What led to me becoming one of the vocal ones is what happens when allocation fails and there's really no resort other than trying to fit in doing something completely uninteresting or leaving. Google seemingly does not acknowledge that the allocation process is in any way flawed.
My mistake was I should have insisted on an allocation upfront as a condition of accepting the offer made to me. After acing the interview, all the power was in my hands and I failed to make use of it.
But I do know it makes me sad whenever I hear that we have any attrition, regretted or otherwise. And I know as an eng manager I try to put myself out there for /any/ engineer who wants a hand, or even just a sympathetic ear. Some cases are just unfixable, but I like to believe we still can repair a good number of them.
I hope things worked out better for you wherever you landed next.
What isn't so good is that since I left Google, several positions have arisen that would very much make use of my existing skill set. Several people within have tried to get me considered for those positions only to get shut down by HR without so much as a phone screen. So I would appear to be on some sort of black list. There are worse things in life, but it does seem silly to me.
Often one arm of the organization does not know what the other is doing, although I am sure Google is constantly trying to improve their internal communications in order to prevent exactly this.
As for your point about the black list... I would say it would likely be closer to a note that has been placed in your recruiting profile instead.
Well, I rather think that verifies my criticism of dewitt.
I would be surprised if Google did not know what projects are problematic, but finding solutions would be another matter.
In the end, maybe it comes down to: what you have written are words, which are only an appearance. I don't have any means of verifying your record as an eng manager, and this comment doesn't contain any reference to direct activity in this case--nor should it!--because that is the kind of action that should happen within Google's private mechanics.
That's the discomfort: greetings and farewells are formal gestures, but all-too-often empty ones. Yours ring empty to me.
Everything about your post, whether you intended that or not, is constructed to make you/Google look good. I bet you wouldn't say your intent was to make yourself look good, right? Then what was your objective?
And in any case, is any of that a bad thing? Or is it just another comment on corporate loyalty?
Consider that in the context of a naive intern's post in this post-PRISM world:
>>Google’s radical approach to transparency and commitment to the mantra of "Don't be Evil" is extremely admirable.
Right.
---
Please understand, my reaction is purely contemplative. There is a regrettable urge towards conflict when any ideologies meet, but I like to believe we can still come to peaceable verbal agreements. And forgive the irony of this paragraph, if you can.
However from the perspective of someone who has worked in something like investment banking, I stand by my comment that Google's approach to transparency (at least internally) is headed in the right direction.
As someone going through the process to transfer to a different area, though, I find it a bit more difficult that I imagined it. It's not that anyone is blocking me, it's just hard to decide where to go and which opportunity makes the most sense for the next two years.
