Slashdot Log In
Google's Answer to Filling Jobs Is an Algorithm
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Jan 04, 2007 04:29 PM
from the humanisticly-dehumanizing dept.
from the humanisticly-dehumanizing dept.
An anonymous reader tipped us to a New York Times article about Google's newest HR tool: an algorithm. Starting soon, the company (which gets roughly 100,000 applications a month) will require all interested applicants to fill out an in-depth survey. They'll be using a sophisticated algorithm to work through the submitted surveys, matching applicants with positions. The company has apparently doubled in size in each of the last three years. Even though it's already 10,000 employees strong Laszlo Bock, Google's vice president for people operations, sees no reason the company won't reach 20,000 by the end of the year. This will mean hiring something like 200 people a week, every week, all year. From the article: "Even as Google tries to hire more people faster, it wants to make sure that its employees will fit into its freewheeling culture. The company boasts that only 4 percent of its work force leaves each year, less than other Silicon Valley companies. And it works hard to retain people, with copious free food, time to work on personal projects and other goodies. Stock options and grants certainly encourage employees to stay long enough to take advantage of the company's surging share price. Google's hiring approach is backed by academic research showing that quantitative information on a person's background -- called 'biodata' among testing experts -- is indeed a valid way to look for good workers."
Related Stories
[+]
Google Tops 100 Best Places To Work 317 comments
inetsee writes "Fortune Magazine's annual '100 Best Companies to Work For' list is out, and Google topped the list in their debut appearance. Some highlights of the benefits of working for Google that caught my eye were the free gourmet meals and the massages. The chance to spend 20% of your time working on your own personal projects also sounds very appealing. Of course, with resumes rolling in at the rate of thousands a day, the competition is fierce."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
"But the computer chose them! You're not going to sue my computer, are you?"
Re:Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
(OK, so it's a trivial case, but you get the general idea)
I suspect there could be plenty of arguments in court about whether some nuance of the algorithm treats some group unfairly or not...
Parent
Re:Bias (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Bias (Score:5, Informative)
No. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971). A plaintiff can show that some employment criterion or criteria results in a disparate impact upon a protected group, regardless of whether discrimination is overtly intended or not. The burden of proof then shifts to the employer to show that said criteria are a necessary requirement for the job(s) in question. If they can't, they lose. Even if they can, if the plaintifss can come up with an alternate business practice that satisfies the employer's interests without resulting in a disparate impact, they lose. Good or bad, that's the law.
Parent
Re:Bias (Score:4, Interesting)
Still, "years of related work experience" is pretty easy to put into the "reasonable measure of job performance" bucket, and given that, the requirement of intent to discriminate against a protected group stands.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bias (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Bias (Score:4, Funny)
Damn! Even though I keep my gender a secret, they'll be able to tell I'm a woman because of gaps in my resume when I took time to be with the infants... krap, it was so nice thinking I was flying under the radar. Maybe I need to fill those gaps: "Dec97-Mar99, Lactation Dispensation Consultant".
(ps - I *am* joking. And, I'm not really a woman... I'm really a horse. Well... I'm just pretending to be a horse... actually, I'm a broom.)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless of course, as someone pointed out earlier, you have access to statistical and demographic data that lets your algorithm figure out religion, race, sex, etc indirectly from the answers with an acceptable margin of error, say +/- 3%?
Parent
Re:Bias (Score:5, Interesting)
What if google's statistical data (drawn from its database of performance reviews) shows that some ages, genders, races, and cultures are objectively better at a particular job than others?
Google's test will obviously avoid asking any direct questions about age, gender, and race, because that's illegal (even when objectively justifiable). However, if the test is powered by a statistics engine drawing a database of past performance reviews, then the test could unintentionally evolve to ask about such things indirectly.
An example: perhaps cat-ownership is correllated with femaleness, and femaleness is correllated with superior performance in writing technical documentation. An automated test-generator would unwittingly evolve to ask applicants about cat-ownership, in order to unwittingly select superior female candidates.
It's an amusing possibility. Indeed, it would be the free-market's way of legitimately selecting candidates based on age/gender/race while remaining underneath the legal radar.
Parent
Re:Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding (IANAL etc) is that you are supposed to assess only the skills, aptitude, etc. that you can defend as related to the job. If that happens to be correlated with sex, race, age, etc., the correlation is not a problem, but you cannot use those things as a proxy for what you're really interested in. For example, in a job that requires quick responses, you can test people's reaction times, but you cannot automatically exclude people based on age (even though age may be correlated with reaction time).
More direct assessment is better anyway. Suppose you are hiring for a job that requires math skills, which you believe is correlated with gender, which you believe is correlated with cat ownership. Even if those correlations exist, you'd still get more accurate results measuring the math skills directly rather than measuring cat ownership which is correlated with something that is correlated with what you need.
Parent
Re:Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
The law does not assume that there's no relationship between job performance and age/race/etc. What the law assumes is that the relationship is not causal. That is, just because you're over 50 you can't do the job, even if most 50-year olds really can't. Therefore, we protect the one 50-year old who could from unfair discrimination.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think what you mean to say, is that the law assumes the relationship is not universal. Even if a causal relationship is shown, the law still protects. For example, it's well known that there's a causal relationship which causes women (in general) to be unable to lift weights as heavy as average men can. But we also know this relationship is not u
On Balance (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't believe they would deliberately make decisions on the basis of anything that was not obviously going to help them. First, they are a global corporation, so institu
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Today Google Jobs... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Today Google Jobs... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Psychological profile included ala The Game? (Score:4, Funny)
Do you enjoy harming animals?
Re:Psychological profile included ala The Game? (Score:5, Funny)
Do you enjoy harming animals?
Huh. I must be really efficient. Killing two birds with one stone, no beating around the bush. Er... as it were!
Parent
Re:Psychological profile included ala The Game? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
a) press cntrl-alt-del
b) smash your monitor to tiny bits
c) insert your Knoppix CD
Go away or... (Score:3, Funny)
Only useful if... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thankfully they changed the GPA thing (Score:4, Informative)
Luckily for me I dont have to worry about it anymore, but especially in the technology field why should GPA be more important than actual projects and experience?
Re:Thankfully they changed the GPA thing (Score:5, Interesting)
note: These are my opinions and not necessarily those of Google's. And I try not to post on Google articles nowadays, but this doesn't pertain to our business strategy so I'm comfortable sharing it. BTW we had an awesome free lunch today here in Kirkland, Washington [blogspot.com].
Parent
Re:Thankfully they changed the GPA thing (Score:5, Informative)
This statement could not be further from the truth. One of my fellow co-workers is brilliant and he ran his own hosted content management company for years before joining Google. The three people who started a company that eventually became Google Talk are still working here in Kirkland, Washington. One of my friends here at the Kirkland office just moved to San Mateo, California, to work with the engineers at YouTube and learn from their entrepreneurial experiences. And just yesterday we had the founder of JotSpot, which Google acquired a few months back, come to help us with our latest product strategy. The people here are extremely smart, they have run their own companies in the past, and Google's very happy to have them. (And as far as I can tell, they're happy to be here
Parent
Only 4% turnover? It's going to rise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? Most people don't try to get hired or stay at a job just because of stock options. It is a nice perk, but if a company treats you like crap or you feel what you are doing is not appreciated or useful in some way then you are going to quit regardless of how much money they throw at you.
And if you are one of those people who stick around for the money even though yo
A lawsuit waiting to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
The questions range from the age when applicants first got excited about computers...
This question doesn't directly reveal your age, but a clever interviewer can glean much from it. "Oh, got excited in computers at 22, eh? Probably older than I thought. We don't want old employees we want young ones."
It is illegal to ask some questions in an interview. Age related questions are one of them. You are only allowed to ask questions that pertain to your performance of the job at hand. For example, I can ask someone "would you have a problem lifting heavy boxes?" but I can't ask how old you are and make a judgement because you are 40 that you can't lift heavy boxes. The above question you as a logical geek might think is iffy, but to a lawyer, it's shark bait and they'll be all over it, so don't ask it. If you ask a question that falls into this category, you open yourself up to a gender/age/racial discrimination lawsuit. These and many others are protected classes under the law.
And there's a great reason why an interview is a poor indicator of performance... because people lie!!! It's a sales process. They want your job, and you want the best candidate. Last two people I let go both gave great interviews, but when they actually worked, they sucked. They had all the right answers in the interview, but there is no escaping performance reviews.
0% firing rate is impossible, as is 100% retention. 96% retention is a stellar figure, even for silicon valley. I think they should be pretty happy that number.
Re:A lawsuit waiting to happen (Score:5, Interesting)
Google knows AI and machine learning; even if they don't use it they'll have people who know about it.
Suppose by asking certain questions, and doing some initial research and calibration, I can determine your age within two years with 97% certainty. Or marital status, or race, or any of the other protected categories. Have I broken the law? What if I don't actually do the computation? What if my computers do the computation but no human ever sees it? What if I do the computation and no human ever directly sees the result but the computer has enough power to say "No" to a hire in practice, thus still incorporating this potentially "forbidden knowledge" into the hiring decision?
(After all, asking someone about their marital status may actually be less reliable in the end; I can easily imagine 1 out of 40 people lying about something like that, or their true age/race/etc. if asked.)
This is extremely likely to be possible, and probably downright easy for Google, so this isn't just a hypothetical. And the problems this raises extends beyond this exact instance into any domain where for legal reasons, we have to cultivate ignorance; exactly what constitutes "ignorance" if you get right down to it?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not in the way that you are most likely thinking of. It's difficult to express what I mean without much math, but basically, that 97% confidence/correlation would come from a statistical profile that would be 97% accurate at guessing, and at no point does that profile ever contain the actual knowledge of the marriage state... yet, an external viewer can only find a 3% variance between this statistical process and simpl
20,000 vs 200 x 100? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know that Google would be better served as two hundred smaller companies, but at the same time, it's hard to imagine managing 20,000 employees would be any easier.
Re:20,000 vs 200 x 100? (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't read anything about their philosophy other than what you just shared, but it's hard to take seriously any sort of one-size-fits-all solution for something as broad as "all companies."
Parent
the code.. (Score:4, Funny)
if (surveyResults == Evil())
forwardResumeToMicrsoft(bool recommend);
hire();
The Dot-Bomb Trap (Score:4, Interesting)
But eventually, profits will level off and then start to decline. Nothing goes up forever. And when the money gets tight, Google will suddenly realize that they've got a whole bunch of people that they don't really need.
Re:The Dot-Bomb Trap (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
That should work out well for CowboyNeal (Score:2)
Re:How do you feel about personality questions? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't have any sort of degree in HR, but I own a small health care company and do all the hiring myself. And I mostly ask very tough questions to gain insight into the other person's personality. How they view themselves. How they view the world. Why? Because it's all I really care about.
If the come to the interview dressed like crap, they're automatically out. If they turn up late, they're automatically out. The resume is usually full of a lot of BS anyway - I check on the real important stuff - like - do they actually have the degrees they say they have.
Letters of recommendation are usually from work buddies, after all, you're not going to ask the supervisor who hates your guts for a recommendation, you'll ask the other one who really likes you. So I'm left with personality - self esteem, self confidence, ability to take the time to LISTEN, and ability to adapt. It's kinda rough on the guys, but hey, an interview is an interview. I have my patients to protect. And I think I've done ok with this technique so far.
Parent
Another voodoo interviewer... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the come to the interview dressed like crap, they're automatically out. If they turn up late, they're automatically out.
It's facinating to me the utter-crap voodoo that some people having in making hiring decisions. People like yourself actually believe there's these simple little tests that seperate the good from the bad.
Did you ever consider that all you're doing is just trying to hire people like yourself? You may think that's a great way to seperate the good from the bad... but you may eventually discover that any workplace relies on a variety of people with different personalities, attitudes, and "views of the world". Hire too many people like yourself, and you might just wind up with a bunch of people that can't see outside of the box you've built. If you want a perfect example of this problem, look no further than the Bush administration.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, so I should hire the guy who turns up 45 minutes late for the interview - whose excuse is "it could happen to anyone", who has a pierced eyebrow and orange hair, and who has no self esteem? Do you want this person touching your children? I work in health care, remember. Are you implying I should hire the first person who turns up for the job and not make any screening attempt
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They're not losing money fast enough... (Score:5, Informative)
10,000 employees at $200k each is $2 billion a year, not $20 billion a year. Google is making enough to cover those costs even if they double the number of employees and do not increase revenue at all. You can look at a summary of their revenue, and their expenses as a portion of revenue here: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/061108/goog10-q.html [yahoo.com]
They are making a handsome profit.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did they really? How fucking stupid can such a decision be? I know plenty of people who went to Rutgers (state university in NJ) for undergrad. and are *extremely* bright. Their parents just didn't have $100,000+ to blow on a top-tier private or out-of-state education, at least not without selling their home or dipping into retirement. Not did the kids want to
Re:Hopefully ..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Google has a strange recruitment process, they never ask what you are currently doing or where you live, they just find a few old web pages in their cache and assume they're current. It was on the 5th interview when the Google interviewer suddenly realised I wasn't a programmer, but I knew enough CompSci to have struggled through 4 interviews. They had the idea I was a major F/L OSS programmer based on all my activity in mailing lists, not a guy just helping test one project. They had also found an old Irish mobile phone number that forwards to my current phone, and assumed I lived in Ireland.
After a few mumbled promises to send my current CV to the right group, within hours I received a "No Job For You" form letter and I seem to have been put on a black list internally. The stream of recruitment emails have trickled off to maybe one every two months.
It's funny, because I run into senior Google people at trade events who try to recruit me because they know my reputation. When I tell them I've already been rejected for a junior level programmer position in an HR blunder a couple years ago, you can see their faces fall. They know that once Google rejects someone, there's little chance of getting them in past HR, but some senior guys are working to reform their broken system.
Getting rejected is a great solution if you never want to work there and limit those spammish requests. Since they are offering you a job, tell them you want to be head of HR
the AC
Parent