Program managers are responsible for overseeing several company projects that are connected by a common goal. Employers are looking for candidates who excel at people management and conflict resolution. Interviewers will want to know about your leadership and multitasking skills, so come ready to discuss a time you were able to successfully motivate a group to meet an imminent deadline or any experience diffusing issues between coworkers.
If a change in a product made Google less money over all and even would reduce the revenue of partners but might save money for the consumers should Google still do it?
The question came from a very junior interviewer that seemed to want to base the answer on "doing something good for the world" as being Google's real mission. I think my answer that Google needed to think more about the feature and its impact on Google and partner revenues before deployment was not what the interviewer wanted to hear.
>> seemed to want to base the answer on "doing something good for the world" as being Google's real mission. That is the right answer. If you read Google's set of values, it says there clearly - you dont have to be evil to make money. He was testing if you believe in that.
I would argue that Google has to stay in business to continue to do good if that really is still is their "value". The is NOTHING evil about having a sensible business model so you can continue to remain in business and serve your customers. So the feature has to be looked at in balance. I mean the logical extension is why not just have Google buy the thing for you! That would be great for the customer, but not a sustainable business model. My answer also included that when you look at the overall impact on the feature you may very well decide its a good feature if you believe the overall perceived value to the customer generates enough good will for Google to be worth the reduction in revenue to Google (good luck selling that to the partners though). So I'm going to stick with that interviewer needed to realize "doing good" depends on remaining healthy enough to continue to be able to do that "good". And there is nothing evil about that.