Slashdot Mirror
Want To Work At Google?
ramboando writes "In an article on the ZDNet site 'chief culture officer' and HR boss Stacy Savides Sullivan describes the kind of traits that she's looking for in potential Google employees. If you're thinking about applying, she also goes over what kind of questions one might be asked in an interview, Google's 'happiness survey' and the best perks that makes employees tick and stay with the company (Google ski-trips or paid paternity leave, anyone?). 'I think one of the hardest things to do is ensure that we are hiring people who possess the kind of traits that we're looking for in a Google-y employee. Google-y is defined as somebody who is fairly flexible, adaptable and not focusing on titles and hierarchy, and just gets stuff done. So, we put a lot of focus in our hiring processes when we are interviewing to try to determine first and foremost does the person have the skill set and experience potential to do the job from a background standpoint in addition to academics and credentials.'"
What they mean to say is they don't want new employees using Google's internal internet bandwidth searching for another job.
I for one, would love to work at Google. Don't they let you bring your pets to work?
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
For me best benefit working at Google's headquarter are individual swimming pools... any other company has it?
Marc Garcia is the best expert in GNU/Linux Debian, Apache, MySQL, and Python!
School education has nothing to do with how skilled you are and how well you can get the job done.
Business is a team sport. The "fit" of an individual is as important as raw skill/talent.
Cheers,
Rob
"Google-y is defined as somebody who is fairly flexible, adaptable and not focusing on titles and hierarchy, and just gets stuff done."
In my experience, this translates into a dead-end grunt job.
Fairly flexable = Willing to do anything from sweep floors to fetch coffee.
Adaptable = Doesn't need to be shown how to sweep floors or fetch coffee.
Not focusing on titles or hierarchy = No promotions and everyone is your boss.
Just gets stuff done = This would be the stuff no one else wants to do.
Translation: Paid Intern
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
She also doesn't mention that to Google, hiring is mathematically equivalent to Information Retrieval, except that they only care about "precision" not "recall".
What that means to lay-people is that so long as they can maintain 10,000 applications coming through per-month, false negatives (passing on a suitable applicant) do not matter because there'll be another candidate along in a minute. False positives (hiring an unsuitable applicant) are all they need to focus on. The "fit factor" is effectively the search string of traits; however, with such a large candidate pool, they can focus their "hiring algorithm" entirely on rejecting candidates where it is even slightly difficult to ascertain whether they fit or not.
So, their advertising blitz "aren't we a great place to work for" is a part of what lets them keep their hiring process easy. If they get bad PR and applications fall, then they'll need to worry about recall as well as precision.
The funny thing about comedy is that it is often true.
'workplace satisfaction? Maybe, maybe not. Workplace satisfaction points towards the colour of the walls, the taste of the food... the focus "sounds" narrow. Work is where we spend about say 50% of our quality time so it is a major part of our lives. Google with its ski trips, for example, is acknowledging the blur between work & personal life. Thus with a hapiness survey they take a wider interest/responsibility than with a workplace satisfaction survey.
Personally whilst I find this blurring interesting it's also a little disturbing- many of the people I know who work at Google have an incredible personal loyalty to the firm, they socialise together, ski trips, voluntary charity events... somewhat cultlike.
Actually, it seems obvious to me what the guy that interviewed you wanted to know: if you could convert what you learned in school in the real world. "Worse case scenario" (aka: O) isn't something you can blindly follow, as in many, many cases its irrelevent (thus why the 2 others). I can't talk for them, but in the place of a google engineer, I'd be MUCH more interested in "the most likely scenario" than in the worse case, since when you deal with a large amount of customers, the only thing that really matters is what happens day to day, and if the "worse case" happens, you add an extra server, be it at google, be it at your average corporation (not that simple, but you get the idea)
:)
On top of that, google interviews are fairly known for seeing how you -react- to challenges, not your answers to them, thus the open ended questions. You could have answered all the questions wrong and they would take you anyway, if you showed your only weakness was experience, but they probably have seen too many people worrie about which sorting algorythm is the best when having to sort a 10 item dropdown menu...
Oh well, I'm sure your skillset will be more appreciated elsewhere, so no big loss to you
Yes. If you show up to a technical job interview with a dirty t-shirt on and are rude to the receptionist because you can't "deal with people" then you may not even get the interview after all. Except in very few circumstances (academic research comes to mind), doing your job well consists mainly of solving problems for other people. If you can't get along with those people you may very well be unable or unwilling to help them solve their problems.
Someone who can learn quickly is more desirable than someone who knows Java like the back of their hand.
What would you say the balance should be, 60/40, 70/30? Can you quantify it?
I don't believe you can quantify it. The instances in which I have seen attempts at quantifying "fit factor" (think college roommate selection, most online dating services, and etc.) fail most of the time because personalities and relationships are, for the most part, dynamic. If you were to quantify it, you would probably have to do it on an individual basis. One person's technical ability may compensate for a shortcoming in personality whereas the opposite may be true for another individual. It also varies by the type of job (i.e. short-term contract versus full-time employee).
Still, I believe that "fit factor" is more important than technical competence.
http://www.bynarystudio.com
Parent's interpretation is closer to reality than most people might want to see. Even google cannot completely eliminate bureaucracy and politics in the workplace. After all, where there is money, there will be politicians. The best it can do is minimize the chance of conflicts and the impact to productivity thereof.
Of course, parent's is a rather cynical viewpoint, but that doesn't make it any less true. But some of these issues are present in many other organizations, not just Google. That's probably why a programmer who moves around a lot (once every 3-5 years) ends up getting paid better.