Why does Google use agencies? Becuase Google has highly specialized skillsets of the majority of their recruiting and on top of that, an applicant tracking system that is ineffective to handle the volume.

Google does not have issues attracting good candidates we all know that. The issue they have I am sure is wading through the millions of junk resumes that people send in. That has always been the problem with well known companies. I once applied to Google, they called me 1 year later asking me if I was still interested in working in their recruiting dept. So their problem probably is they do not have the right applicant tracking system. Its a matter of volume. I am sure they get millions of resumes sent to them, and most of the resumes do not match their needs at all, junk resumes. People who simply spam their resume to any posting, hoping someone will call. Google uses an email address to have people apply, its easy and simple to apply but the problem with that approach is junk resumes.

From my perspective John?s article isn?t about Google; rather it?s about how to develop a performance culture that impacts business objectives, which could lead to creating a sustainable competitive advantage in the market place. Having the right people in the right jobs can be that advantage. To get there requires thinking and acting in strategic ways. Such thinking and acting also requires being future focused, developing ?an action tool kit?, benchmarking, linking appropriate metrics, the use of technology; and having people with the skill, commitment and courage to make it happen.

Any organization doing these things [to the best of its ability and within its resource limitations] will likely experience increased retention, overall employee and workforce productivity gains; as well as, a better position in the market place, which will hopefully lead to better financial results regardless of the economic environment [all things being equal].

Be courageous?

With that said, as I read this article I am reminded of a qualifier from the financial services industry.

‘Past performance does not guarantee future returns.’

Like royalty that became ill from hemophilia from inbreeding, using a methodology like this will fail UNLESS

Unless you understand what it is about these experiences results in the desired outcome so that you can replicate them.

Jeff Altman
The Big Game Hunter

I have seen this happen time and time again, from both perspectives. We have had some great successes in hiring someone who wasn’t a good fit in a previous job, but seemed to be just right for our job. We’ve also had some miserable failures when we’ve hired someone who was a star in their previous company but had trouble fitting into our culture (higher education is very different from corporate America), even though the job was similar.

Which leads us to the moral of the story, which is, if you’re going to use a biodata assessment, make sure it’s based on your own culture and your own star performers.

My Rants:
1. If any company had a working budget like they did, who couldn?t build a world class recruiting machine to ATTRACT talent. Microsoft did.
2. It really floors me as to why they would even need to work with outside recruiting agencies.
a. Administrative Support ? Fine
b. Scheduling – Fine
But why agencies when they can attract all the talent they need. If they truly hire the brightest, what happened to their recruiting team? Shouldn?t all their recruiters be like ?Shally-Machines? built to recruit, source, mine, cold call without external agencies? It doesn?t make sense to me why they need external resources. With that type of resume flow you would think those candidates are already in the google ATS.

It makes me wonder if the brightest truly is the best.

Thoughts?

Yes, Google has an unreal market cap…brand recognition…droves of genius coders working for them…etc. etc. But let’s not ignore the fact that Google wasn’t always where it is today. They got where they are for a reason.

I think the purpose of looking at companies like this from your own lens is to benchmark for your own organization. There are obvious differences between Google and your own organization…but does that mean that you can’t take steps towards re-imagining how to do recruiting? And in doing so, take a few pages from organizations like Google?

Rather than denigrate an organization because their circumstances are ‘better’ or ‘different’ than your own…I wonder if our energy isn’t better spent using these types of organizations as inspiration to spur ideation within our own teams and organizations?

Having said that, of course, I do agree with people when they ask, ‘yeah, that’s great…but how does this relate to me???’ I’d like to think of articles like this as just the tip of the iceberg…that lead to discussions around how you can effectively transfer the knowledge from other places into your own settings. In other words, the key is not the article in so much as it is the discussions and ‘brainstormers’ that happen afterwards. At least, that’s the hope…right?

Our company at the end of 2005 decided to add it’s own ‘algorithm’ in helping determine a good fit based on the past successes, backgrounds, etc of candidates applying for our roles within our organization. Just like Google, we looked at their backgrounds and whether they started their own business or whether they worked with someone that did, etc. (There are a LOT more attributes that we looked at, so the few listed there are just to illustrate a point).

2006 numbers are in, and based on our use of this new system (and even turning down what might have been better candidates based on the interviews) our retention increased about 250%; the employee referral program increased by almost 300%; and overall job satisfaction increased among employees. There were a lot of other benefits that we enjoyed this year from implementing this system, and we are still refining it to this day as it is a continual process of developing data to support our hiring practices and ensuring that those that we hire in the future WILL be successful.

(Another great result was litereally doubling my income this year, which is always a fantastic bonus since I was so involed in the transition :)

Every company is different (culture, environment, practices, etc) and if there was a way to hire on the right people (even if they academically don’t seem to fit, or have not had the best track record of success in the past) it does not mean that they cannot fit in another organization and be a superstar. It is amazing to me to see someone who was doing horrible in the organization they were in and based on our search criteria, we determined they would do well in our organization, and sure enough, they are leaders within our organization now.

It will be interesting to see in the future what Google accomplishes with their ‘test’ as well as the ‘test’ we are running with our organization.

As was mentioned earlier, when one considers Googles Size, name recognition, and of course their popularity and that many people want to
work for them.. so of course for them finding candidates is easy, and of course they have the ability to being able to implement more
creative tools that allow them to be more selective, more so than the average company.

For sure, the average company, the smaller company has a much more challenging time to find those candidates, compared to that of the
Yahoo’s, Microsoft, Google, AT&T, Apple and so on.

To compare recruiting and retention techniques of these companies to that of Say Sanford and Sons Computers Inc (made up name) is indeed
foolhardy. Gee, how much easier is it for a recruiter at Google to call Joe Blue, and say, hey I found your information on the internet,
are you interested in working for us?

Will the recruiter at average company have the same responses? On a regular basis? My bet is that Google has a hard time just Wading
through the hundreds, maybe even thousands of resumes they get each day!

So, with that in mind, when we are looking at recruiting metrics, and search tools, are we keeping these factors in mind? When we look at
how fast name generation makes a placement is that also something else we are considering? These factors do play a really Huge factor
in what really is happening in our industry.

Surprisingly I have found the bigger and well known the company, the slower the process. The more ‘picky’ they are. Also they tend to
have more people to push the process too.. It isn’t just up to the decision maker – nah, it also must include the sourcer, qualifier,
recruiter, H.R, Managers upon managers, and more interviews that make
your head spin..

For sure the lesser name client doesn’t have that luxury to slow down the process, especially if they are competing with the big boys..

It really isn’t apples to apples in recruiting, actually it is more like sponge to concrete sometimes when considers these Real World variables..

Can this happen? Hmm, remember a few years back sitting with our investor as he tried to convince my husband that internet was the best place to roll our money.. Based upon many of the resumes that was crossing my desk, I felt that at the time, it was indeed the worst place.

Of course it was difficult to explain to my husband why I felt that Microsoft and Yahoo could actually Crash. No Way, not the richest companies in the world they felt.

Thank goodness I got my way on this one, because less than 3 mths later, the Worst Stock Market Crash hit the dot com markets.. I don’t think we would have been able to recoupe..

Anyways, wonder how many of us are ever prepared for could happen in the Real World..

Hello Maureen:

?Have you ever made a profit from a catering business or dog walking?
Do you prefer to work alone or in groups?
Have you ever set a world record in anything??

These are questions unrelated to the job, did I hear law suit?

?Google has always wanted to hire people with straight-A report cards and double 800s on their SATs. Now, like an Ivy League school, it is starting to look for more well-rounded candidates, like those who have published books or started their own clubs.?

Does publishing books or starting a club predict job success? What percentage of Goog’e’s top performers published books or started their own clubs?

?Desperate to hire more engineers and sales representatives to staff its rapidly growing search and advertising business, Google; in typical eccentric fashion has created an automated way to search for talent among the more than 100,000 job applications it receives each month. It is starting to ask job applicants to fill out an elaborate online survey that explores their attitudes, behavior, personality and biographical details going back to high school.?

But is that talent?

?The questions range from the age when applicants first got excited about computers to whether they have ever tutored or ever established a nonprofit organization.?

That is not talent.

?The answers are fed into a series of formulas created by Google’s mathematicians that calculate a score;
from zero to 100 meant to predict how well a person will fit into its chaotic and competitive culture.?

Oh my, one score for all the jobs? It seems they are reinventing the wheel but a wheel that cannot carry anything–they need an axle and wagon. Too bad they just don’t buy a truck. Perhaps they are cheap? Most all employers think they are different so they waste time and money trying different things.

‘?As we get bigger, we find it harder and harder to find enough people,? said Laszlo Bock, Google’s vice president for people operations. ?With traditional hiring methods, we were worried we will
overlook some of the best candidates.?’

It seems they want to hire the best candidate but not necessarily the best employees which is a common mistake.

?Google is certainly not alone in the search for quantitative ways to find good employees. Employers use a wide range of tests meant to assess skills, intelligence, personality and honesty. And the use of biographical surveys similar to Google’s new system is on the rise.?

Yes, and Google believed that higher intelligence makes for better employee whether or not it was true.

Again, these comments were sent to me offline but I offer them here for discussion. There are a few other comments in the string ? they can be found in the Interviewing and Screening group here on ERE.
It seems some people find Google?s hiring techniques ?controversial?. Your thoughts?

‘Last 5-6 years people are enjoying it and hence let us assume it works’ could be a possible answer.

But those who have been using it for long know that it is not accurate enough even if you use the best of boolean or advanced search options.

Perhaps the Searchers dont know how to exploit the great algortihm !!!!

In recruiting profession we have seen time and again that the complementary forces ‘can do ‘ and ‘will do’ have to be addressed in any form of screening.

Baed on the article in new york times, when google screening algorithm screens on variety of Success predictors it is heavily banking on ‘Can do’ factors and not on ‘will do’ factors of candidates.

Let me draw analogy here: It might throw in all best tigers in one cage and say they will work together. You know what would happen.

Iam sure google coding wizkids would have designed an algorithm for employee compatability and team work too…

How about a program for screening prospective spouse ? we can reduce the divorces.

Let us leave them for furture articles.

As a talent search professional, I appreciate the recruitment function’s thirst to predict future success. Thanks to googlers for ’showing water’ that apparently can slake our thirst. the screening tool is yet to be validated before it is potable. Presently, it is still a mirage for most of us.

Kudos to Google for attacking the humane problem logical way…I am sure the fruits of their efforts would lead to a few good tips/tools to organise our searches.

Yet there is huge potential in screening candidates for both ‘Can do’ & ‘will do’ factors. And the beauty of the game is, it is entirely contextual and never be the same even for the same job position.

Perhaps this challenge keeps us going on…and our profession too.