I have three friends at Google who are nice, smart people, but terrible employees. All three of them seem to be doing just fine in their Google careers.
One is very smart, but he's been telling me literally for years that he has zero motivation, to the point where he sometimes won't actually start working until 6PM. He's moved around within Google trying to find something he's interested in, but it's just the same thing on a new team. I've suggested a number of times that he leave and find something that inspires him, but he's too used to the salary, perks, and lifestyle to try something new.
Another friend is very similar - nice guy, but there was a consensus at his last startup that he wasn't really accomplishing very much, and he would have been fired if he hadn't left voluntarily.
Another friend is a nice guy, but the most irresponsible person I know. He's been fired from other jobs for being unable to show up before 1PM, and he keeps making some truly irresponsible life choices (ghosting people, drugs, prostitutes).
I know this is anecdotal, but do other people have this experience with Google engineers? It seems like Google is the kind of environment where (at least if you're an SWE) you can get away with doing the minimum for a very long time.
When your company is a monopoly that has a printing press for money, the normal competitive pressures don't apply. There's no need to aggressively cut head count because employee salaries are such a small percentage of their expenses relative to other companies of similar size.
Google is like an ivy league school: the hard part is getting in.
Yes I've seen the same thing and more than once. Why should anyone leave, it's easy enough, and probably would be worse somewhere else. To me it's sad when this happens, because it's slowing down people who could be contributing to innovation and cool stuff, but I get it, paychecks are good.
They have probably got to the stage where they don't want innovation. They have a machine that prints money like there is no tomorrow. Why risk that with new ideas.
Is this serious? I replied to another person in the thread with a similar take. I agree that large tech companies are not the heavenly place that people depict them to be where everyone is a super genius, but I just don't find what you're saying to be consistent with my experience.
I joined Amazon as a new grad and spent 3 years there. I went from a 0% callback rate on cold applications to like 60%. I've been at Google for 2 years, and I am approaching 80% callback. A third of the time, I get to skip phone screens entirely and go directly onsite.
I don't think that the vibe irl is the same as on HN. I never get the impression that people are weary of Googlers. Maybe my Amazon experience is the difference maker? I think if anything, sometimes I get the impression that the person interviewing me is a bit defensive at the beginning of interviews as they feel me out.
People are extremely defensive about elite institutions like FAANG or the Ivies. Those are generally not the people making the hiring decisions, but they can be.
Exactly what reputation is this? I have heard that about a former employer British Telecom, I suspect it varies I can imagine the sort that went into CS and rote learned their way to a Degree might have a problem.
Not that some of googles published api's and standards work can sometimes a little shonky and could do with a lot more rigor.
I wouldn't say it's a red flag to have Google on your resume, but I will say that I do make a point of understanding what exactly an applicant did during their time at Google. Like any company, there are good teams and bad teams -- but at Google, it's possible to contribute nothing and still not get fired due to the way they're structured internally.
But isn't that the case with all companies of that size? It might be easier at some, but pretty much everyone I know at large company knows stories of some people doing next to nothing. As structures grow complex it's easy to hide behind politics if you're smart.
>It seems like Google is the kind of environment where (at least if you're an SWE) you can get away with doing the minimum for a very long time.
Is this by design? i.e. taking talent out of the marketplace and placating them comfortably while working at <100% to ensure they don't go to competition, or prospective competition, and churn 100%+?
I think it's by design, but I believe the main intent was just to make it a desirable place to work.
For most people, that meant not being worked at 100% until they burn out. It also meant giving people latitude to transfer teams, take on side projects, and find work that resonated with them. That works for a lot of people, but others work better with more pressure or more structure.
One is very smart, but he's been telling me literally for years that he has zero motivation, to the point where he sometimes won't actually start working until 6PM. He's moved around within Google trying to find something he's interested in, but it's just the same thing on a new team. I've suggested a number of times that he leave and find something that inspires him, but he's too used to the salary, perks, and lifestyle to try something new.
Another friend is very similar - nice guy, but there was a consensus at his last startup that he wasn't really accomplishing very much, and he would have been fired if he hadn't left voluntarily.
Another friend is a nice guy, but the most irresponsible person I know. He's been fired from other jobs for being unable to show up before 1PM, and he keeps making some truly irresponsible life choices (ghosting people, drugs, prostitutes).
I know this is anecdotal, but do other people have this experience with Google engineers? It seems like Google is the kind of environment where (at least if you're an SWE) you can get away with doing the minimum for a very long time.