I wonder how engineering integration works for an acquisition this size (Wikipedia: ~1694 employees). Google interviews test for very specific things so it's unlikely every engineer in Fitbit would have passed. Fitbit's big enough that I doubt you'd re-interview every engineer and doing that would scare engineers away, but Fitbit's not big enough where you'd let Fitbit continue to do their own thing for a long period of time. Would you just convert every engineer into the Google leveling system best you can and see how it shakes out over time in performance review? Do these things get talked about during acquisition talks?
I'm guessing at the specific knowledge some of these employees have is valued, and they probably wouldn't take kindly to having to study for a coding test just to keep their job.
I'm guessing they automatically hire some, and interview others who are maybe less core to the business. They can always layoff later if it doesn't end up being a fit.
> They can always layoff later if it doesn't end up being a fit.
Such a fucked up thing that that's legal in some parts of the world. "Ah I don't know if we should hire these people or not, let's just hire them now and if we don't need them, fire them later. We can tell them a week before or something" just fills the air with smug MBAs not understanding that some people work for a living, not for fun.
I take it you’ve never dealt with conflicting cultures post-acquisition. I have and it was extremely frustrating fighting with people to follow and respect the parent company’s conventions. At some point you realize that someone is so set in their ways they are affecting the team’s deliverables.
> It was extremely frustrating fighting with people to follow and respect the parent company’s conventions
This post is a tutorial on how not to handle an acquisition! It's generally a bad sign for an acquisition if staff from the parent company say words like that they are "fighting to impose the parent companies culture and conventions"!
It's an acquisition, but companies are made of people, and just because a parent company does something one way doesn't mean that it will fit the company they have acquired.
Take the acquisition of Disney & Pixar. Steve Jobs stated that he wouldn't sign up to the acquisition if it meant that Disney culture would be imposed, because “Disney’s culture [would] destroy Pixar and distraction will kill Pixar's creativity". The whole structure of how the acquisition was planned was to ensure that Pixar maintained creative control and autonomy, and wasn't bulldozed by Disney Corporate.
I've lived through an acquisition too - the real factor to success is to listen and learn from each other, and build a shared way of working. Unless you are buying a failing company, you have to appreciate that they are doing something right and know their own company more than you do. And if it means you use tabs and they use spaces, that's fine.
More common is the situation where neither company has that perceptive of leadership or a culture worth fighting for. Just disagreements and conflicts.
> Such a fucked up thing that that's legal in some parts of the world.
It's legal basically anywhere in the United States, as most states follow at-will employment laws. Is it even surprising that young people (20s-30s) job hop every 2-3 years?
They've been talking about a 100% transient (read: contract) worker population for some time now.
A lot of the developers I know rotate between contracting and FTE work. They're FTE timeframes line up with your assertion. They stay at one place, get some new tech knowledge, work a few projects and then move on after a few years.
The think the age range has greatly expanded though since most of my group is in their mid 30's now. Maybe more people are starting to contract younger so to them, they see it as a more normalized work career than some other people who want to get one gig, settle in and be there for 20+ years?
> I'm guessing at the specific knowledge some of these employees have is valued, and they probably wouldn't take kindly to having to study for a coding test just to keep their job.
Genuine Q: even if the employees don't take kindly to it, does it matter?
Well yeah, otherwise they leave and take their friends with them. If that happens to enough of the engineering department Google is left with just a pile of IP and trademarks, and will have to scramble to fill those positions with internal talent (who will obviously not be as experienced in this specific field as the aqui-hires).
Acquiring the talent is a big part of these acquisitions, and it makes sense for Google to try to keep them happy.
More seriously -- I can't really talk about this in great detail. What I will say is the obvious: Google engineers have been hired in the past at Fitbit and vice versa. Leveling systems aren't perfect, and there's no perfect translation, but there is a rough mapping that can be derived by existing data. One special person even worked at Fitbit, went to Google, later came back to Fitbit, and is now at Google again. We didn't need to interview everyone to build a mapping.
