Two books on my nightstand right now, 1 purely for fun and 1 mostly for personal development: World War Z, and How Google Works. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.
I interviewed with Google about a year and a half ago, and that whole process (mostly my research and intense interview prep, since I only had the first round interview. I was massively under qualified and too fresh from school to be impressive) made me a bit obsessed with that company. Many current Google employees actually interviewed several times before landing a job, and I'll give it to you straight--I intend to be one of those people. With this future goal in mind, I've taken out some library books on the subject of Google, and so far I've been working on Google Works, by Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg (Google's executive chairman and Larry Page's advisor, respectively).
Their intelligence rings clear in their writing, and I especially appreciate the snide remarks and humorous insertions, which are pretty abundant, actually. But I have also learned a lot about both sides of the employment equation--what it means to start and run a successful company, and what it means to work at one. The chapter on hiring, in particular, speaks to me and my life right now:
In one section advising business leaders to "Hire learning animals," Rosenberg and Schmidt advise managers to "hire them not for the knowledge they possess, but for the things they don't yet know."
They continue, "Most people, when they are hiring for a role, look for people who have excelled in that role before. This is not how you find a learning animal."
I should make copies of this section of the book and give it out to all potential employers, along with my resume before interviewing. This is exactly my problem right now; I know that I am smart and versatile, and despite the narrowness of my official expertise, my past education/experiences actually cloud the truth: I can do just about anything! I have been thrown into sink-or-swim job situations before, and even if I doggie-paddled my way to success, I ultimately killed it.
Should these guys start a petition to reinstitute the old way of interviewing, I'll sign:
"Judging character during the interview process used to be fairly easy, since job interviews often included lunch or dinner at a restaurant and perhaps a drink or two, Mad Men style...What happens when he lets his guard down? How does he treat the waiter and bartender? Great people treat others well, regardless of standing or sobriety."
In all honesty, though, I think the lunch environment would be a good way to do it. In some ways, it would be super challenging because there is more room for error and more opportunity for casual conversation (or the alternative, awkward silences...), but I also think it is important to see how people order and how people interact in a restaurant environment. Quick server rant: WE ARE PEOPLE. To borrow another Google adage, "Don't be evil."
I interviewed with Google about a year and a half ago, and that whole process (mostly my research and intense interview prep, since I only had the first round interview. I was massively under qualified and too fresh from school to be impressive) made me a bit obsessed with that company. Many current Google employees actually interviewed several times before landing a job, and I'll give it to you straight--I intend to be one of those people. With this future goal in mind, I've taken out some library books on the subject of Google, and so far I've been working on Google Works, by Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg (Google's executive chairman and Larry Page's advisor, respectively).
Their intelligence rings clear in their writing, and I especially appreciate the snide remarks and humorous insertions, which are pretty abundant, actually. But I have also learned a lot about both sides of the employment equation--what it means to start and run a successful company, and what it means to work at one. The chapter on hiring, in particular, speaks to me and my life right now:
In one section advising business leaders to "Hire learning animals," Rosenberg and Schmidt advise managers to "hire them not for the knowledge they possess, but for the things they don't yet know."
They continue, "Most people, when they are hiring for a role, look for people who have excelled in that role before. This is not how you find a learning animal."
I should make copies of this section of the book and give it out to all potential employers, along with my resume before interviewing. This is exactly my problem right now; I know that I am smart and versatile, and despite the narrowness of my official expertise, my past education/experiences actually cloud the truth: I can do just about anything! I have been thrown into sink-or-swim job situations before, and even if I doggie-paddled my way to success, I ultimately killed it.
Should these guys start a petition to reinstitute the old way of interviewing, I'll sign:
"Judging character during the interview process used to be fairly easy, since job interviews often included lunch or dinner at a restaurant and perhaps a drink or two, Mad Men style...What happens when he lets his guard down? How does he treat the waiter and bartender? Great people treat others well, regardless of standing or sobriety."
In all honesty, though, I think the lunch environment would be a good way to do it. In some ways, it would be super challenging because there is more room for error and more opportunity for casual conversation (or the alternative, awkward silences...), but I also think it is important to see how people order and how people interact in a restaurant environment. Quick server rant: WE ARE PEOPLE. To borrow another Google adage, "Don't be evil."
No comments:
Post a Comment