Your call, but you need to build up interest to get people to sign up.
(Also when Instagram launched you could browse a fair bit and view photos before needing to register)
Seems Google treats its employees like they treat their customers. My experience with Google as a customer is just as frustrating (have had corporate accounts locked out with no avenue for recourse except sending emails over weeks, to simply be denied again because their bots think I'm doing something strange, and products my company was relying on and using simply stop being supported one day).
I stopped using or supporting Google related products, and declined moving forwards on an interview offer as a result. This story just reinforces this view.
It's all correct, though they do pay good money. Otherwise it's just a large, messy organisation where blame deflection is everyone's basic survival strategy. This is for example why he got such cryptic messages all the way through, nobody wanted to tell him that things are actually shit and unlikely to result in an employment before their boss' boss' boss announces that this is the case.
When my wife was looking for a VP level position at a tech company last year, Google's interview process was by far the most cumbersome and their offer was the lowest she got by a sizeable amount. When she mentioned this to them, they said she could begin the process all over again to see if she could maybe get more. She thanked them for their time and then accepted one of the reasonable offers she got.
this. Worth interviewing with someone you know and see how you do.
I interviewed a gent once who was very smart but talked my ear off, including cutting me off multiple times. After 45 mins of this, I stopped him and bluntly gave him this feedback. He was stunned and then thanked me as he realized he had been failing interviews because of this and no one had told him. I didnt hire him, but he was very appreciative and he took the feedback for his next batch.
One of the best engineers that I've ever met is fundamentally unhireable due to the severity of his personality. He's not even a bad guy -- he's very helpful always but unfortunately everything he says just sounds smug or sanctimonious. He can't help himself.
It's been sad watching his career struggles and knowing the quality of his work if you can just keep him away from stakeholders and meetings in general
One of the nice things about the old "nerds-only programmer's pit" style of team leadership is that it provides a refuge for people that want part of their world filtered out to get work done. Quite a bit more mandatory social engagement as an engineer these days. Lots of requesting your face.
It was also better for the really quiet ones. There’s some really great programmers who can put out amazing stuff if you can keep them away from the agile/stakeholder circus.
Would him explaining this to a team
before he works on it help. So they don’t take it personally. External stakeholders is different but most of the time devs arw
shield from them (for better or worse).
That is a good story of the power of candid feedback. More people should do that and treat developers as a wider community, helping people succeed even if you don’t hire them. He might come back to interview in 3 years too as you will be the company he will remember.
What often happens when an employee doesnt get promoted? they leave and usually are able to get that next level role in another company. Why is that?? Why does the current company require employees to show a track record and data points to be promoted, while they hire externally for the same position and often only look at resumes, interview and maybe an assessment. Why isnt it the same bar for internal vs external.
I think promotions to the next level should just be considered a new job (in the same company), and you don't 'win it' or get promoted - instead you apply for it and go through an interview process. If you study/train and get through the interview, then you get the job and all it's benefits. This way, employees can focus on doing the right things for the company and if they feel they're ready for the next level, apply for it.
If they don't get it, its based on merit - they can go back, get more experience/study etc. and reapply later. Their ego isn't destroyed, they're not pushed to to do the wrong things simply to get promoted, and I bet most people will remain at the company.
I worked at a company with a process like that when I was an "Engineer" looking for a promotion to "Senior Engineer", at least for me it felt insulting that I had 3 years of performances reviews "exceeding expectations" and "already performing at the level of Senior Engineer" to then be told, ok now you have to do an interview and a presentation to say why you deserve to be promoted to Senior. I declined to go through the process and then left a few months later to become a Senior Engineer at a different company.
I think promotions to the next level should just be considered a new job (in the same company), and you don't 'win it' or get promoted - instead you apply for it and go through an interview process.
That sounds like a recipe for an incredibly toxic environment. Not only are you hired for a specific pigeonhole, you are expressly forbidden from progressing through it: at least in some sane companies promotion is preceded by already having done the new role for a time and the title jump merely formalises the situation.
In fact, I thought the pigeonhole hiring in traditional finance was bad enough. You just managed to outdo decades of dysfunction in one try.
The last thing we need in tech is a codified caste system.
The other posts in this thread make it sound like internal promotion has higher barriers than an external apply/interview/offer process. Bizarre when you think about it, but it does seem to be the norm. The person you're replying to is suggesting that employees should be encouraged to apply to other positions within their current company as if they were an external hire.
I've worked at a company that did both (internal promotion and internal re-hire) and IME people that actively applied to new positions had faster "career progression".
codified caste system? Have no idea what you mean.
You're hired for a position, when you feel you're ready for the next level you apply, if not, just continue where you are. This doesnt mean you dont get paid more the better you perform. Why do you need someone above you to say you're ready for the next level?
When professors apply for promotion from associate to full in academia, and they don't get it, do you think they apply again? Clearly you would have to jump to a different company in your case if you are denied the first time unless there has been a total management turnover.
That’s the problem the GP is describing though: it’s easier to get a promotion externally than internally. Their proposed solution wouldn’t really improve things but companies have got themselves into a really weird position when boomeranging is an efficient promotion path.
not at all - i think it's the opposite. Why apply externally, when you know the ins and outs of the current company and have to go through an interview process anyway
I've worked at 5 different tech companies now - this is par for course. And every single one, wished they could go back and do it again, but at that point the product was too successful so they ran with it.
Nice idea and i really like the simplicity!
Could you provide other effects? If there was a range of different effects offered, using the same simple interface that'd be very cool.
