To add: I can very well imagine this process isn't suitable for FAANG, so I can understand their university exam style approach to a degree. It's easy to arm chair criticise, but I don't know if I could come up with something better at their scale. These days, I'm mostly engaged by startups to help them build an initial team, I acknowledge that's different from what a lot of other folks hire for.
Why not? Plenty of large organizations hire this way. My first employer is bigger than any FAANG company by head count, and they hired this way. Why is big tech different?
When you're operating a small furniture company, your master craftsmen can hand-fit every part. Match up the hole that's slightly too big with the dowel that's slightly too big, which they put to one side the other day.
When you're operating a huge furniture company, you want every dowel and every hole the same size. Then any fool can assemble it, and you don't have to waste time and space on a collection of slightly-too-large dowels.
To scale up often means focusing on consistency and precision, and less on expert judgement and care.
That's a nice story, and completely irrelevant. Different orgs scale different ways, and ultimately hiring is done at the team level. You have a vacancy or need on a team to fill. Big org or small org, the situation is the same.
Interestingly large companies will often have a hiring pipeline that isn't specific to a single team and role.
In the past Google made a lot of hires where they first give people a phone screen, then five in-person whiteboard interviews, then the interviewers send a dossier to a committee, then that committee decides whether to hire or not, then "team matching" lets hiring managers see the resumes.
So the interviews are basically conducted by random people, who have no idea what team the candidate will end up on.
Of course if you look at the number of employees Google has, and the average tenure, you can see why they make hires like Ikea makes chairs.
Yes that is how FAANG works, but they’re the oddity. Most large organizations don’t hire that way. Google invented this method of hiring, and others copied. It is debatable whether it has been good or not for them.
Usually what happens in a large org is (1) a department gets allocated a head count, and it eventually trickles down to team allocations; (2) a team needs a role that they can’t backfill from the rest of the company; (3) the team lead puts out an ad, receives resumes (directly or through HR), schedules interviews, and makes the hiring decision themselves. Exactly the same as a small company or startup in the last step.
Also human judgement is loaded with bias. Height influences outcome and this is a statistically proven phenomena. Ask any interviewer in this thread and they will claim height and good looks aren’t a factor but the statistics prove them wrong.
The literal only way to get rid of that is quantitative tests.
Well, I respect the scale and speed. My process was still working fine at ~5 per month. I have doubts it'd work with orders of magnitude more. There's a lot of intuition and finesse in there, that is probably difficult to blindly delegate. Plus, big companies have very strong internal forces to eliminate intuition in favour of repeatable, measurable processes.
That’s cool. My main job is being a research scientist but i also work at a computational science consultancy that essentially builds numerical simulations for hire along with other software consultancy jobs. I occasionally have been asked to serve as an outside consultant for hiring data science positions. I’ve been wondering how to grow that a bit into more regular work because I enjoy it. Any thoughts on that?
Well, my contracts pretty much all came through my network, someone recommending me, and then clients recommending me, and so on. Not sure if I just got lucky or if this actually works, but my first step would be to tell some relevant folks you know that you're doing this now, see if they have any advice or know someone who might be interested. Another approach would be to ask the consultancy you work with if they want to add this service you can provide to their portfolio, see if it's something they could sell to existing or new clients.
However, these days, people seem barely OK with paying for a recruiter. They think just because more people than usually are looking, they get to just lean back and great candidates show up.
IMHO, if anything, it got more difficult to hire. More noise to work through, people in existing roles are more reluctant to switch, candidates hustle more because they need a job etc. I absolutely think it's a useful service. But I don't know if it's easy to market.
