Does google have poor performers?
Do low performers exist at google? im talking about dead weight employees that for whatever reason produce extremely low work output. These employees span all intelligence levels. I have personally encountered many coworkers that fit into the category of “really smart, but cant get anything done.” sometimes these employees have impressive credentials with ivy league degrees but have difficulties with motivation, work management, and skill atrophy. They were smart enough to get into MIT but produce utter garbage and they produce it slowly like raw sewage seeping out of a pin hole leak. id estimate that for all companies/teams ive been at per 10 engineers you’re bound to get at least 1 dead weight and probably another pretty trashy person on top of that. At companies with a higher bar you just get higher IQ deadweights but the high IQ deadweights arent any better than the normal IQ deadweights. does a company as prestigious as Google have deadweights too?
Is the 5th percentile google engineer any better than the 5th percentile engineer at a lesser company? The 5th percentile engineer at sales force or intel is getting 0 done. Maybe even negative work done. How is the 5th percentile google guy doing?
Probably really smart but just need the right motivation but they are probably completing tasks at a snails pace.
Yes they exist they are trying to unionize now
I know I am going to invite ridicule with my post, but still expressing what I feel. Our gifts in life (being academic gifted, athletic built) are from god. If we are destined to have a comfortable life, he gifts us with these things; like the smarts to crack an Ivy League, or an athletic built. There must be people everywhere who are placed in a certain area where millions can’t even imagine - and their output is not great. And yet they continue to be there.
Why am I leetcoding, if I am destined to have a comfortable life? Was I not chosen and so not destined😭?
@Amazon: The day I learn to explain that well, I am going to charge several 100 million dollars to explain. So that I can fulfill my destiny of a comfortable life 😎
This is such a silly thread. Of course there are low performers at Google
@hpBF22 - just reading your post, is your question more about whether Google is good at identifying and removing low performers or whether their hiring process good enough to reduce the chance of hiring a low performer? As others mentioned I am sure like many places you will always see a spread of different levels of performance.
The question is whether their process filters out low performers and also if their bottom tier employees are any better then at regular companies?
There is no secret sauce in the Google interview process. Or Amazon’s or Facebook’s or Microsoft’s. Same old stuff. The interview processes are different in details but not magic. They screen out some really strong candidates and let some real weak people in, because it’s the job interview not the actual job. People can be good at one and not the other, and interviewers can be good and bad.
I have seen these folks everywhere I have ever worked. Some of them are really good at politics to cover up the fact that they are dead weight. I am willing to bet even Google has them. The higher you go in the ranks, the less value they seem to offer.
Sure, they have a monopoly and can afford to hire employees in bulk without even knowing what they will do. That model lends itself to picking up a few bad apples.
Yes, and they are bad at firing. Motivated people move on. Over time G gets slower and slower because of it.
Obviously YES