Google's Answer to Filling Jobs Is an Algorithm

An anonymous reader tipped us to a New York Times article about Google's newest HR tool: an algorithm. Starting soon, the company (which gets roughly 100,000 applications a month) will require all interested applicants to fill out an in-depth survey. They'll be using a sophisticated algorithm to work through the submitted surveys, matching applicants with positions. The company has apparently doubled in size in each of the last three years. Even though it's already 10,000 employees strong Laszlo Bock, Google's vice president for people operations, sees no reason the company won't reach 20,000 by the end of the year. This will mean hiring something like 200 people a week, every week, all year. From the article: "Even as Google tries to hire more people faster, it wants to make sure that its employees will fit into its freewheeling culture. The company boasts that only 4 percent of its work force leaves each year, less than other Silicon Valley companies. And it works hard to retain people, with copious free food, time to work on personal projects and other goodies. Stock options and grants certainly encourage employees to stay long enough to take advantage of the company's surging share price. Google's hiring approach is backed by academic research showing that quantitative information on a person's background -- called 'biodata' among testing experts -- is indeed a valid way to look for good workers."

Comments

Re:Bias

[general_re]

Except "people with less work experience" is not a protected group, so it's not unlawful to discriminate on the basis of previous work experience, unless you do so with the intent of discriminating against an actual protected group. I'm just guessing, but I'd say it would be awfully hard to win a case based on such "discrimination", short of someone admitting that they did it to avoid hiring women.

No. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971). A plaintiff can show that some employment criterion or criteria results in a disparate impact upon a protected group, regardless of whether discrimination is overtly intended or not. The burden of proof then shifts to the employer to show that said criteria are a necessary requirement for the job(s) in question. If they can't, they lose. Even if they can, if the plaintifss can come up with an alternate business practice that satisfies the employer's interests without resulting in a disparate impact, they lose. Good or bad, that's the law.

Re:They're not losing money fast enough...

[dirc]

Lets see... 10,000 employees, on average, costing the corp ~$200k each... that's... $20 billion a year... in salaries/benefits/office space/etc. Are they even making that much? Are they paying their workers with ``profits'' from stock sales?

10,000 employees at $200k each is $2 billion a year, not $20 billion a year. Google is making enough to cover those costs even if they double the number of employees and do not increase revenue at all. You can look at a summary of their revenue, and their expenses as a portion of revenue here: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/061108/goog10-q.html

They are making a handsome profit.