During his recent visit to India, Google CEO Sundar Pichai joked that if Larry Page had been the one interviewing him when he applied to Google in 2004, he would never have made it. Page is famous in tech circles for his fastidious approach to recruiting. Pichai's joke hides a truth that is well acknowledged among the IT pack. With Google's pre-eminence and rapid growth in most markets today, its brand of high-calibre employees has ensured a less desirable outcome: the unpredictability of the company's recruitment process.
Google's charm as an employer stems not merely from its pole position as a technology leader, but also because of the company's employee-friendly policies. Its famed Google X division, which works on new and as-yet-unexplored ideas - such as driverless cars - lets employees devote one day every week to a project of their choice. From free food to parental benefits, efforts are made to retain top-level talent - and not just in Silicon Valley. The company has brought San Francisco's cool libertarianism to erstwhile sleepy towns in developing countries.
Google's status has ensured that the company's recruitment policies are now standard procedure at other firms, including Amazon and Uber. Nearly every major tech company today holds several rounds of interviews with candidates - interviews that include technical and HR sessions. Google is believed to be one of the first organisations to adopt the practice.
There is an over-reliance on data analytics for not only bread-and-butter projects but also recruitment. LinkedIn is scoped for positions and direct calling is also used. Google is the only major Silicon Valley company that does not rely on external recruiters. This entails a setting in which the same candidate gets multiple interview requests based on pedigree, but few outlier candidates ever make the cut. Pichai's statement is indicative of the cracks in a system that is prone to type-II errors, that is, the inability to hire good candidates.
A friend who applied for a position in the communications team at Google's Gurgaon office went through three rounds of interviews. The focus was on how he would contribute to the communications team. As a former public relations person, he gave all the right answers, but the recruiters - three different people during three telephonic conversations - were not satisfied. One recruiter, to my friend's surprise, asked him to sell YouTube to him, a highly puerile recruiting strategy one would not associate with Google. From then on, he acknowledges, his attempt was half-hearted. He did not make it.
From others in the B school set, I have heard stories of how the company's institutionalisation of its practices has done more harm than good when it comes to recruitment. In its initial days, Google was known for a spontaneous recruitment effort that was personally vetted by Larry Page. As the company has expanded, it has had to streamline things. But Google is known for encouraging a start-up culture, despite being one of the most valuable tech companies. It has, however, been unable to replicate this in its recruitment strategy.
In recent times, Google has tried to plug this gap by relying more on logical questions than on standardised test scores. Guesstimates such as "how much does Google make from Gmail advertisements in a day?" are relevant for any consultancy/analytical work in the organisation. But what explains questions such as "how do you fit a square ball in a circular hole?"; "how can you win a chess match in less than 10 moves?"; or "how many Googlers does it take to change a light bulb?"
An online outrage industry where sarcasm mixes with disbelief at the quality of Google's questions is now active. These forums give the impression that some recruiters may even be taking the mickey out of candidates, safe in the knowledge that no one would question the wisdom of Google's recruitment system.
Since the company insists on several interview rounds, the process of hiring is often awkward and time-consuming. Although the company claims it wraps up the process in two months, tales of the process going up to six months are common. Besides, candidates who have been in the process for as many as three months are dropped without so much as an intimation mail.
Surely, the least a company hoping to take on the world can do is improve its hiring practices. Food for thought, Mr Pichai.
vjohri19@gmail.com
Google's charm as an employer stems not merely from its pole position as a technology leader, but also because of the company's employee-friendly policies. Its famed Google X division, which works on new and as-yet-unexplored ideas - such as driverless cars - lets employees devote one day every week to a project of their choice. From free food to parental benefits, efforts are made to retain top-level talent - and not just in Silicon Valley. The company has brought San Francisco's cool libertarianism to erstwhile sleepy towns in developing countries.
Google's status has ensured that the company's recruitment policies are now standard procedure at other firms, including Amazon and Uber. Nearly every major tech company today holds several rounds of interviews with candidates - interviews that include technical and HR sessions. Google is believed to be one of the first organisations to adopt the practice.
Also Read
Google has a 1-to-60 recruiter-to-employee ratio, 10 times higher than the industry average. Most of the recruiters are on six-month-to-one-year contracts. In order that they may be made permanent, they apply every rule in the book to hire the best. But this strategy can backfire.
There is an over-reliance on data analytics for not only bread-and-butter projects but also recruitment. LinkedIn is scoped for positions and direct calling is also used. Google is the only major Silicon Valley company that does not rely on external recruiters. This entails a setting in which the same candidate gets multiple interview requests based on pedigree, but few outlier candidates ever make the cut. Pichai's statement is indicative of the cracks in a system that is prone to type-II errors, that is, the inability to hire good candidates.
A friend who applied for a position in the communications team at Google's Gurgaon office went through three rounds of interviews. The focus was on how he would contribute to the communications team. As a former public relations person, he gave all the right answers, but the recruiters - three different people during three telephonic conversations - were not satisfied. One recruiter, to my friend's surprise, asked him to sell YouTube to him, a highly puerile recruiting strategy one would not associate with Google. From then on, he acknowledges, his attempt was half-hearted. He did not make it.
From others in the B school set, I have heard stories of how the company's institutionalisation of its practices has done more harm than good when it comes to recruitment. In its initial days, Google was known for a spontaneous recruitment effort that was personally vetted by Larry Page. As the company has expanded, it has had to streamline things. But Google is known for encouraging a start-up culture, despite being one of the most valuable tech companies. It has, however, been unable to replicate this in its recruitment strategy.
In recent times, Google has tried to plug this gap by relying more on logical questions than on standardised test scores. Guesstimates such as "how much does Google make from Gmail advertisements in a day?" are relevant for any consultancy/analytical work in the organisation. But what explains questions such as "how do you fit a square ball in a circular hole?"; "how can you win a chess match in less than 10 moves?"; or "how many Googlers does it take to change a light bulb?"
An online outrage industry where sarcasm mixes with disbelief at the quality of Google's questions is now active. These forums give the impression that some recruiters may even be taking the mickey out of candidates, safe in the knowledge that no one would question the wisdom of Google's recruitment system.
Since the company insists on several interview rounds, the process of hiring is often awkward and time-consuming. Although the company claims it wraps up the process in two months, tales of the process going up to six months are common. Besides, candidates who have been in the process for as many as three months are dropped without so much as an intimation mail.
Surely, the least a company hoping to take on the world can do is improve its hiring practices. Food for thought, Mr Pichai.
vjohri19@gmail.com