Once in a while I get this question: "Hey Kevin, thank you for recommending a fellow Googler. What do you think about X's technical skills?"
My long response is this:
The Google technical interview process is one of the most challenging interviews one can get. There's the resume screening (only one out of 1000 resumes pass through), then email screening, then phone screening, possible secondary phone screening, on-site screening, and finally the hiring committee (from Mountain View) reviews long and very detailed written feedback from 7-10 interviewers. If someone makes it in as an engineer, you are sure that person is way above average over the millions and millions of people who send in their resumes to Google each year. Think about this: if you're an engineer at less-than-stellar company that don't value core engineering (Fox, Yahoo, Citysearch, AT&T Interactive, MySpace) and you think you can do better, you have already at some point in your career applied to Google. It's only human to want to do better. Look. Chances are, an engineer you already know (who never went to Google) already applied and chances are he/she failed. I realize what I'm saying is really harsh, but this is harsh reality. For this reason, even a really bad Googler is still above tech industry average (e.g. especially from what I see in Los Angeles). Secondly, if a person survives the Google culture for a few years, you're sure that person is at least average amongst Googlers because the below average Googlers get kicked out very very fast; 2 to 3 quarters and you're out. I personally know a few that don't survive a year-- usually they're super smart but unmotivated and/or had other issues.
Having that said, technically, almost everyone I know at Google can kick the industry average programmer's ass. Googlers tend to come from top-tier schools or top-tier companies. They made it into the system. They are hardcore, trained under the stringent Google Code Readability process. People strive to get badges on their Moma page by being Googly-- being technically good. I am not exaggerating or bragging, I'm just saying this after observing different people from different backgrounds, and relative to Google, the average tech standard is a pathetically low bar.
Anyways, if I vouch for someone from Google, then that person is almost more than technically adequate. But then again, so is 90% of the other Googlers. There are of course distinctions amongst the group of the Special Force. Some people are slow but precise (they like to work on mission critical code). Some people are fast but sloppy (they like to work on social networking sites). Some like Java. Some like Python. Some like Javascript. Some like C++. Some people are smart, and some people are simply mind blowing brilliant. The Google gene-pool isn't all homogenous.
In the end, you should not have to worry about a Googler's technical skills. You may however, have to worry about many other things, like being able to give them challenging enough of a task, making them feel like they're making a big impact to the world, and providing enough incentives and rewards for keeping them; believe me, everyone is getting poached here and there these days with ridiculous packages. Keep in mind, there's a reason why Google managers tend to come and go very fast-- an x-manager once commented to me that it's really really hard to motivate and manage someone who is clearly much smarter than you are. I wasn't a manager at Google but I can understand why. Some of the smartest people I've met in the world are people I met in Google, and a few are a total pain in the ass to work with.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Product Managers
My startup is hiring a product manager because none of the engineers want to spend day after day doing product research, testing/trying out competitors' products, meeting solution providers and clients, blogging, product evangelist, PR, writing white-paper, doing patent research, and other things that engineers feel are too un-intellectual to do. While I have a nice Google system for interviewing elite engineers, I don't have a good system for hiring a good PM. In the end, I think there is so much variability in PMs that I don't think you can actually design a process for it. I do however think the most important thing is that the PM's style should match well with the overall vision of the company. For example, if the company is creating a business product, then the PM should be of the "spec hunting" type (more on this later). If the company is creating a user-end product, then the PM should be of the Steve Jobs type. In a hypothetical world were there are only two extreme types of PMs, then they are described as follows:
1) The most common PMs are the "spec hunters." They will write down specs that their competitors have, and try to compete on specs. They will list out a long matrix of features and check them off one by one. Case in point a few years ago the Microsoft Zune on paper is much more feature rich than anything out there. It's got a voice recorder, FM radio, more storage, Oled, 720p, 33 hr play time, so on so forth. The iPod does not have a voice recorder, does not have a FM radio, smaller storage, older/less resolution display, 30 hr play time. It doesn't do much. Almost all of Microsoft products are spec'ed products, designed by a committee with a long feature list that each committee member checks off. On paper, the Zune is clearly superior to the iPod. However, hiring a "spec hunting" PM is not a good match for consumer products; we all know the story with Zune vs. iPod today. Zune is dead.
Other examples of "spec hunting" PMs: America Online and Y! [homepage] are committee designed -- the idea with those products is that the more stuff you slap on a page, the happier the committee. It is no surprised that AOL looks like a mess. Ditto with Yahoo. Dell is yet another example. The Dell laptop on paper is superior to the Mac-- brighter screen, more HD, faster processor, bigger capacity battery, 1/2 the price. The list goes on and on and on.
2) The less common PMs are the minimalists. One example-- Steve Jobs is one such PM who designs with minimal features. Other example include Porsche, Ferrari, and other Italian designed products; all these cars have minimal features that simply run fast and look nice, and none have fancy OnStar or XM radio or GPS display or voice activated commands built in. Dropbox is in this spectrum too... it just does one thing-- let people drop files into the file system. Google search is another example of a minimalist page; you don't do anything on the main page except to search. http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html Read point #2. Here the classic example: the Apple iPod only does one thing (whereas Zune and competitors do 100 other things), yet it still slaughtered competition. Zune is dead and the spirit of iPod lives on in the form of iPhone and iPad.
The minimalist PMs understand the power of looks, feel, navigation, intuitiveness, cohesiveness, and consistency. Whereas the "spec hunters" think they have taste, the minimalist PMs actually have taste.
In the end, I see that most companies are "run by committees" ruled by "spec hunting" PMs. I think the reason is clear-- minimalists who have a sense of taste are as rare as diamonds. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. Despite Microsoft's extremely tasteless designs (case in point Microsoft Bob aka The Useless Paperclip Helper), it is still one of the most successful companies in the world.
1) The most common PMs are the "spec hunters." They will write down specs that their competitors have, and try to compete on specs. They will list out a long matrix of features and check them off one by one. Case in point a few years ago the Microsoft Zune on paper is much more feature rich than anything out there. It's got a voice recorder, FM radio, more storage, Oled, 720p, 33 hr play time, so on so forth. The iPod does not have a voice recorder, does not have a FM radio, smaller storage, older/less resolution display, 30 hr play time. It doesn't do much. Almost all of Microsoft products are spec'ed products, designed by a committee with a long feature list that each committee member checks off. On paper, the Zune is clearly superior to the iPod. However, hiring a "spec hunting" PM is not a good match for consumer products; we all know the story with Zune vs. iPod today. Zune is dead.
Other examples of "spec hunting" PMs: America Online and Y! [homepage] are committee designed -- the idea with those products is that the more stuff you slap on a page, the happier the committee. It is no surprised that AOL looks like a mess. Ditto with Yahoo. Dell is yet another example. The Dell laptop on paper is superior to the Mac-- brighter screen, more HD, faster processor, bigger capacity battery, 1/2 the price. The list goes on and on and on.
2) The less common PMs are the minimalists. One example-- Steve Jobs is one such PM who designs with minimal features. Other example include Porsche, Ferrari, and other Italian designed products; all these cars have minimal features that simply run fast and look nice, and none have fancy OnStar or XM radio or GPS display or voice activated commands built in. Dropbox is in this spectrum too... it just does one thing-- let people drop files into the file system. Google search is another example of a minimalist page; you don't do anything on the main page except to search. http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html Read point #2. Here the classic example: the Apple iPod only does one thing (whereas Zune and competitors do 100 other things), yet it still slaughtered competition. Zune is dead and the spirit of iPod lives on in the form of iPhone and iPad.
The minimalist PMs understand the power of looks, feel, navigation, intuitiveness, cohesiveness, and consistency. Whereas the "spec hunters" think they have taste, the minimalist PMs actually have taste.
In the end, I see that most companies are "run by committees" ruled by "spec hunting" PMs. I think the reason is clear-- minimalists who have a sense of taste are as rare as diamonds. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. Despite Microsoft's extremely tasteless designs (case in point Microsoft Bob aka The Useless Paperclip Helper), it is still one of the most successful companies in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)