It is a commercial offering: https://hire.google.com/pricing/
This is the software for the logistics of hiring, not "hiring as a service", so I dont think that the things you point out have much to with this unless other companies that purchase this software are guilty of the same things.
Control and data? Perhaps they have something dystopian in mind?
Edit: It is also another reason to hide from Google.
Oh come on. We've all conceded the days of "Don't be evil" are long gone but Google's type of evil hasn't quite shifted to that of cackling supervillain. It's an evil bred from arrogance, naivety and self-interest - not from an active intent to corrupt society.
But what if you're not a business owner? Oh no, they can't destroy your life on demand! This must be solved!
Google Hire is here to transparently remove all hate-speakers, hate-thinkers and potentially bad people from your hiring lists! Don't worry, we'll find someone else to employ,while those Google-haters rot in misery, unemployed untill they kill themselves. And the best part? We aren't a dictatorship, because technically we're a private corporation! Buy now!
- social AI and automation challenge : recruitment is a process where humans are important and cannot be replaced for now, because of the soft and reassuring aspect of human interactions. The call centers and this will provide nice playfields to make AI more "humans".
- data : what could you do if you had access to all the contents of the job offers in the market, the people motivations, and the timeline of all interactions? That's something they may already have access to by buying data from providers, but with that they go to the source.
Given the quantity of actors in the online recruitment service field, it is not surprising to watch Google enter the arena.
Data, presumably?
Also expanding the capabilities of their GSuite to capture more customers into their ecosystem
Aka Google can't use the data. https://gsuite.google.com/learn-more/security/security-white...
It's part of GSuite so $$$. You have to pay for GSuite.
Have you tried hiring in tech recently? Good candidates disappear after a week. You have to move fast. And even if you are good many candidates slip through your fingers. I doubt Google's Hire service would help me much on that.
* You need someone at least slightly technical to screen CVs.
* Then screen round 2 with truly technical people,
ideally from target teams.
* Then figuring out if any of the job openings is a match for
the candidate (from language to expected job position)
* Then a very personal call with them
* Then a single planned-ahead phone interview with goals
(e.g. is the candidate really competent with X)
* Then interview on-site in a single afternoon/morning
(take them to lunch!)
* Offer should be in a short time, ideally the day of
the on-site interviews.
https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/
> Build work-sample tests. Instead of asking questions about the kind of work you do, have candidates actually do the work. Careful. I am not saying candidates should spend a 2-week trial period as a 1099 contractor. That’s a terrible plan: the best candidates won’t do it. But more importantly: it doesn’t work. Unlike a trial period, work sample tests have all three of these characteristics: they mirror as closely as possible the actual work a candidate will be called on to perform in their job, they’re standardized, so that every candidate faces the same test, they generates data and a grade, not a simple pass/fail result.
I don't remember having anyone enter the pipeline and leave it again by their own choice before we've made an offer. I do remember there being one candidate who got dropped somehow who got pissed off at how long things were taking, but that was human error (or arguably bad tooling) more than bad process.
Heh some years ago while interviewing at the Googleplex, I was forgotten about over lunchtime. It was overall a weird interview experience, even though I ended up getting an offer. I definitely get more ruthless and efficient when I am hungry, so maybe that's why I did okay. But it was still an eye-opening experience, and not in a good way.
* Review the resume.
* Send Hackerrank test
* 1 hour phone interview with the team lead
* one day or half day onsite
* offerThis lack of respect of or recognition of the value of applicants time will filter out what’s likely your most desired applicants, people with low amounts of time due to current employment or lots of leads.
There needs to be some interaction with the applicant to show you are worthy of a mini project or multi-hour hackerrank test. Your job description better be amazing with details to motivate an applicant to spend time on a test off the bat.
My issue is about the shotgun approach of many recruiters. I don't mind taking a coding test, I think they're great. It's frustrating to have to take a coding test to find out the area of the company, or pay grade, or basic position info. Or being put into a phone screening for a Java position because the recruiter mixed up Java and JavaScript, etc. etc.
This gets worse with the higher level of effort test. I think that it helps when companies describe the position well. Otherwise it takes some sort of knowledge of each other before I think it's worth actually dedicating time.
It may be different if you're looking for a job full time while unemployed. But spending 10 hours of time is only something I'll consider if I think I'd take the position should the org want to hire me.
It saves a lot of time for everyone. Including time for the phone call with the team lead/manager where you will have the opportunity to discuss the role and the company in much greater details.