- Related Stories
-
Tech start-up scene poised for revival
May 9, 2005 -
College freshmen less interested in tech
April 22, 2005 -
Will Google stay as hot as its lava lamps?
December 27, 2004 -
Gates goes to college
March 1, 2004
(continued from previous page)
employers. The amount of venture capital invested last year was just a fifth of that plowed into start-ups during the dot-com peak. Still, there's evidence things are getting harder again for tech's big guns.
"People are definitely jumping ship from the Oracles and Microsofts to move to the small and medium-size companies," said Tim Farrelly, president of San Francisco-based recruiting firm Coit Staffing.
Then there are talent challenges specific to Microsoft. Among them is the company's reputation among some as the tech world's "Evil Empire." That reputation was forged in part by court findings that the software maker abused its monopoly position, as well as by Microsoft's antipathy toward the open-source software movement.
Though Microsoft routinely is ranked as one of Fortune's 100 best companies to work for in America, its ranking slipped this year to its lowest level ever. After placing eighth in 1998 and ranking in the 20s from 2002 to 2004, the company fell to 57th this year.
Its executives have acknowledged the recruiting headaches in recent months. For instance, Microsoft's Windows chief, Jim Allchin, conceded that Google had lured away some of the software giant's talent and said Microsoft's magnetic pull among college students may have weakened, according to a Seattle Times story late last year.
In addition, the company's attrition rate has been climbing. It rose from about 8 percent for the year ended June 2003 to 9 percent the following year, and it is on pace to climb slightly higher this year, Gonzalez said. The figure isn't worrisome, though, unless it gets into the 12 percent to 15 percent range, he said. Farrelly said Microsoft's attrition rate is probably about average for the tech industry.
Going after brain gain
Hiring "smart people" is critical to the company's success, Gates has said. And Microsoft does a lot of hiring. Microsoft had 59,950 employees worldwide as of April, up from 39,150 in June of 2000. There are roughly 2,800 open positions in the company, Gonzalez said.
What stands out in the company's standard practice for hiring its "core technology" workers is the large number of individual interviews a candidate may have and the type of questions asked.
"The strategy they have now is ambitious. It requires coordination among most of its businesses."
Microsoft usually flies top candidates to Redmond for a day or two of interviews. There they are quizzed by a procession of Microsoft people, possibly nine in a row. Interviewers can include people who may eventually be supervised by the job candidate.
Rob Horwitz, chief executive of analysis firm Directions on Microsoft, defended as wise Microsoft's policy of many interviewers.
Horwitz, a former Microsoftie recruited by Ballmer himself, also suggested the company might not be well-served right now by hiring renegade personalities. "Guerilla warriors" could end up confusing customers, given the way many Microsoft products work together, Horwitz argued. "The strategy they have now is ambitious. It requires coordination among most of its businesses," he said.
In the past at least, a candidate might have been asked to solve an abstract brainteaser or riddle. Gonzalez said he hasn't witnessed that practice in the roughly two years he's been at Microsoft. But candidates can be asked for examples where they have used their computer science skills to solve a technical problem.
The company sometimes decides whether to make a job offer the same day interviews are held. More senior positions, though, may require two trips to Redmond.
Rival Google also has become famous for its recruiting tactics, which have included coding contests and a mysterious billboard.
But such rigor in recruiting can sometimes backfire. Recruiter Farrelly argued that Microsoft loses some of the
See more CNET content tagged:
arrogance, recruiting, talent, reputation, hiring
i was so baffled. i never applied jobs there.
and i don't want to leave NY and go to seattle.
it's plain arrogant, and just like the article pointed out: they assumed that EVERY ONE OF US WANTS TO WORK FOR MS!!! uh-uh, at least not me...
cuture, it suffers from severe mental inbreeding. Part of that is
the Icon of Bill Gates, with MS being a direct extensionof his
existance. Communist China was a similar extension of Mao's
existence. It can work, but internally, there is potentially a
serious disconnect with reality.
From what I hear, IBM was in a similar fix back in the days of the
morning song "Hail to thee, oh T.J. Watson...." Everyone had to
wear the same suit, and divorce and other IBM immoralities were
not tolerated in any way.
Apple too is a culture phenomenon, although I think that Apple
also knows how t laugh at itself. MS may not have achieved that
level of skill yet.
Anyhow, I'm glad I never considered working for MS. (Probably
couldn't have gottern a job there anyhow... ;-)). I did work for
the same company for 32 years and enjoyed almost every
minute of it. And I got to work on some really off-the-wall
projects. Never had to take a psych test either - tho a couple of
my bosses were thinking along those lines one time or
another.....
In regards to recruiting, yes, we assume that everyone wants to work for MSFT. We also assume that no one working here would ever desire to leave.
This is often true for those living in Redmond/Seattle. The reason is that job promotions occur much more rapidly there. If you want to move up, you are going to have be in Redmond. Almost as important, you will find many businesses offering MSFT staffers discounts -- ranging from cars, to real estate services, to massage therapy. The link from http://hrweb to Microsoft Prime Discounts is prominent and the Prime Discount listing is long.
If you live outside of the hive, then you want to be in Sales. Stay away from Services. Currently, MSFT is pushing down on Services salaries much like they are trying to push down the cost of our partners' services. The reasoning there is simply to be competitive with the Linux solution providers. If IBM is selling a solution for $100,000, the bulk of their price is for services. Currently, MSFT solutions are often more expensive simply due to the fact the purchase price of software is much higher and the necessary labor costs are about the same as a Linux person. Therefore, MSFT is looking for ways to push down the cost of the average MSFT IT admin or developer's labor so that it can retain the normal prices for its software.
The elephant in the room that no one talks about here is the cost of patching. Whew, what a mess. I work with several customers on a weekly basis and they share with me the amount of time that put toward patching our products. Unfortunatley, MSFT's view of TCO does not reflect that cost of time. In fact, if you are Windows IT administrator and have to work a lot of weekends to patch our servers, well, we think your opinion is not that important as you are only a Windows administrator. If you were really smart, you would work for MSFT and live in Redmond! Some customers have pushed back on the costs of patching and have demanded concessions from msft. In some cases, we have given them concessions. In most we do not as we cannot afford that to be a common practice.
A Windows administrator is also one of your customers. It is strange you don't think him as "important". As if guys working for other tech companies are not smart. Whew, what arrogance!
my .02
interview process was to take a SAT test. Now what does "if train A
leaves the station at 9pm at 140 mph..." have to do with the job? I
was never so insulted in my life and I withdrew my application.
Companies need a big shot in the arm before they wake up and see
we're not going to take it anymore.
To set things up, I have been a Technical Recruiter for the last 8 yrs. I've placed professionals in the corporate environment from the "C" level of a Fortune 100 to the helpdesk. Point to be made: I have a ton to learn, but I understand my profession.
I received a call in August 2004 regarding a Senior Technical Recruiter opportunity. I scheduled a phone screen and went through the drill. Everyone on the other end seemed to be impressed. We talked about an on-site interview in Redmond. During this call, the recruiter asked me about my salary requirements. I openly shared where I was and what I would need to move to Redmond. She indicated that was out of range. I replied that I appreciated the opportunity to interview, but didn't want to waste their time if the compensation requirements did not fit either of our expectations. "Use the travel expenses on another candidate who meets your range." I added.
A couple of days later I get a call from one of the Directors in the recruiting group. This person asked me a few questions about strategy and process. I answered. This person then addressed my salary requirements and indicated my experience would warrant the compensation I was requesting. Playball! I thought, and scheduled my trip to Redmond.
The planning and arrangements were first class. I had tons of information about the groups this role would support and expectations. My flight was delayed due to a Hurricane, nonetheless I made it to my hotel at 3am and was ready for my interview at 8am!
The day began with an overview from the HR Recruiter and a brief discussion about my background and expectations. So far so good, and I drove to the next building for my second interview. This is really where I began to have a negative experience.
The first interview was with the hiring manager for the position. She and I had a great discussion about my recruiting strategy and the challenges of the role. I, and as she indicated, felt we both were a great match. I was asked how I would handle difficult hiring managers, how I would create a strategy for "hard to find" talent, etc. Again... great discussion.
I headed down stairs to meet with another recruiter. I received a 15 minute dissertation about how great of a recruiter he was, why he was so successful, and how Microsoft was the only place to be. Fair enough, I thought. This person is very proud of his organization and is confident in his skills. However, it didn't stop. He went into an almost scripted interview questioning. For example, he asked., how would you deal with a hiring team who wanted to bring in Sr. developers as QA analysts? I believe I replied with, "That would be very difficult to take a Sr. developer and ask him to test the code of others., however we could look at it as a succession plan scenario and build our development team from the QA ranks." The next question was, "WHY?" followed by, "WHY?" and to the point we were splitting atoms. Finally, I concluded that there wasn't another "nth" degree to go to and ended the "WHY's?" I was then told how well this recruiter was doing again and finally escorted to another person.
Almost like reading from a script, the same questions came out. I assumed this was a plan to see how I reacted under pressure. I stayed calm, answered each question and then again told what a great recruiter this person was...by them! It seemed when I was asked about an accomplishment of mine..the candidate interviewing for a recruiting position, it somehow sparked a nerve with 5 of the 6 people I interviewed with to share how they did it better and how they worked for Microsoft and I didn't???
Finally, at 5:30pm I meet with the final person. It was the same director I spoke with on the phone. We discussed my day. I shared I believed my recruiting ability in the areas of direct sourcing and not relying or using the job boards would be beneficial to Microsoft. I was given feedback that Microsoft was very process driven and had a system they used exclusively. I replied, "I understand. Name one corporation that doesn't have a process to protect their assets?"
Finally, I get a chance to ask questions. My final question was, "Why should I move my family 3,000 miles across the country for this opportunity?" The director replies, "Because we're Microsoft!"
The look of frustration became clear on my face. As I was then told my compensation was out of line with the position (by the same person who told me on the phone it was.) At that point, I was checked out and ready to go home.
Needless to say, I let Microsoft know I wasn't interested. However, I got a call stating the politically correct corporate response that my skills and experience did not meet the requirements of the job. (Keep in mind, this is after I told them I wasn't interested).
3 weeks later, I get another call from a Microsoft recruiter for the same job. I tell them No. I've already been out there to interview with you and I'm not interested. 2 weeks later, another call. Finally, in March 2005.... the same call.
I'm not bashing Microsoft. I think they are a great organization. I recruit for their products to some degree everyday. My client group uses .NET/C# on a windows platform. However, to be such a reputable organization, I'm surprised that there is this much disconnect in communication. I'm also surprised that I was given the answer, "Because we're Microsoft!"
I engage my profession with 5 principals I?ve created throughout my career. Since this was a blog created to share information, I?ll share with Microsoft (since they shared so much with me during my visit about their skills and knowledge : ).
1.Always ensure a POSITIVE candidate experience.
2.Only submit QUALIFIED candidates. Go beyond the job description.
3.Respond to clients and candidates within 24 hours.
4.Follow up with feedback to candidates after phone screens and interviews. Close the loop.
5.ALWAYS BE RECRUITING! Lazy recruiters are ?reactive.? Great recruiters are ?PROACTIVE.?
The first interview was with a product manager and he grilled me with general questions about my background etc. Went well, then the second interview started with questions on data structures, brain teasers etc. During third round again datastructures like tree traversals etc. I was asked to write some pseudo code. My pseudo code was more java like. Altough the interviewer said language is not improtant he did not like the idea of accessing data using getters and instisted these were a bad idea. It appeared that he had programmed all his life with pointers. His comments turned me off.
Anyway I was escorted to fourth round after giving an impression that I had done well, otherwise usually they cut the interview short. The fourth person again started grilling me with lists and pointers. He also grilled me about some client side usability issues. Which I tried to answer, but all my life I had been a server side person. By this time I had made up my mind that this is not the place for me to work.
Later I was told that I lack "user apathy" and will not fit well in microsoft. Enlightened !
The first interview was with a product manager and he grilled me with general questions about my background etc. Went well, then the second interview started with questions on data structures, brain teasers etc. During third round again datastructures like tree traversals etc. I was asked to write some pseudo code. My pseudo code was more java like. Altough the interviewer said language is not improtant he did not like the idea of accessing data using getters and instisted these were a bad idea. It appeared that he had programmed all his life with pointers. His comments turned me off.
Anyway I was escorted to fourth round after giving an impression that I had done well, otherwise usually they cut the interview short. The fourth person again started grilling me with lists and pointers. He also grilled me about some client side usability issues. Which I tried to answer, but all my life I had been a server side person. By this time I had made up my mind that this is not the place for me to work.
Later I was told that I lack "user apathy" and will not fit well in microsoft. Enlightened !
However, what the prior poster is really saying is that they hire for personality. Only j-rks are allowed in, because they think being insensitive is necessary to be a good programmer and designer.
It isn't necessary, however, and this bias can only lead to a hostile work environment and the loss of good, well-rounded people.
It's one thing to test someone's coding ability (I'd even say writing a short program or debugging one is a good idea), but from what I've heard, MSFT's interviewing process is very high pressure and adversarial.
Testing competence is key and I see the importance of testing creativity and intelligence. However, that can be done quite well without being so high pressure. Not all highly intelligent highly motivated people love adversity and aggression.
I still feel that a lot of time could be saved if only they were more clear about what they expected and were willing to listen a bit more.
this type of pointless article, and pointless MS bashing gives journalism a bad name.
I must politely disagree with your argument, and I think it is actually the point a lot of people slip up on.
As a developer myself and from personal experience I don't honestly think you can equate the pressure situation you face in front of total strangers in strange surroundings with the pressure situation of a tough engineering or design issue in a comfortable and familiar environment with people you are used to being around. They are NOT THE SAME THING.
First, they love the puzzle question. That's nice, but I really don't care how to paddle to the edge of the lake before the lion eats me. I'm not particularly good at puzzles, and frankly, nobody is hiring me to solve puzzles. You're hiring me because I can solve programming problems, and when I don't know the answer, I can find it or figure it out, not because I can solve a puzzle in the next half hour.
Second, wow, you get some zit faced overweight dork who wrote 30 lines of code in DOS (yes, it was a LONG time ago that I interviewed there) and he thinks he knows the "right" answer. I remember one interview where the guy asked me a question, I disagreed with him, and we basically stared at each for the next 20 minutes without much to say. Great interviewing style that guy had, "agree with me, or you don't get a job".
Both times I walked away thinking "this isn't the kind of place I want to work". I wasn't respected for my skills, frequently wasn't given a chance to demonstrate my skills, wasn't respected for my knowledge or experience (depth or breadth), and felt more like cattle than a person. Glad I found other jobs where I've been MUCH happier (and I hated some of them).
Oh, BTW, the manhole cover is round because the manhole is round. It's a standard.... :-)
I managed to answer all of the odd logic twisting trick question oriented puzzles, and made it to "the next round". My classmates were impressed, as very few people had any reason to stay at thier recruitment drive past noon.
I was a bit worried and nervous, but not because of all of the trick questions and riddles, for my father was an AI researcher, and such mind exercises were part and parcel of growing up in my household. I was worried because every other business had tried to recruit me, but Microsoft made no mention as to why I should work there. Worse yet, they were making me prove my worth to their company.
I was being bullied through my interviews, but some time around 2PM, I was torn between desiring the position that was being advertised as a goldmine opportunity, but feeling like I would be treated as poorly as a sweatshop coal miner.
Fortunately, someone else made the decision for me. One interviewer asked me what I could bring to Microsoft. My reply, "Well, I'm resonably intelligent, I can program and design well, and I can work for you." He was not impressed, I guess I should have mentioned something silly, like my Nobel that is due to be delivered as soon as the paperwork is ready. The next question, "Do you use Linux?" My reply, "Why yes, of course. It's useful to look under the hood at an operating system to get a better idea of how things can be done. Plus the large number of programming tools available without cost come in handy for a student with limited means."
The interview terminated immedately. I didn't get another question, an explanation, nor even a proper closing. Insteady, less than five minutes into an hour long interview, the next thing I heard was, "Well, this interview is over. You can leave now."
In the end, Microsoft didn't hire any of us, as my University wasn't of "high enough ranking" to merit a hire, despite the small army of representatives they sent to pratically interview the entire Comp. Sci. graduating class.
Since then I've developed SCADA systems for power grid control, airline price prediction software, and multi-operating system distributed scheduling software for enterprise management. I boast a resume that indicates I know how to program, in a variety of languages, platforms, and architectures, including Macintosh, UNIX, Linux, the PalmOS, and Windows.
I know my employers have benefited from my contributions. And today, being a few years older, and a few years wiser, I would never subject myself to an interview process like that of Microsoft again. It's just too humilating doing complex logic puzzles in your head while someone in the room is yelling, "Faster, you're taking too much time to answer!", even if you get the right answers.
- is microsoft the arrogant one??
- by bit-looter July 9, 2005 10:02 AM PDT
- Or the guy who thinks he deserves some special way of interviewing?
- Reply to this comment
-
(25 Comments)