What could you have done differently? But the questions give you a consistent, reliable basis for sifting the superb candidates from the merely great, because superb candidates will have much, much better examples and reasons for making the choices they did.
I think about the same things in the car! We then score the interview with a consistent rubric. Our own version of the scoring for general cognitive ability has five constituent components, starting with how well the candidate understands the problem. For each component, the interviewer has to indicate how the candidate did, and each performance level is clearly defined. The interviewer then has to write exactly how the candidate demonstrated their general cognitive ability, so later reviewers can make their own assessment.
Just more platitudes and corporate speak. Did you give them similar questions or did each person get different questions? Did you cover everything you needed to with each of them, or did you run out of time? Did you hold them to exactly the same standard, or were you tougher on one because you were tired, cranky, and having a bad day? Did you write up detailed notes so that other interviewers could benefit from your insights? A concise hiring rubric addresses all these issues because it distills messy, vague, and complicated work situations down to measurable, comparable results.
You want them to fall in love with you. You want them to have a great experience, have their concerns addressed, and come away feeling like they just had the best day of their lives. In contrast to the days when everyone in Silicon Valley seemed to have a story about their miserable Google experience, today 80 percent of people who have been interviewed and rejected report that they would recommend that a friend apply to Google.
But rarely have I met anyone who would be working for me. Google turns this approach upside down. This sends a strong signal to candidates about Google being nonhierarchical, and it also helps prevent cronyism, where managers hire their old buddies for their new teams. We find that the best candidates leave subordinates feeling inspired or excited to learn from them. For example, we might ask someone from the legal or the Ads team the latter design the technology behind our advertising products to interview a prospective sales hire.
This is to provide a disinterested assessment: A Googler from a different function is unlikely to have any interest in a particular job being filled but has a strong interest in keeping the quality of hiring high. They are also less susceptible to the thin-slices error, since they have less in common with the candidate than the other interviewers.
Set a high bar for quality. Before you start recruiting, decide what attributes you want and define as a group what great looks like. A good rule of thumb is to hire only people who are better than you.
Do not compromise. Find your own candidates. Assess candidates objectively. The company's global staffing lead and senior recruiter Lisa Stern Haynes says that the tech giant is able to employ the very best because a group of people have to agree on each person that's hired. A hiring manager can say no to an applicant for any reason, says Haynes. On the flip side, a hiring manager cannot single-handedly give the "final yes" to extend a job offer.
All suitable candidates must be passed along to a hiring committee for review. But the tech giant stands by its strategy of making hiring decisions through a team consensus. And that also applies to the way we make hiring decisions too," Haynes explains. The senior recruiter admits that utilizing a hiring committee does slow down the hiring process, although this approach is beneficial for the company in the long run.
Haynes explains that you often see employers rushing to settle for a candidate because of time pressure, or even hiring someone due to a preexisting relationship or as a favor to someone. This can lead to a bad hire, which has a really "long lasting negative effect on a team or a company's culture," says Haynes. The hiring committees at Google are usually made up of leaders in the specific organization doing the hiring.
Bock says that taking statistics while he was in business school was "transformative" for his career. Because of this, job listings stay open longer at Google than you'd expect, he says — they have to kiss a lot of frogs before finding The One. People who succeed there are sort of finely trained; they're conditioned to succeed in that environment," Bock says.
While in school, people are trained to give specific answers. When Bock was explaining how to write resumes to Thomas Friedman at the Times, he said that most people miss that the formula for writing quality resumes is simple: " I accomplished X, relative to Y, by doing Z. But a stand-out resume would be more specific about their accomplishments and how they compared to others.
Bock gives a better example: "Had 50 op-eds published compared to average of 6 by most op-ed [writers] as a result of providing deep insight into the following area for three years. With that sense of ownership, you'll feel responsible for the fate of a project, making you ready to solve any problem. But you also need to defer when other people have better ideas: "Your end goal," explained Bock, "is what can we do together to problem-solve. I've contributed my piece, and then I step back.
You need "intellectual humility" to succeed at Google, he says. Success can become an obstacle, Bock says, since successful, Google-bound folks don't often experience failure. So they don't know how to learn from failure. Instead of having an opportunity to learn, they blame others. Bock explains :. They, instead, commit the fundamental attribution error, which is if something good happens, it's because I'm a genius. If something bad happens, it's because someone's an idiot or I didn't get the resources or the market moved.
What we've seen is that the people who are the most successful here, who we want to hire, will have a fierce position. They'll argue like hell. They'll be zealots about their point of view. But then you say, "Here's a new fact," and they'll go, "Oh, well, that changes things; you're right.
0コメント