Slashdot Mirror
Google Has Toughest Interview Process For Developers, But Not the Worst (getvoip.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A casual survey of candidates' reactions to the interview processes of the biggest tech companies in the world shows Google as having one of the most grueling hiring gauntlets in the sector — but Twitter's is perceived as the worst. The survey measured the amount of time candidature took, as well as the number of stages and the methods involved at each stage, and additionally estimated whether the job-seekers felt positive or negative about the procedure.
I have a very rigorous hiring process. First of all, you cannot apply. I don't post job openings anywhere. There is no official mechanism to approach me for a job.
When I decide I need to hire someone, I seek out applicants on my own, based on reputation in industry, published works, patents, and other factors. When I identify someone I want to hire, I send my talent team to make contact in person (i.e. stalk them haha), often literally with a tap on the shoulder.
The process works. In 15 years, I've never had anyone leave (except to retire), and I've never had to let anyone go.
I am a dev, and for a long time was a hiring manager. The idea that grilling, testing, or creating "challenging" interview questions for candidates, and thinking that it will give you ANY introspective on how they will perform on the job, is complete and total poppycock.
I'd actually really like to agree with you, because there is a huge amount of error in any hiring process that tries to evaluate engineers in anything less than a few months of focused work.
But, I don't, for the very simple reason that I have seen the outcome of Google's hiring process firsthand, after 20 years of work in the industry to provide context... and I can state with absolute certainty that the average Google engineer would be a star virtually anywhere else in the industry. So, whatever errors there are in the process it actually works, in the sense that it effectively ensures that vanishingly few candidates who aren't highly capable get hired. Even better, Google's process seems to do an excellent job of weeding out prima donnas who can't work well with others.
So, while in the abstract I agree that it's extremely difficult to figure out who's good and who's not in a 45-minute interview with a coding problem or two... Google's process actually works very well. Google HR even has empirical data to back that up: they've found that while there is no correlation between the scores that any individual interviewer gives candidates and the job performance post-hire, there is a strong correlation between the mean scores given by the four to five interviewers who interview a candidate and post-hire performance.
Of course, that evaluation can only consider the candidates who were hired, and it's widely believed at Google that therein lies the major flaw in the hiring process: It's great at excluding unqualified candidates but does so only by also excluding lots of qualified candidates. My first tech lead at Google put it this way: If you take any successful Google engineer and run them through the hiring process anonymously, they've got a roughly 50% chance of being hired. I wonder if it's even that high.