiring the best candidate, but the best one that won't expose their ass: I chose a Stanford's one that ended being an asshole, "well, shit happens, you did it the best you could"; I chose somebody from Whatever Place that ended up being subpar: my HR job is now at stake.

  2. Re:Innnnteresting... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a simple reason why people don't hire ambitious people: Ambitious people want to rise in the ranks and that would force YOU to work harder, or that new guy will saw off your chair's legs while you're not watching.

    That sedate vegetable who's too lazy to tie his own shoelace if you don't make him, on the other hand,...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Re:They hold nothing on Adm. Rickover by astonishedelf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rickover sounds like a complete asshole. I seriously doubt if any of the bullshit he pulled during recruitment interviews ever enabled him to recruit smarter or better personnel. There's no indication that any of his strategies were crucial to winning any war the Americans were in. He sounds like a fratboy who never grew up...

    I may be wrong but in all my readings about great commanders, none of the articles featured front chair legs being sawn off.

    What a dick.

  4. "Overqualified?" by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The company continues to seek overqualified employees who can be promoted quickly"

    Remember, boys and girls: "overqualified" is simply HR's way of saying "can be underpaid."

  5. Reminds me of IBM's hiring 20 years ago... by Panaqqa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How interesting. Much of the experience other /. posters have had with Google's HR are very similar to what I was put through when I interviewed with IBM in the mid '80s. And the opening (I hesitate to use the term "opportunity") at IBM wasn't even permanent: it was a 6 month contract.

    First, it took 3 attempts to connect for a phone interview, and there was a significant degree of consternation at IBM that I would not permit such a call during the day (while I was working at a client's office). Then followed in person interviews at their Canadian head office, during which it became obvious in a hurry that they had not read my resume or confused it with another (my degree is NOT in Engineering from U of T, and I have NEVER worked as a mainframe systems programmer). Five different people, 4 hours. The only part that was really interesting was the lunch in the IBM cafeteria, where I quickly grew to understand where the "Big" in "Big Blue" came from.

    Another phone interview followed, and then, despite two follow up letters from me, I heard nothing, so I just assumed that they were not interested and did not have the courtesy to contact me to tell me so. Fine. I took another contract I was interviewing for, and forgot about them.

    Four months later, I got a phone call from IBM asking me when I can start. Huh? You think I'm going to wait around for 4 months while you decide? What planet did you say you were from?

    What I took away from that experience was this: when HR and the company hiring process gets seriously confused and out of control, the company suffers big time. IBM had to take a major kick in the pants before they smartened up. Until they did, they were heading for irrelevance very quickly. I'm guessing that Google might have to go through the same thing. Not for a while, because they have a strong core and strong growth. But sooner or later it will happen. Every week that passes by, they take one more step away from upstart towards mature. And in IT, mature = complacent = stagnant = doomed.