Has Google’s Fabled Recruiting Model Lost Its Luster?

11 comments

image Last week, with unique transparency, Google’s VP of People Operations Laszlo Bock  announced they were laying off 100 recruiters (approximately 25% of their recruiter headcount).  When I first read the statement, my first thought was, “…do they really have over 400 internal recruiters?” 

Prior to the announcement Google’s recruiters accounted for approximately 2-4% of the employee population (not including outside contractors and agencies).  Sure this announcement makes sense since most companies hiring is destined to be substantially lower in 2009.  But does this announcement have more significance?

I have written here and here about Google’s recruiting process in the past.  Interestingly, now comes news that all is not utopia at the Googleplex.  According to a private Google Group asking ex-employees why they left…

“The thread shows a brutal honesty about what it’s like to work at Google, at least from the point of view of employees who were unhappy enough to resign. Top amongst the complaints is low pay relative to what they could earn elsewhere, and disappearing fringe benefits seemed to elevate the concern. Other popular gripes – too much bureaucracy, poor management, poor mentoring, and a hiring process that took months.” 

Now that Google is no longer the high-flying company where stock options would quickly make you millions of dollars, it is well apparent that their recruiting model needs to evolve.  Google still has one of the strong employer brands but, from my viewpoint, the recruiting model needs to evolve in scale, efficiency and effectiveness with tight alignment to their onboarding and talent management strategy.

Has Google’s exhaustive recruiting process now become a liability?

  • http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=PRF002078 Lisa

    I attended a session on Google’s talent management roadmap at IHRIM this past spring and I was struck by the fact that they were building it all themselves. Yes, there were some cool things they were doing vis-a-vis checking on any employee connections to aspiring candidates but other than that, it made no sense to me. It struck me as a sign of excess from a company that had a bit too much hubris about its own capabilities and unique needs.

  • http://www.hrmdirect.com/hrm2/blog/ Colin Kingsbury

    Many (most?) companies have a tendency to think they were the first company ever to put ketchup on their hamburgers, or that the fact that they use a spoon instead of a knife to put it on is why their burgers taste so good. When a company is as successful as Google, everyone wants to claim a piece of that success, and so process flaws become virtues. In this they are treading a path well-worn by Microsoft, Apple, AOL, and many other spectacular success stories.

  • http://techsphinx.blogspot.com TechSphinx

    How about applying some parsimony here?

    Economy is slowing, Google is hiring less, Google needs few recruiters, Google reduces its recruiting staff by 25%. Very simple.

    At this point, reading anything else in to the layoff is just baseless speculation about Google’s affairs.

  • Abby

    Google employee complaints sound the same as AOL when their “heyday” was coming to a close. Once a company grows, red tape and layers grow, and perks decline because of increasing costs based on more employees. I have a friend who works at Google and he’s expressed the major issue in that Google was recruiting for undefined positions. There was no method behind the madness which creates issues on the inside – people didn’t have defined roles and therefore, didn’t always know when they were ready to move up, or where they fell in the hierarchy.

  • June

    Thank you TechSphinx!

  • Jason Corsello

    TechSphinx – Is your name really Kate Couric…thanks for the breaking news there. You have completely missed the point. Google’s recruiting process is littered with inefficiency. Their recruiting model was great when they were the valley’s #1 employer of choice. They could put a candidate through 13 interviews, multiple assessments and random tests. As many employees can attest, the drawn out process has created lingering affects to an individuals boarding, development and expectations. The recruiting model itself needs to evolve and simply cutting resources because of “parsimony” is not the answer!

  • http://techsphinx.blogspot.com TechSphinx

    I think perhaps you missed my point, namely that there is no evidence that a reduction in recruiting staff at Google has been caused by the qualitative effects of the recuiting process itself.

    There has been a lot of criticism about Google’s recruiting and hiring process, including some of the points you mention. I think they are all plausible points and worth discussion. Personally, I have always thought their hiring process seemed bit excessive.

    But, that’s a far cry from establishing a causal relationship between the recruiter layoffs and quality of Google’s recruiting process. They are two different issues.

    Furthermore, Katie’s legs look a lot better than mine, less hair too.

  • http://www.landjob.com Malcolm Chlan

    This just goes to show that even the biggest and brightest companies have flaws.

  • http://outsourceportfolio.com/ Outsource Account

    I think they are all plausible points and worth discussion. Personally, I have always thought their hiring process seemed bit excessive.

  • http://outsourceportfolio.com/ Outsource Account

    I think they are all plausible points and worth discussion. I have always thought their hiring process seemed bit excessive.

  • http://jobs2ireland.com/jobs2ireland-blog/tips-from-bob-parsons-godaddycom-great-motivational-material/ John

    Perhaps thay should try some tips from Bob Parson’s, see the link.

Previous post:

Next post: