I have to question if Jobs, Gates, or Ellison would actually be good employees in a large company like Google. It definitely takes resiliency, dedication, and tenacity to start a company; when you're joining a well established one, however, those almost seem like negative traits. I realize that Google encourages employees to try things their way (the 20% paid time they give employees to work on their own projects pretty much locks down that argument), but an organization in which every employee wants to do things their way strikes me as inefficient.
Great point. There seems to be an assumption that companies want founder types as employees. Fact is, they probably do make good employees, but only for the 1 year they actually stick around before starting up on their own.
I think there's a lot of overlap. For example, the three traits you listed are "resiliency, dedication, and tenacity." There's nothing in those three things that requires doing things your own way. A big company would probably love an employee who had those three traits, but deferred to higher authority for decision making.
In those kinds of people it's not a la carte--you don't just get "resiliency, dedication, and tenacity" and not get "intense, willful, and independent." They go together.
I think one of the defining characteristics that differentiates "good" from "great" is discipline. Good students possess great skills, but they lack discipline.
Uh, good students (if you mean the ones that get good grades) have incredible discipline. Indeed, given a base amount of talent, discipline is all that is required.
I was just commenting on the quotation in the post.
I think it would be erroneous to conclude that a student is not "good" because he/she receives a "C" in an economics course. Perhaps the student was very ill that quarter or was busy building some really great thing.
But even if they slacked off, they may want to be disciplined. Better yet, they may be willing to listen. In which case, one can probably be taught discipline.
How much is Google trying to establish a cult of success?
Other companies accused of cult-of-elitism are Goldman Sachs & Consulting firms like Bain. They are considered to actively encourage "Only the best may enter, the rest can fk off" policies.
The assertion is that these firms specifically try to attract the talent who need to be told continually that they are succeeding in life. Some cynics say that these results-driven over-acheivers had difficult relationships with their father. They thus crave paternal approval, and the companies exploits this by filling that Paternal role.
This can be only through continual challenges, and with some of their peers 'not making it'. So the success hounds focus so much on meeting the standards that they ignore the fact they are being slave driven.
The assertion continues that these very hard working people strive for years with 95% of the grind work, while the top of the pyramid attend boozy lunches. When the hard milked remainder reach the senior levels, they perpetuate the grind for the lower tiers.
--Disclaimer
These subjective and speculative theories tend to depend on whether you are Inside or Outside of the chosen few. I will say I am firmly on the outside... my Pass Conceded in Signal Processing ensured that!! This would put me in the bitter&twisted group rather than the unseeing wage slave group.
Small side comment: Google is just about the least affirming place I've worked. I've never been lauded for doing anything "clever", since (I assume), that should be taken as a matter of course.
One place I worked at my boss would occasionally buy candy and drop it off at our desk (psuedo-connected to hitting milestones). I'm not sure if I was being rewarded for mediocrity or some-such, and I imagine that it would vary from person to person.
My previous post was wondering whether Google is trying to set the entry bar so very high in order to attract some talent that would otherwise go to Goldmans, Bain.
Google need not exploit them, rather hire them in the first place.
--
To your point about affirmation... the non-Googles are accused of not giving any affirmation but the 'reward' of climbing the ladder to become one of the money-earning Partners. On the outside that may seem cruel, but for the successful they must feel rewarded adequately.
This reminds of the a study done about hiring practices at Xerox. The conclusion was that none of the founders and first few employees of Xerox, the startup, would even get an interview at Xerox, the big established company.
Except that NYT article isn't really about hiring practices. It's a profile of Marissa Mayer, Googler #20, who is responsible for the look and feel of all Google pages, including the front page. The comment about "good students are good at everything" is probably more how Mayer evaluates people than Google as a whole.
I'm going to assume the actual statement "Good students are good at everything" is a quote that is, at best, rather out of context. It's patent garbage; I often take classes (and advise others to take classes) in things I know I'm no good at, either to advance from "Useless" to "OK", or just because it's something I enjoy. My art skills are truly awful and I'll never get top marks, but it wouldn't stop my taking an elective, because I'd like to be better and enjoy the area.
People who constantly get top marks in everything are, to me, suspicious. Mostly anyone who's smart can pick a syllabus they'll ace - but will they gain anything from it? Now, if they're getting constantly low marks, or random mark disparities in seemingly related areas, that might be a legitimate concern, but to blanket it as "Good students are good at everything" is just bizarre.
I have a hard time believing any programmer has difficulty with Macroeconomics. A C in a course like that says 'lazy and willing to accept mediocrity'.
You're actually taking the quote out of context. Getting a C in an art class is different from getting a C in macroeconomics. "Everything" doesn't refer to, say, athletic ability, I'm sure. There's some limitation to the set of abilities involved, centered around mental abilities, and art skills might be outside that limit, in the quotee's mind.
I mean, it's really easy to imagine a "good student" branching out, taking an art class, and getting a C, but it's hard to imagine a "good student" branching out, trying macroeconomics, and struggling.
I certainly can imagine a curious student taking macroeconomics and get so utterly bored and annoyed that he gets a C. In my case the course was "Entrepreneurship" and while the course itself was (mostly) interesting and inspiring, the test at the end was stupid and I recieved a C (well, something equivalent in Germany).
Now i'm thinking whether look for a job is the right way or whether I should rather look for a cofounder.
However, it's also easy to imagine someone taking a class and discovering he simply wasn't interested in it (or thought it was complete bull), only finishing the class to get the credit. It is silly to judge people by an occasional C amidst A's.
Getting A's in school is primarily a consequence of gaming the system, and not caring if you challenge yourself or learn anything new. By only taking courses you know you can ace, you get the best GPA. Taking courses in subjects you're interested in learning more about is suicide if all you care about is grades.
I think the worst student of all time when it comes to successful entrepreneurs is Richard Branson. He's always the example I give when talking about this sort of thing with friends.
yeah, exactly. Google isn't looking for the next Bill Gates (although I am sure they would be happy to have him), they are looking for brilliant brilliant hackers who can be successful at the problems thrown at them.
"Google isn't looking for the next Bill Gates .... they are looking for brilliant brilliant hackers who can be successful at the problems thrown at them"
the point being made was that being a "brilliant hacker" has nothing to do with doing well at school either.
