A company so toxic as to have a 10% attrition commitment is going to be filled with employees trying to abuse the company as much as the company abuses them.

I remember (but can't seem to dig up) some research that those programs harm the productivity/morale of the top performers as well, who end up being unreasonably worried that they might end up in the bottom 10% somehow. Either they underestimate their own skills, or worry that a bad review process will undervalue them, so they end up spending a lot of time/stress worrying about reverse-engineering how the review works and optimizing for its metrics, rather than focusing on their real job.

That's what I was wondering. Two former employees from my group have ended up at the Goog. Both of them can talk the talk in an interview, but they're both below average as programmers. They're both still there, too. If Google is paying either of them $250k it's time to short the stock.

Being able to 'talk the talk' will not get you a job at Google. You have to be a very strong problem solver, a fast thinker, and lucky. All Googlers might not be rockstar programmers, but they are almost all unusually intelligent. There really are no average people there, apart perhaps those that came in through acquisitions (like myself).

So I've heard. And yet, I can guarantee you Google has hired at least two dim bulbs. Well, that can happen. After all, it can only be so efficient, and some people sound a lot more intelligent than they really are (which is why we hired them).

But it all makes me wonder how good Google's internal processes are, and how long it's willing to wait for people to become productive.

>And yet, I can guarantee you Google has hired at least two dim bulbs.

No you can't. I really hate this kind of attitude people have. A person is not a static thing that is always X. Maybe they didn't like your company. Maybe they were suffering from burn-out, or had some kind of personal crisis. It could very well be the case that they're absolute rock stars at Google even though they were worthless at your company.

It's not hard to distinguish a person with problems from a person who just doesn't have a knack for programming. These two will never be "absolute rock stars". And they weren't "worthless" at my company. Just... a bit below average.

So you feel confident in saying that nothing on earth could make these guys improve? I don't believe it. I believe some people just need that "aha" moment. Others don't get it simply because they don't want to understand it.

"Nothing on earth could make these guys improve"? No, I wouldn't say that. But I am confident in saying they will always be below average. I've been doing this for a few decades now, and the idea everyone has the potential to be a great programmer just isn't borne out by that experience.

>But I am confident in saying they will always be below average.

Of course there are and what I'm saying is that this isn't a static group. People will move in and out of it. I'm sure there is a very small percentage who stay at the bottom just as their is a very small percentage who stay at the top. But the bulk programmers are moving between these different groups through-out their careers.

>and the idea everyone has the potential to be a great programmer just isn't borne out by that experience.

What experience? You don't have any idea what's happened to the "no hopers" you've known in your career. I agree that some people seem like they're not going to get it, but who knows? Maybe they'll meet someone who flips a switch for them.

Heh. Relevant thing happened today: One of them called yesterday asking if we had a position open.

and ironically, my employer has hired at least one dim bulb from Google.