I used to work for Google and did a ton of interviews for roles where I was the hiring manager, as well as others.
One of the more painful things that I came across regularly was that we often had multiple great people go through the full interview process for a role, but could only hire one. Often 2-3 candidates could have done the job brilliantly, but we could only choose one. In that case, it tends to be really subtle things that shift the decision. (And this is where Google's Unconscious Bias training is vitally important - https://www.gv.com/lib/unconscious-bias-at-work)
It sounds like that situation may very well be the case here: lots of expense (both time/effort and $) and a long series of interviews, with a "no" at the end. (And in my experience those "no's" are often blunt, no matter how awesome a candidate is, for cover-your-ass/legal reasons.)
This is the startup secret weapon: they can hire people that Google (and other large companies) cannot. When there's no shortage of work to do, and hiring is a constant struggle, you can hire as many good people as show up at the door.
A lot of startups do still hire with a large company mindset, but I think they're making a big mistake.
Simply the process of getting approval for a job req and playing the required politics screws everything up. I've actually been pressured to hire someone just to hold onto the req at a large company, with the up-front, stated intention to fire the person in a month or two and keep looking.
> I've actually been pressured to hire someone just to hold onto the req at a large company, with the up-front, stated intention to fire the person in a month or two and keep looking.
Wow, that is seriously fked up. While I got pressure to hire (one role I hired for was very specific so it took a long time to find a candidate), as long as I was actively sourcing/interviewing people, I never got too much flak. You've got to keep a hiring bar high... and not screw people over!
While that may be true on the whole, it doesn't mean each team is allowed to just hire as many people as they can find. Of course, it's possible that you could interview with more than one team at a given company, but that depends on the company policies as well as other teams being interested.
I was under the impression that software engineer interviews at Google were for generalists, since they want employees to be able to move on to other projects in the future. Is there any reason to suggest that Google/Amazon/Facebook is currently saying "no" to exceptional generalists?
My understanding is that generally, for things like new grads they will hire for the company and then assign those new grads to teams.
However, each team has head counts for positions, and it's more or less up to them to hire for their own teams. It's certainly true that they may want exceptional generalists, but companies don't just hire people and then find a way to put them on a team. This wouldn't make sense for both the company or for the person involved, as someone who's more senior would generally have some sort of preference on what they want to work on.
My experience with interviewing at Microsoft and Google and working at Amazon is that basically a recruiter will try to find teams that might be interested in you and vice versa, and then you will interview with those teams. That being the case, you could get rejected by one team but then get accepted by another team. Or, even if you seem awesome, if none of the managers are interested, it's a no go. This also means that your success depends on how well your recruiter can sell you and find positions for you.
Good point. Most roles at Google have a specific job req... you find the right person and the job is filled. But there are roles where that's not the case and where what I said doesn't necessarily apply. (That said, I'd argue that the expense that a company takes to interview you is in direct proportion to their interest in you, no matter what else happens in the process.)
One of the more painful things that I came across regularly was that we often had multiple great people go through the full interview process for a role, but could only hire one. Often 2-3 candidates could have done the job brilliantly, but we could only choose one. In that case, it tends to be really subtle things that shift the decision. (And this is where Google's Unconscious Bias training is vitally important - https://www.gv.com/lib/unconscious-bias-at-work)
It sounds like that situation may very well be the case here: lots of expense (both time/effort and $) and a long series of interviews, with a "no" at the end. (And in my experience those "no's" are often blunt, no matter how awesome a candidate is, for cover-your-ass/legal reasons.)