Google’s Marissa Mayer said a lot of interesting things on stage today on stage at the Le Web Conference in Paris. We covered the Chrome and Search Wiki news.
But the most important thing she said, in my opinion, was also the simplest. An attendee asked Marissa how she went about building her team over the last decade.
Her answer: “I like to hire people who have two traits. They’re smart, and they get things done.”
She also talked about the joy of working with a team where every member was passionate about the project. But the key message resonated. Smart people who aren’t closers tend to flail. Small startups get rid of these people fast because they stand out. But sometimes they can find a place to hide in larger organizations where they fester like a cancer. If a company the size of Google can avoid hiring them in the first place, it’s a serious competitive advantage.
From my own experience, team members that you can rely on to just take on work and complete tasks are rare, but worth spending the time to find. It’s not always clear from interviews or reference checks that they have these traits. But you know within a month of hiring them. That’s why most of the people we hire we try out for a month before either side commits. And we also end up hiring a good percentage of our interns on a permanent basis, too. After spending a summer with them, you know what they’re made of.
Indeed. I see it all the time in my day job. A 500 person organization and many do nothing all day and are a cancer not only to the organization as a w whole, but to individuals working on important projects. That is why the vetting process of new hires is so important.
this explains why search is 98% solved.
Totally agree with her, but as you say – this is the trick – “It’s not always clear from interviews or reference checks that they have these traits”.
Bingo. You have to shovel around the BS.
I recommend using the PI, a behavioral test, during the interview as it is nearly foolproof in accurately screening candidates to match the job and will actually do the job, and do it well.
The Predictive Index (PI) and it is one of the very few personality tests that satisfies EEOC requirements as it is non-biased, gender/race/age blind. It only looks at the personality as it relates to the job.
For example, if the job requires high energy, drive, team commitment, focus on the plan, the PI will screen for those attributes. It does require an employer to be absolutely clear on the attributes needed for the job, like duh.
Luckily for her, Marissa leads an engineering team in Google – that’s where things get done, indeed.
However, I disagree that you can figure somebody out in their first month in the job: that’s precisely how large companies get “infected” with low performers and people who only do the bare minimum to get lukewarm performance reviews. If one gets past the initial frequent reviews from the first 1-3 months, it’s usually just smooth sailing afterwards in most companies of “Googlic” size.
Just my $0.02…
Yep, it isn’t always obvious, and i’ve worked with a lot of very smart people who are happy with doing very little. Sad. Though it seems like the most obvious advice for hiring people, too many companies don’t follow it.
Trouble with smart people is that they have many interests, not all in line with company’s interests. You need to motivate them right to make sure they’re on course.
Jackpot!
Well said! But aligning multi talented people is a huge challenge, they keep drifting towards something new.
I’m surprised nobody has referenced Joel Spolsky yet. He used the phrase back in early 2000.
http://www.joel...0000000073.html
He wrote an entire book about it. http://www.amaz...l/dp/1590598385
And Joel got it from Microsoft, as he freely acknolwedges.
Seconded. It definitely isn’t a new or revolutionary statement.
Did everyone miss this from Joel:
http://www.inc....ip_pagen_2.html
Since lots of people have pointed to Joel, I’d like to note that one of Google’s employees has written a nice riff on the original aphorism – “Done and Gets Things Smart”) http://steve-ye...ings-smart.html
i couldnt agree more , people that can get things done it is people that u got to hire and keep .
You are a genius and probably make a lot of money and have many womens.
Good to see her join the Joel Spolsky school of HR, explains why Google’s so successful!
I was just reading Joel on Software (dead trees edition) a couple of months ago, so that quote jumped out a mile.
From first hand experience, this is explicitly stated in Google’s hiring policy. The way to show you’re smart and get things done is by creating a problem and then solving it. Then you look smart for finding the problem and that you get things done by solving it.
Let’s be honest. Most companies, when they interview (including Google) could give a damn about successful a person has been in the past.
Most companies want the smartest person that they can find with the most impressive previous work experience. I’ve never failed to deliver and at Sun had one of the best track records in the whole company but have sometimes failed to get a job offer because my explanation of javascript closure didn’t demonstrate mastery.
BTW, I am very happily at a start up now and I have found most of my jobs within 2 weeks.
-Larry
Isometimes failed to get a job offer because my explanation of javascript closure didn’t demonstrate mastery.
Spolsky calls this the “Quiz Show” trivia interview style. It’s best you didn’t get the job if that’s what made the difference.
That’s exactly right. I only bring it up because I think that the “Quiz Show” is a very popular way to interview.
It results in a shallow evaluation. Vital to any team is brilliant newbies and experienced, battle-tested veterans. Both of these groups do not necesarily do well on the Quiz Show.
“most of my jobs within 2 week”
Dude, are you a job hopper?
I find a job in 2 weeks when I look.
Since you asked, I tend to look about once every 5 years (I was at Sun for 7 years). Though, I looked twice in the last two years only because I wasn’t happy with the job that I had found. I gave it a year and then was ready for another.
-Larry
It’s amazing to me how rare it is to find people who are really driven to complete a project, and not just think of the idea. I also like to judge people on the basis of their presentations. If someone throws up a cheap and dull powerpoint slide with lots of bullets, they don’t care about conveying information and it says a lot about their team-working skills.
I’m in graduate school right now. You’d be surprised how many people you see failing first year exams even with government-sponsored fellowships and scholarships under their belt.
“Smart, Get Things Done” is what everyone tries to hire. It was explicit at Amazon even before Joel’s aphorism became a hit.
Interesting to contrast MM’s comments with with Yegge’s “Done, Get Things Smart” post. I think Steve is on to something…
http://steve-ye...ings-smart.html
Neil,
Good to see you on here.
Amazon rocks..I had the best time of my life when i was working there..great culture and i miss my pager!
Amit
Saying you want to hire “smart” people is such a non-statement.
Third is teamwork. You can be smart and get things done but if you can’t collaborate with others it will not matter. Of course, unless you work alone or with just a partner.
This is SO true!
Really? What about those degree holding city slickers that talk real good? Lol.
Absolutely 2 important things to look for in new hires!
And, the goal should be to get the entire team or company staff to reflect these traits, not just one or a few because they will end up doing all of their work and the slackers work as well and they will eventually leave or stop performing.
She later went on to tell participants to hire only people who wash and those who could find the office 5 days a week.
Might be obvious to some, but I’ll make the point nevertheless – opensource teams on high-stakes projects use “meritocracy” and only sustained, motivated contributors who are clearly devoted to the goal generally get accepted as committers and above. Seems that corporate hiring teams should also have a look at good opensource programmers out there and simply pay salaries to those meritocracy-filtered developers for getting their work done – I believe a sizeable part of the work will be such that it can be contributed back – even if you have about 2 out of 10 of your payroll who are these acknowledged meritorious contributors, that sets the standard for the other 8 in many ways. Things are openly comarable and politics, bickering and over-smartness could be rendered fairly ineffective.
That’s my opinion, YMMV.
I’ve not seen much of that on open source projects i’ve been involved in. Typically, there are a few people making substantial contributions. most of these don’t talk a lot because they are busy getting work done, and coordinating behind the scenes with other contributors via email. In the front facing side, you have the blowhards that talk a lot about all their contributions, most of which involve arguing about things they don’t understand, advocating a color change to the official product logo, and so forth. These management types tend to end up with positions of control from which they then dictate retarded changes to the REAL contributors, who then either abandon the project in dismay, or fork it.
i forgot to add these:
If the company doesn’t have a “technical ladder” with pay at par with managers (”suits”), start packing your stuff (unless you’re adept at using the Dark Side of the Force like Darth Gates…) in the recession.
If your suits want to boss around over techies, they’re excess fat that you carry around. If they want to make the techie’s life easier, they’re gems and anything in between, you have work to do.
If you’re a suit, well, there was a guy in m$ who used to call in the tech team and admit that his job was to sign on right-botton corners and warm the seat and that he really had to get the job done. He was willing to help in any way he could and that the decisions were the team’s to take. He would be a shield and would get them what they asked (within limits) if they showed results.
Oases are in every desert and this guy is a gem of a suit – he knows he is a suit he just gets out of their way. If you’re a suit and you dont like this point of view, keep visiting job sites regularly
If you’re a techie, go read catb and “how to become a hacker”. You can work on any tech, but get the fundamentals of good software engineering, open-source style too. (Your degree is good too, I’m not saying that’s == 0.0 )
If those don’t strike a really positive chord in your subconcsious somewhere, get a new skillset, quick.
A small trick to spot the gtd guys would be that at the cafeteria these guys will be discussing the tech architecture of the system or the various (imagined) details that are currently absent – they’re trying to improve the code. The “cancer” will be discussing other companies, salaries, appraisals and so on.
Not a law of physics, just saying…
Again, my opinion, YMMV.
Hire smart people who get things done? Shear genius! Now if they had discovered a sure way to find such people, that would be news…
It is sad how many real slackers there are out there, just doing the bare minimum to not get fired, but not really doing anything useful. They’re just there to make money, and they don’t give two shits about the company work for.
WAY too many people like this. If I had to guess, I’d say about 10% of the people in this country work more than the bare minimum required to keep their job, and maybe 10% of those people (1% in total) excel and are passionate about what they do. Even that may be too optimistic though.
WOW, this is truly a revelation. All along when I have been interviewing people, I’ve been looking for people who were either dumb and/or lazy.
Seriously, why is this a breakthrough? Does anyone NOT look to hire people who are smart and have a track record of getting things done? If so, please let me know so I’ll know never to work for or invest in those companies.
Seems you’ve been lucky to only work for companies that hire brilliant candidates and for which office politics are not an issue.
Very few companies hire smart who gets things done. Most companies hire people willing to work for a substandard rate of pay in return for being a yes man and contributing to their manager’s empire building.
Well, I seem to recall reading a few accounts about the Google approach to recruiting/interviewing. Doesn’t seem to me that these are particularly well-suited to finding the kind of people Marissa says she likes to hire.
In any case, given the rate at which Google has hired people, it’s simply not possible that they’ve recruited only people like this. They’re way too rare.
Upcoming story our of Le Web: “Buy low sell high”
All this time I have been looking for dumb people who cant get stuff done. If I had only known!
She forgot the 3rd essential aspect:
“…and then get the f*ck out of their way.”
You can hire all the smart, efficient people you like, but if corporate/mgmt processes are a barrier, your crackerjack team will stagnate…and eventually leave.
There are two problems with that statement.
First, many companies like Google seem to believe that only people with degrees can fit that mold – nevermind the fact that the history of the industry proves otherwise.
Second – too many companies simply don’t want to pay “smart people who get things done” what they’re worth. They’re happy to settle for less as long as they don’t pay as much. Then they wonder why they can’t get good people.
The problem she has is that she is recruiting from the most limited pool there is. Finding 10 is eeasy, 10,000 is less so.
It will also be interesting to see how Google hangs on to those people as it gets bigger and more bureaucratic, has no stock kicker, and is no longer the cool kid on the block
somethings tells me google lunch will be taken by a college dropout. google can keep on hiring those 4.0 grad because it will be hilarious when a dropout eats them for lunch. gates, jobs would never have gotten jobs at google.
gates != jobs
I am a slacker. People tell me I’m smart but they never tell me I’m a closer or get things done. I’m not especially proud of that status. The startup I worked for recently got acquired and now we’re part of a much larger company. Before, it was me working my ass off for $75K a year so the management could make many, MANY millions of dollars. Guess who stays late? Now that I am part of BigCompanyInc I recognize that I should do only what is required me of me to stay out of the bottom 10% or so. Maybe I’ll be in the top 40% but that is all; I’m not dying to get myself — or YOU — rich. Just because I don’t want to chase some ball around like some loyal terrier to make you happy for your absurd “business venture” to “change the world” selling dog food over the internet or create a new and better way for people to share and care and feel better so you can then sell the business to get acquired somehow makes me worse than hitler. Neat. Besides, it’s not like MM at Google realy “gets things done” since it seems they have nothing outside of ads and search.
Your point is just right – you don’t get your fair share of the spoils.
Note hoewwever that it’s nuanced, not black and white.
Suit *has* a real job – to help you, not cripple you. He *should* get paid well if he’s helping you. Fair. It’s Vulture Capital guy who “risks” his money and orders stuff around.
If VC has ethics (dont laugh, please), or even simple farsight (rare too), he can do a lot about it. In theory.
He’s got the cash to throw – his family, invetsments, grandkids’ mansions are all already safe.
THEN, he takes “risks”! How brave!
“Cozied” suits are awesome people too. when you get sick out of working so hard, they just come and say – hey chill, man, take it easy, get a life. You think it’s finally proof of existence of emotion inside the suit and next morning you get a call from suit saying you didn’t do this and you should’ve done that.
Then you feel like a tissue (more interesting analogies abound… ). Then, you become a slacker.
If you’re working at BigCompanyInc, you have an option to make money alongside – if your suit is a real crook, start an opensource project doing something better than suit’s code and crowdsource it (see “catb”) and then leave and run your own show.
Keep a long memory of those cozy suits!
AND ONCE YOU’RE THERE, YOU DONT BECOME A SUIT OR A VC YOURSELF – that is your test.
Then you show them your *earned* millions, plus the BIGGER name that you have and emphasize the pink slip they may have got due to everyone’s beloved Wall Street Suits. They might even consider apologizing…
As for Google, specifically,
“google story david vise”
- e-sops – lots of em, to nooglers , IIRC
- the cook no.. masseuse no.. hairdresser no …. forgot! damn! – she made a cool few millions in google sops and now she runs an NGO from that money – noble lady.
google != stupid
Product rollouts are “business decisions” and they are happy to keep their cards close to them – that’s business – in many ways that helps a lot.
Larry and Sergey aren’t suits.
We’re feeling lucky!
DISCLAIMER:
Google pays me in kind: http://www.google.com
Roughly the best running search code on the web. I’ve never clicked a “Sponsored Link”, so it’s a zero-price lunch for me
I know about scroogle, but everyone eats, sleeps, poops… If you like anonymity that much, Yahoo! is your friend.
..all well and good but saying something like ‘hire Smart People Who Get Things Done..’ is about as nebulous as ‘be a good person’ or ‘don’t be evil.’
Everyone has a different standard which doesnt necessarily measure up with your own, hence declining performance as organzations grow bigger.
As Marissa is head of product/user experience, i am amazed by how poorly executed Googles products are(ie, gmail, base, reader, earth). Maybe she shouldve also added, once you hire ’smart people who get things done’ get out of the way and dont become the bottleneck that you are today..
What about Garrison Keillor’s missive: “Be well, do good work, keep in touch”? I define smart people as “above average” with a straight-as-arrow work ethic. Degrees and quiz-form is sometimes automatonic. Sometimes, it’s just the ‘warm fuzzy gut feel’…
Wow, I’ve been trying to hire dumb people that want to get paid to cruise facebook all day. This is a revelation!
Really, because I’d only hire braindead morons who fark everything up. How freaking revolutionary!!!
Soon to follow, water is good for staying hydrated, bleeding can lead to blood loss.
Honestly
fine, but even the smartest and most productive person can stop being it without the right motivations, so even harder than finding them, it could be keeping them motivated.
Her answer: “I like to hire people who have two traits. They’re smart, and they get things done.”
*cough*bullshit*cough*
Typical C level crapola. She sounds like HR. Otherwise, there would be more old guys like moi wandering around the old radio ranch.
The problem is not as simple as it seems. People are motivated by different things. I have never been able to find someone who is smart who cannot also get things done, in his/her specialism. I think the problem with all these managers is that they are more concerned with money than interest, and smart people are usually interested in interesting subjects, not money. The way to discern whether a smart person can get things done, is simply to figure out whether he/she is interested in whatever it is you are doing.
Ultimately they will end up with smart people who are motivated by money, or the given product. I would wage there to be a higher percentage of the former, than the latter, combining to form a less smart team than initially anticipated.
Such insightful advice! And when I thought all along that one should only hire DUMB people who never get ANYTHING done…
Hey guys.. don’t be so sarcastic. Maybe the last part of the advice was cut off. Perhaps the title was meant to be “Marissa Mayer’s Simple Advice On Who To Hire: Smart People Who Get Things Done On The Cheap”.
A+!
kjk – the truth!!!
Some of you guys do not understand how capitalism actually works. We are constantly being “alienated” from ourselves due to capitalism (read Webers phillosophy).
Most of these dudes are being exploited, lied to by entrepeneurs who aren’t intelligent at all, just massive risk takers (read gamblers). All for crap money, no training/personal development etc.. and you expect them to love it!
After a while a lot of dudes realise that you need to do the MINIMUM to survive just to retain your sanity in this corporate bulls*t…
I don’t understand the point. Maybe I should have read the article.
Wow, priceless insight. Hiring managers, ctrl c and ctrl v that sh*t.
then ctrl v again and again
if you own a computer with an apple logo, use the cmd/apple key in place of ctrl.
I also thought this was the most useful piece of information / advice that she was able to give during the session.
Thank god that woman from the audience took the debate away from features and apps and the other stuff everyone had rambled on
So well put! I could not agree more with this piece of advice. As highlighted, the reality is that it is not always clear from the interview and reference checks and that you need to see them in action to get a true if the relationship is going to work for both parties.
As a startup we have learned this lesson the hard way though once you get it right, working with a smart passionate team is brilliant.
Kelly
Six Figures, http://www.sixfigures.com.au the Executive Job Site
I work super hard and I can bring it. I’m available for 7 days out of 30.
The other half of the issue is that most management is not comfortable with firing people who are not pulling their weight. They instead work the system to get them transferred into another part of the organization where they become “somebody else’s problem”.
WHOM did they hire to code Google Groups? If you’re a developer, look at the source code.
First stop for finding any new hire should be the blogs and social media. The content not only mirrors the intellect but also discloses deal closings (assuming the writer is smart enough to proudly display closed deals). It’s all public and easily subject to verification. And it takes a lot of work and perseverance to establish a viable online presence.
The place I have interned at SAS I have done decent amount of work (3 projects) and shown enough intelligence (worked in three languages) for them to hire me. That’s where I started seriously getting and understanding web but they didn’t offer me job. either that team nor any other team..
Also the other number of interviews I had, I never felt they are looking for these qualities. Either I am groslly wrong or the interviewers are stupid. But whatever I am still in a crap job.. just only hoping to move out
This is a debate about Google H.R P.R…The real rule is: Hire those people that make you look good and make your life easier.
Couldn’t agree more with Marissa’s comments re: hiring smart people and assessing them within a month of being hired. Even though others here have said it’s an obvoius approach, it isn’t as easy in practice and is an age old issue. Check out our blog article on a military approach to hiring successful people!