Google still does interviews. They try to do them better --- eg separating the hire / no hire decision maker from the face to face interviewer. But I'd like to see them try out more work samples.
I'm going through interviewer training at Google at the moment. (There's a few courses they like you to take before letting you loose on candidates.)
This is second time I'm interviewing Google and I felt the difference. They asked me questions more related to my work and less from "Cracking the coding interview" book. Hopefully it would be the same on-site. I'm confident that I'm good at what I'm doing and if Google really wants me to work on things that I'm interested, I would be a good employee. I have zero days of no-commits in my Github strike. I have more open source projects than many 500+ employees companies.
With all of that "Cracking the coding interview" book in my hand anyway! :D
thx for replying @eru, I don't envy the task evaluating candidates. By work samples do you mean real code you've created to solve problems?
“bring the same level of rigor to people-decisions
that we do to engineering decisions.” [0]
The weakness at google is understanding people. So I can understand the allure of HRA (HR Analytics) but feel google is missing something not intuitively understanding people and behaviour. [1]
"the 'rigor' that people bring to engineering decisions is oversold."
Possibly, I don't see google going down, so the engineering is sound. That's missing the real issue though.
Google, the people who lead and work there fundamentally do not grok people or psychology. This will is problematic as they attempt to diversify their workforce. I'm sure this is a known-known at google, hence the training that @eru is receiving. This is why the @tptacek article is such a good read. A tech-company attempting to understand more about hiring humans who understand machines.
I'm going through interviewer training at Google at the moment. (There's a few courses they like you to take before letting you loose on candidates.)