My recruiter said my phone interview with Google was borderline (I had two interviews). But I still go to the site. How well do I have to perform to receive an offer?

Updated on : January 21, 2022 by Harold Tucker



My recruiter said my phone interview with Google was borderline (I had two interviews). But I still go to the site. How well do I have to perform to receive an offer?

I'm not sure how to quantify a "how well" answer for you in a way that gives you an idea.

However, if it helps address your question, you shouldn't perform differently (that is, no stronger) than any candidate who was brought into the spot after having performed extremely well in their telephone interviews.

Phone screens are largely a filter on the convenience of bringing a candidate to the site; once on the site, it's like everything reboots - all candidates have the same starting point from there.

Congratulations on being face-to-face, so start preparing for that interview, forget about recruiter garbage, and focus on the interview.

List all the tge questions you were asked over the phone and prepare clear answers with good examples. How well you should perform is how much you want the job.

Did they ask you about salary and then find out from the recruiter what the rank is and what did you propose for?

Good luck

Do not worry. Do your best during the rounds on the spot. The telephone interview is the initial evaluation. The job decision would be based primarily on those on-site rounds. You don't have to perform well, just because your phone interview was borderline. Get it right anyway.

It probably means that you are basically normal :-)

In my experience, most packages that hiring committees see qualify as mixed reviews.

At any hiring committee meeting, usually, there will be some packages that are clear no. They're easy.

There may be a package that is a clear yes. These aren't difficult, but the committee will spend some time talking about it to make sure you don't miss something.

The remaining packages are where the committee spends most of its time. The committee will analyze all the information of each candidate and discuss / debate it to decide if there is

Keep reading

It probably means that you are basically normal :-)

In my experience, most packages that hiring committees see qualify as mixed reviews.

At any hiring committee meeting, usually, there will be some packages that are clear no. They're easy.

There may be a package that is a clear yes. These aren't difficult, but the committee will spend some time talking about it to make sure you don't miss something.

The remaining packages are where the committee spends most of its time. The committee will analyze all the information on each candidate and discuss / debate it to decide if there is enough evidence to support a hiring.

The committee will carefully read the feedback, positive and not so positive, and weigh the evidence: How compelling is the feedback? Were the questions relevant? Are the conclusions reasonable? Is there more evidence to support hiring or not hiring?

I have seen packages where negative feedback was obviously due to a personality conflict (which did not appear in other interviews) or was based on terrible questions (for example, trivial questions about the XXXX API). In these cases, we almost ignore negative comments.

I have also seen packages where an interviewer found what we thought was a serious problem and the feedback was taken very seriously.

We also analyze positive feedback to make sure it is justified. For example, if a senior candidate were only asked entry-level questions, we would still take that as positive feedback, but it might not be convincing evidence to hire the candidate.

At the end of the day, the committee will reach a consensus that there is enough evidence to support the hiring or it will pass. We try very hard to reach consensus, but if we can't, the default is to sin not to hire.

According to the information you provided, to be frank, it performed pretty poorly.

You probably didn't perform as well in those 4 out of 5 interviews as you thought. For your Recruiter to have rejected you without even presenting you to the Hiring Committee for review, the results of your interview would have to have been a clear and fairly consistent recommendation to "do not hire" from your interviewers. The rough guideline that SWE recruiters follow is that any candidate with an average interview score of 2.7 or higher should apply to HC. For reference, a score of 3.0-4.0 from an engineering interview

Keep reading

According to the information you provided, to be frank, it performed pretty poorly.

You probably didn't perform as well in those 4 out of 5 interviews as you thought. For your Recruiter to have rejected you without even presenting you to the Hiring Committee for review, the results of your interview would have to have been a clear and fairly consistent recommendation to "do not hire" from your interviewers. The rough guideline that SWE recruiters follow is that any candidate with an average interview score of 2.7 or higher should apply to HC. For reference, a score of 3.0-4.0 from an Engineering interviewer represents "hiring", a 1.0-2.0 represents "no hiring" and a 2.5 is "I'm on the fence." Therefore, it is practically impossible to obtain an average score of <2.

In terms of what to focus on now ... coding, algorithms, data structures, software design. Practice. Solve problems faster. Think about what you thought your best interview sessions were and do better than those.

Just because you performed poorly last time doesn't mean you won't do better next time. Many people don't make it the first time, but they do the next.

In fact, I recall numerous cases where a candidate did much better the second time than the Hiring Committee members (who read every comment from a candidate's interview, out of * all * the interviews over the years). years) actually went out of their way to comment that the candidate had shown substantial improvement over previous interviews and, in some cases, that improvement (and indicating about a candidate's ability to learn from previous experiences, grow and improve) actually ended up being the basis of the "Recruitment Justification."

Sorry to be so blunt. I hope this helps. Good luck.

The schedule is something like this: after the interviews, all the interviewers will write their evaluations and submit them, and the recruiter will compile them along with other information to make a package that will be sent to the hiring committee, and the hiring committee will take a decision, and then that decision is reviewed, and ... as you can imagine, this usually takes a while. One of the parts that often takes a while is getting interviewers to finish writing their reviews, because… well, because we're not as good at it as we should be, actually. (Sorry.)

If the recruit

Keep reading

The schedule is something like this: after the interviews, all the interviewers will write their evaluations and submit them, and the recruiter will compile them along with other information to make a package that will be sent to the hiring committee, and the hiring committee will take a decision, and then that decision is reviewed, and ... as you can imagine, this usually takes a while. One of the parts that often takes a while is getting interviewers to finish writing their reviews, because… well, because we're not as good at it as we should be, actually. (Sorry.)

If the recruiter does not mention anything about an offer, I assume it is because the process is still ongoing and there is no decision yet. If it's within a day or two of the interview, I guess they might not even have the reports of all the interviewers yet!

So one reason the recruiter might be calling is to see how things went before hearing from the interviewers, and another reason might be that they want to make sure they are aware of any issues or concerns that may prevent you from wanting to accept. an offer if you get one, so they can address it right away instead of waiting until they know if you're getting an offer.

And another reason the recruiter might be calling is to explain what the rest of the process looks like and tell you when you can expect to hear a decision.

A2A

The recruiter can see the feedback that the interviewers gave, which includes their score for the candidate.

  • They may have made the statement based on knowing, historically, what the cutoff should be for the score for the hiring committee's "no hiring" / "go ahead" decision, and the candidate failing to "go. forward"

If the hiring committee decides that they want to recommend an offer, the recruiter can see the candidate's status change update in the system and will likely receive an email notification as well.

  • They may have made the statement when they saw the candidate
Keep reading

A2A

The recruiter can see the feedback that the interviewers gave, which includes their score for the candidate.

  • They may have made the statement based on knowing, historically, what the cutoff should be for the score for the hiring committee's "no hiring" / "go ahead" decision, and the candidate failing to "go. forward"

If the hiring committee decides that they want to recommend an offer, the recruiter can see the candidate's status change update in the system and will likely receive an email notification as well.

  • They may have made the statement when they saw that the candidate's status did not change from "awaiting hiring committee decision" to "awaiting executive review" and was instead rejected.

If the executive review is positive, then the candidate's record is sent to the compensation committee; Again, the recruiter can see the candidate status change update in the system and will likely receive an email notification as well.

  • They probably wouldn't have said anything at this point as the compensation committee doesn't really decide to "go" / "don't go", they just measure how much the employee is worth to Google at this point in the process.

Once the compensation committee has come up with an offer, there is another final executive review; This is done by a top executive (mine was done by Sergey Brin; they told me he used to do all of them, and mine was in the last batch, before the job was transferred to the next level of executives, because Google was hiring many people).

The top executive may decide, for some reason, to return it to the compensation committee for an adjustment to the offer; or they may decide to reject the candidate for "reasons."

  • They could have said it if it was all a "go" until the final executive review, and the final executive review, which decides which "offer" / "rejection" chose to "reject".

Note that, for legal liability reasons, a Google recruiter will typically never, ever give more information than "decline" / "really close; please try again" / "offer." Giving more information would open Google up to a whole series liability claims.


Don't expect to get anything less vague; You will practically never be able to see comments from your own interviewer reviews, even if you are hired by Google.

If a candidate is invited for an on-site interview, unless there is a major catastrophe, the recruiters will send a package to a hiring committee for review. The rejection will come from the hiring committee ... once the candidate has reached this stage, it is highly unlikely that the recruiter will reject them pre-emptively.

So after the on-site interview, the recruiter waits for the interviewers to write their comments. While the average response time for engineering interviewers is less than a day, it is sometimes the case that one of the interviewers delays a week or more due to

Keep reading

If a candidate is invited for an on-site interview, unless there is a major catastrophe, the recruiters will send a package to a hiring committee for review. The rejection will come from the hiring committee ... once the candidate has reached this stage, it is highly unlikely that the recruiter will reject them pre-emptively.

So after the on-site interview, the recruiter waits for the interviewers to write their comments. While the average response time for engineering interviewers is less than a day, sometimes one of the interviewers is delayed a week or more due to some kind of problem (illness, production crisis, that kind of thing).

After the reports are in the recruiter assembles the package. This may involve other checks that hiring staff must perform, so there may be a week or two late in scheduling the hiring committee review. The hiring committee might request other information, which could further delay things.

The net result is that the post-on-site response can come as fast as two weeks, or it can take up to six weeks. More than six would be quite unusual and less than two would be extraordinary.

A week is nothing; It often takes Google phone interviewers so long to submit their feedback and / or for recruiters to process and act on next steps. *

At 2 weeks, you can read something about the delay. At that point, statistically, your chances of a positive answer are probably low, however, there is such a high degree of variability in Google's hiring process that I wouldn't give that much of a thought (that is, the standard deviation would be pretty high ).

A common scenario that might have nothing to do with you * is that your interviewer does not

Keep reading

A week is nothing; It often takes Google phone interviewers so long to submit their feedback and / or for recruiters to process and act on next steps. *

At 2 weeks, you can read something about the delay. At that point, statistically, your chances of a positive answer are probably low, however, there is such a high degree of variability in Google's hiring process that I wouldn't give that much of a thought (that is, the standard deviation would be pretty high ).

A common scenario that might have nothing to do with * you * is that your interviewer hasn't provided feedback to your recruiter (it could be that you were sick, under the gun for another deadline, etc.), or it could be so so Simple as your recruiter being sick (or busy / disorganized / lazy).

Good luck.

* I'm not saying it's okay, desirable, or correct from Google's perspective, just that it's pretty typical.

Yes, another interview is always a better sign than a direct rejection.

There are many reasons why a business would like to make an additional phone screen after sites, including but not limited to:

  • The hiring committee was unable to get a clear reading of your ability due to: poor interview questions, poor wording of interview comments, missing interviewer comments, etc.
  • He didn't do it in one of the interviews, but he did well in the others. They might ask you to make a phone screen focusing on that particular skill / module / knowledge that you didn't get right (ex: algorithm, data structure, system design, etc.)
  • Contradi
Keep reading

Yes, another interview is always a better sign than a direct rejection.

There are many reasons why a business would like to make an additional phone screen after sites, including but not limited to:

  • The hiring committee was unable to get a clear reading of your ability due to: poor interview questions, poor wording of interview comments, missing interviewer comments, etc.
  • He didn't do it in one of the interviews, but he did well in the others. They might ask you to make a phone screen focusing on that particular skill / module / knowledge that you didn't get right (ex: algorithm, data structure, system design, etc.)
  • Conflicting comments from interviewers for the same interview (if there were more than 1 interviewer)
  • They cannot make a decision on what level you should be, so they can do another interview to assess your seniority.

This is not an out of print list, but you get the point.

You should take this additional phone screen very seriously, but know that you did well or partially well on the sites to enter this round.

Good luck!

As Bob See said, the ratio reflects, at least in part, the relative lack of selectivity in the technical displays of Google phones. During my tenure at Google, I repeatedly complained that candidates were being brought to the site who, in my opinion, should have been rejected based on their performance on the phone screen. I didn't think we were doing candidates any favors by subjecting them to on-site interviews that they had no hope of passing.

But I think the other challenge with (not only) Google's interview process is that it's loud and risk-averse. There is great variability in the quality of the interviewers. From even in

Keep reading

As Bob See said, the ratio reflects, at least in part, the relative lack of selectivity in the technical displays of Google phones. During my tenure at Google, I repeatedly complained that candidates were being brought to the site who, in my opinion, should have been rejected based on their performance on the phone screen. I didn't think we were doing candidates any favors by subjecting them to on-site interviews that they had no hope of passing.

But I think the other challenge with (not only) Google's interview process is that it's loud and risk-averse. There is great variability in the quality of the interviewers. Since even a low score can sink a candidate's prospects on the hiring committee, that variability lowers the acceptance rate without really raising the bar.

Personally, I see a 1 to 7 ratio on site per offer as a sign of a very inefficient interview process, especially since those on sites consume most of the day for both the candidate and the company. That's why I strongly believe in stronger phone selection and interviewer training. And also why I am advising a startup (http://karat.io/) that does interviews as a service.

I have only interviewed for full-time positions, but my experience matches that of other respondents. It should take a maximum of two weeks; it's best to ask the recruiter specifically.

The last time I did this, there was a delay of a few days after the ETA provided by the recruiter ... but I received the invitation for interviews on the site a few days later, just as I was about to try to get in touch. with the recruiter again.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.