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.'"

Comments

"Fit Factor"

[Architect_sasyr]

So they basically want a Google-y employee or, put another way, someone with the right fit factor. Does this mean that a highly qualified person, skilled and high standing in the community, but prefers to be quiet, in the dark and working alone won't make it?

I ask because my own company puts so much store in the "fit factor" that they end up hiring people with less skills than the other candidates.

Do I want to work at google? Well now, that's between me and HR ;)

Re:"Fit Factor"

[rmckeethen]

Someone who can learn quickly is more desirable than someone who knows Java like the back of their hand.

Interestingly, having spent the past few weeks interviewing, I tend to think desirability of 'quick learners' vs. 'skilled experts' depends upon the size of the company. Small companies prefer quick learners because there are always many more tasks to do than skilled employees available to handle the tasks. In this situation, quick learners have the advantage because they can more easily grow in a company where the jobs aren't always well-defined. If it turns out that the Java guy you just hired can also manage the corporate web site, this is a real plus in a small firm. Having people who can do lots of things, and do them reasonably well, is absolutely necessary when your company is limited by the number of resources available.

At large companies though, the situation is reversed; hiring managers in large corporations are often distanced from the actual work getting done, so their 'win' is to hire the person with the best current skills. This way, hiring managers get the most 'bang' for their corporate hiring buck because the expert employee is immediately productive in the job. In addition, larger companies spend much more time managing a workforce that expands and contracts depending on the economy. Human resources are just that -- something you aquire when you need to increase production, and get rid of when you don't. Overall, it's far easier to manage a large corporate workforce when employees have very narrowly defined skill-sets that you can swap in and out depending on the needs of the company.

In a nutshell, small companies want people who can get things done, where large companies want someone who can do one job and only one job, but still do that job better than anyone else.

Too much spin

[ushering05401]

Not that Google is breaking down my door, but I wouldn't work there just based on this article.

One of the top gripes I have with corporate culture is all the bullshit language that is employed. What is this 'Happiness Survey?' This smells of new-age rebranding. Aren't they talking about 'workplace satisfaction?' Don't most companies conduct workplace satisfaction surveys? The companies I have worked for do.

What is this Culture Czar position? You take workplace issues to HR, who coordinates with all other departments to implement the corporate workplace vision. Some companies are better at it than others, but rebranding the position doesn't make Google any better at it.

Google produces innovation based on incentive... which is basic capitalism. It's great that they want the incentives to be more than just cash, but this just feels like a while lot of cheerleading. These tactics don't strike me as being professional. It feels like more spin in an age of way-too-much-spin.

Regards.

Excise the Stanford out of Google first

[sethstorm]

Google-y is defined as somebody who is fairly flexible, adaptable and not focusing on titles and hierarchy, and just gets stuff done
Odd for an organization that prides itself on the contrary through their bit on favoring exclusivist universities and the concepts that go with them. They would do well to take a few pages from the concept of Jante Law to have an honest effort at meeting those concepts. That includes doing away with everything that connects them to Stanford in terms of exclusivity as well, as that hasn't helped in that effort as well.

Google recruiter email

[Ricin]

"I found your contact information on the Internet. I am interested to know
your openness to new job opportunities and find out more about your past
work experience." ... etc

A few months ago I got a few like these (not copies of the same text). A bit spammish but with restrain. I remember being surprised and wondering how many people were getting these. I wouldn't want to relocate to another country so I never replied. I'm also not a big Google fan personally (call me paranoid). Especially the cultivated "kool-aid factor" (aka PR) ticks me off.

Anyone else been contacted this way?

Paternity leave

[heffrey]

It just shows the difference in cultures between the USA and western Europe that paternity leave of a "couple of weeks off" can be viewed as a perk. Sadly as a Brit we are much closer to the USA than the rest of Europe (especially Scandinavia and Finland).

Re:I had an interview with Google a few weeks ago

[tomstdenis]

first question: Find the density of the marble, then calculuate the ... oh what do I know.

Second question: Radix sort on disk.

Third question: Binary weighted tree in memory.

BTW I hate job interviews like this. I did one for RIM (in like 2002 ish) and at one point after answering like 5 different "puzzles" I turned around and asked the interview "here are two 1024-bit numbers, multiply them quickly." To which he replied "I'm asking the questions." I just got up and left. I don't want to work somewhere where I have to sit pretty and beg all the time just to get paid. I'm sure had I taken the job with RIM I'd be one of those "middle name" people (mass murderer) types eventually. Sure I have to please my boss by finishing my work, but I certainly don't kiss ass.

Next time you have an interview like that, just stump the interviewer, see how they like pressure. :-)

In all honesty, if you don't have prior job experience and/or a portfolio of projects, they can't really tell what you're capable of anyways. High pressure interview questions do not reflect the job scenario in the slightest.

Tom

Re:I had an interview with Google a few weeks ago

[ps236]

Woah! You had to answer those questions on the phone whilst he was talking to you?

Unless this is the sort of thing you've been doing before, it's unlikely you'd be able to do that - I'd have expected you'd need some time to work out the answers. I know I would, and I've been programming for 25+ years.

The first question is quite easy to answer -ish. I guess they meant 'as efficiently as possible' - not as 'effectively as possible' (in which case, as long as you got the right answer you'd meet the requirements). To get the basic concept isn't hard, but to get it "as efficiently as possible" you'd need some thought, which would be hard on the phone. (You go up in steps (eg 10 floors at a time) until the first marble breaks, then go back a step and go up one floor at a time until the second marble breaks - the "hard" bit is knowing what size steps to use for the first part to be most efficient)

BTW - the second question there was a bit meaningless - how can you 'sort a 100MB file'? Do they want the file in byte order (all the 0 bytes first, then all the 1 bytes) If so, then you could do that with 256 bytes of data RAM... Maybe they want it in BIT order - that would only need 8 bytes :) If this isn't what they want, then it would help to know WHAT you are sorting - eg a radix sort could be good here, but it might depend on the type of data

Were you allowed to ask how much memory was taken up by the OS, network stack and what programming language you were using to guess how much memory was taken up by the program?

For the 3rd question I'd have difficulty. AFAICS you'd have to use some form of compression to be able to do it (you have to hold 8M characters in 2M RAM - you could convert the phone numbers to 'real' numbers, but that'd still be 4MB in 2MB RAM). I reckon I'd be able to do it, but I'd guess it would take at least several hours to work out the nitty gritty - which sounds dumb for a phone interview.. (There's a cool way I can think of that would sort up to 10 million 7 digit numbers in 2MB RAM - but it would need 12MB to sort any number of 8 digit numbers - and this would rely on the numbers being unique, which isn't specified)

Could I offer to donate £50 from my first pay cheque to buy Google some more RAM? ;)

Am I the only rejectee who is not bitter?

[minotaurcomputing]

I also interviewed with Google... did the 3 phone interviews, wacky questions, flying out to CA at odd hours, and ultimately got rejected. However, I think it was overall a great experience for me. I do not feel bitter about the process and in fact feel that it probably helped motivate me to become a better computer scientist. The impression that I got from its employees is that they are truly in love with computer science and I would do well for myself to take a similar approach to my craft.

In fact, I was asked soon after my Google experience to help interview a group of candidates at my current company, and I decided to take the Google approach. While there were very few people who were able to ace the battery of questions, there was an interesting effect. That is, you learn very quickly by asking those types of questions the kinds of people that YOU would want to work with. There are those people who simple brush those questions off by saying, "I don't know that... I've never needed to know that..." and there are those who try to work through the problems and seem enthusiastic about learning the solution. Which of those two would you rather interact with on a daily basis?

-m

Re:What they mean to say is...

[e2d2]

This is something I realized after 10+ years - smaller is better. I started out at a small shop and got my break doing everything and anything I could to help. I had to get along with 5 other people that were pretty much just like me.

Then I "moved up" for more pay to a mid size company, not bad. Pretty good actually.

Then eventually went to the largest privately owned company in the world. Benefits were great, but I was faceless. I was expected to do more work for less, but my heart wasn't in it. For some reason I couldn't help feeling used. Why? Because I felt detached from the company. Their goals were not my goals and they could have given a shit about my goals.

Maybe it was a personal issue, but at 30+ years old you simply come to a point in your life you make a decision. You either buy in and ass kissing becomes your specialty or you have a "life crisis" and try to find some sanity somewhere else. I chose the later and now work for a small company again. I don't think I'll ever go back to a large company, it just feels inhuman and unnatural.

But to each his own, some people don't have the same issues with authority that I have. More power to them.