The Lion, The Witch, and the audacity of recruiters
49 points by hauleth
49 points by hauleth
While reading this, the author didn't come across to me as sympathetic.
In the corporate world, it's not that shocking that it takes a day to get access to things or to talk to somebody in a different timezone. How somebody reacts to these events is great signal for cultural fit. Somebody who is effective in corporate life will use that time well, because it will happen on an ongoing basis.
It's not that shocking that the work most in need of completion is outside of some predefined box. A candidate willing to step out of their box is more valuable to the business than somebody who limits themselves to a particular scope. Of course, asking somebody to work outside of their area of expertise ought to result in slower progress and a worse result - which ought to be expected to everyone in this story - but a business is going to prefer that over outright refusal.
It's not surprising that it takes weeks for recruiters to schedule interviews (given the volume they're dealing with), or that reaching out to a VP on LinkedIn makes the process faster. Again, in corporate life, knowing when to reach out to a VP is part of the job.
If recruiters ask for feedback despite declining to provide it to candidates, where that is the most memorable part of the experience, that seems like great feedback to provide.
Perhaps most jarring to me was the crossed out "bitch" line at the top. It is never acceptable to refer to a colleague or prospective colleague in this way. Disagreements are fine, gendered ad hominems are not.
the author didn't come across to me as sympathetic
I do not have any sympathy for the people who disrespect me.
It's not that shocking that the work most in need of completion is outside of some predefined box. A candidate willing to step out of their box is more valuable to the business than somebody who limits themselves to a particular scope.
If only anywhere in the process there would be anything about TypeScript or any kind of frontend work. The job description was describing purely backend work. I said that I have been doing almost exclusively backend and sysops. So if someone is offering me purely backend work, and then out of blue give me a task I know nothing about, and expects that in 32h (at most) I will be able to provide working solution with "designs matching rest of the system", then I see this as pure disrespect to my experience and knowledge. I spent over 10 years as backend developer and about 7 years of it was spent on observability and performance. My only heavier frontend experience was 8 years ago when I was adding some functionality to existing Vua application.
If you are trying to evaluate my experience and knowledge via such task, then I simply assume that you do not want me there. But instead being cultured and say that directly, you want to disrespect and insult me by forcing me to do pointless stuff that will make me suffer.
It's not surprising that it takes weeks for recruiters to schedule interviews
For me it is surprising, because one of their senior/principal/staff engineer (I do not know his exact position description) vouched for me with said VP two weeks earlier and I know that he acknowledged that.
If recruiters ask for feedback despite declining to provide it to candidates, where that is the most memorable part of the experience, that seems like great feedback to provide.
Yeah, I provided that as a feedback, as well I have written to recruiter for details for invoice, so I can charge them for my consultations about their hiring process.
Fortunately I have other ways to get that feedback, private ways as well as legal ways to do so (as I am in the EU, I am allowed to request all their notes and details about my process thanks to GDPR).
I do not have any sympathy for the people who disrespect me. You are not wrong about the process and the bait-and-switch ... but you do come across as childish and unprofessional.
To the extent that "professional" means "getting shafted", maybe a little unprofessionalism is necessary for sanity if not for progress. It'll be professional when your job is outsourced to an underpaid prompt engineer in Hyderabad. Will you professionally thank the consultancy scraping your API for it?
It is not me, who is paid for this. I tried to be professional there. When I am not treated as professional then why I am supposed to keep smile on?
I have just recovered from burnout due to poor management, and I do not want to end in that situation again. If people will not publicly call out bad behaviours, then these will continue to happen to others.
When I am not treated as professional then why I am supposed to keep smile on?
Presumably because you cannot reliability tell the difference between people “disrespecting” you and you misinterpreting the situation. A professional maintains poise regardless to inject calm into storms and, over time, establish a reputation for being reliable and level-headed under all conditions.
I do not have any sympathy for the people who disrespect me.
Me neither, and never any less than now.
I do not have any sympathy for the people who disrespect me.
Do you have any sympathy for people whom you believe disrespected you but, perhaps, you have judged mistakenly? Is it possible that, given what they know and you do not, that your interpretation could be wrong?
That's why it's generally considered the mark of a professional to bear the working life's slings and arrows—intended or not—with equanimity.
And, for the sake of trying to help you, consider the following question: What percentage of working professionals would agree that it's good for your reputation and future career prospects to write things like "I prefer to take a bath with a toaster rather than work another minute on this" in a professional setting? Would you be better served to remain calm and level-headed in all circumstances?
If you think a working relationship sucks, you have the option to end the relationship professionally: "I appreciate your investment in interviewing me, but this exercise has helped me to realize that I'm not a good fit for this position. I hereby withdraw my candidacy. Thanks for having considered me." How do you benefit by burning bridges instead?
How do you benefit by burning bridges instead?
It's a spiritual benefit. Some people will never understand.
Disagreements are fine, gendered ad hominems are not.
Disagreements are expected, but never namecalling of any kind. Corporate speak exists to make it possible to have two people, on the opposite side of every big question in life, and still be able to make wonderful progress together on a corporate objective.
My read was the same as yours. I know this is a rant among friends. If any of it leaked to me in an interview stage, I'd likely turn down the interview.
Corporate speak exists to make it possible to have two people, on the opposite side of every big question in life, and still be able to make wonderful progress together on a corporate objective.
You seem to have forgotten to put quotations around "progress". As the majority of corporate speak seems to be aimed at dancing around a subject rather than tackle it head on. I should also note that this seems to be predominantly US corporate speak as well. In my experience even working with cultures known to do this they don't elevate it to this practice.
I should also note that there is no direct name calling involved. The title of the blog is a play on a popular internet meme and to me reads as a general remark towards the audacity of companies in their recruitment process.
If you read the article, I can't blame the author given both examples. Specifically the first thing is borderline ridiculous. How would you classify these examples? As reasonable, streamlined recruitment processes? Or as something else?
The title of the blog is a play on a popular internet meme and to me reads as a general remark towards the audacity of companies in their recruitment process.
It is. Especially that all people described in negative light there were male. The only female person mentioned there is the one that I am praising.
The frustration is clear in this post, and I'm sympathetic because the experiences described are not great. It's common for companies to spend a lot of time on the interview process and not necessarily respect the candidate's time: if this is your company and you see it, you should call it out. It's losing you hires.
I personally would sit on my hands for a bit and edit before posting an article like this. I think it stands a better chance of landing with a more constructive tone.
The part that I like least about this is that I personally would hesitate to hire OP if I read this post. I don't say that easily - I have a positive impression of @hauleth from other posts, I am sympathetic to the experience and overall I don't think less of them for writing this. I am also not, generally speaking, a person who will audit your GitHub profile or social media history before considering working with you.
However, in the absence of other strong signals around somebody that I essentially don't know, this kind of post would make me worry that if a potential hire perceived something as unfair or wrong at work they would struggle to communicate it effectively, and that can lead to avoidable problems.
Thing is? I do think this post could be reworked only slightly to give a positive signal instead of a negative one. Tone down the frustration (a little - don't lose it, it's justified) and maybe better express the cost to the company that's hiring - you're wasting time and money, and putting off good candidates.
Now if I read it? I know what you like and don't like in a hiring process. I can talk to you about it. And I can see a senior engineer who can make a constructive argument for change.
Maybe OP doesn't want to work with me, and they've just screened me out with the article as is - in which case, we're fine, no hard feelings. But I think there's better in here.
($WORK is not an Elixir shop, nor am I hiring - so you're safe from me. But either way, @hauleth, best of luck and I hope you land somewhere great)
Perhaps most jarring to me was the crossed out "bitch" line at the top. It is never acceptable to refer to a colleague or prospective colleague in this way. Disagreements are fine, gendered ad hominems are not.
They were editing an existing meme in a humorously lazy fashion. Google the unedited phrase to see more.
Given that multiple people in the comments haven't recognized it at all... it doesn't seem like an effective use of a meme even if you set aside the potential to offend with the language.
I have to agree with you here: while the bait-and-switch the company did is not okay, this blog post tells more about the OP than those companies do. I would not hire them based on this post; it comes across as childish and unprofessional.
Somebody who is effective in corporate life will use that time well, because it will happen on an ongoing basis.
When it’s my first day when I have no assignment, no work environment to speak of, and no way to move things forward without harassing my prospective (or new) employer, the only way I’m going to use my time is by doing absolutely nothing — or do personal stuff. If that makes me a bad culture fit, fine.
At least the author looked at the code and issued a PR. That’s kinda useful, right? I did something similar once. Code review at the explicit behest of the client. They didn’t like my feedback, and it contributed big time for my contract to end at the end of the second week. Had I known, I would have politely declined to review anything.
I had a similar response when reading, and I agree with the points you made about the realities of a corporate environment. I also think that a willingness to work outside of the immediate bounds of your expertise, in addition to being valued by your employer, can open up interesting career and learning opportunities that you might not even know about if you insist on staying within your domain. The important thing is to communicate where those bounds are so that expectations and timelines can be set appropriately. Whether or not you can is a strong signal in an interview.
All things in balance, though. I also sympathize with the author; if you already have a crystal clear idea of where you want your career to go, and the projects you're being asked to work on aren't moving you in that direction, then your time may be better spent elsewhere. But I wouldn't take personal offense just because my and my employer's goals are conflicting, nor would I risk burning bridges over it.
I also think that a willingness to work outside of the immediate bounds of your expertise, in addition to being valued by your employer, can open up interesting career and learning opportunities that you might not even know about if you insist on staying within your domain.
Sure, but not in the first fucking week after being hired for something entirely different. OP is absolutely right in leaving that place behind.
The important thing is to communicate where those bounds are so that expectations and timelines can be set appropriately. Whether or not you can is a strong signal in an interview.
This is kinda hard though. In any job you would probably be asked to work on something not immediately in (or even way outside of) your expertise or interest. Arguing too hard about not wanting to do anything like different would be a major red flag. Sometimes unfortunate things just need to get done and an overly rigid stick-in-the-mud mindset would be unproductive. It's different if you'd be doing this a substantial amount of time. And, like I said, it should definitely not be the first thing you're asked.
This entire "putting you out of your comfort zone" bullshit is offputting as hell. The point of the first month or so is as a trial period for both the company and the employee. They should be focused on trying to gauge whether the employee can do what he was hired for, and trying as well as they can to make the onboarding comfortable and efficient. And the employee should be focused on whether they would enjoy working for that company, and in this case he rightly quit.
nor would I risk burning bridges over it
I would be a bit more hesitant as well to post such things in public. However, if I did, I would probably use the company's real name to warn others. I see no point in posting it under a pseudonym, because the involved companies would know (especially since they have friends working there) and nobody else would. That's exactly the opposite if what I would want from posting something like this.
Yeah the “oh this is a one off frontend task” is a very dangerous game to play when it’s the first thing at a new job. I’ve done plenty of work that I wasn’t well suited for at previous jobs, but it was after I had already done what was described in my resume.
Before joining one company I made it explicitly clear I wanted to design and build systems, I did not want to just sling around yaml or do frontend. I reiterated this throughout the process, and the recruiter and hiring manager acknowledged this. Then once I start, all I’m doing is integrating telemetry into the frontend code, making dashboards, and helping a team do migrations. I told my manager continually that this wasn’t what I wanted to do and trudged through, until my performance suffered due to lack of motivation. I also wasn’t allowed to switch teams due to poor perf, so basically my options were quit or get PIPed. This was an absolute low point in my career.
So yeah a bait and switch right from the beginning would be a huge red flag for me. In the OP’s situation I probably would’ve stopped right there and then if they made me continue with this frontend task after explaining I’m a backend engineer.
I probably would’ve stopped right there and then if they made me continue with this frontend task after explaining I’m a backend engineer.
I stayed a little longer, but I do not know why. I need a job, but I do not think that I need it that badly to sacrifice my mental health.
I agree on all of this. But I also think that there was an opportunity for the author to communicate with more tact. If he decides it's not a direction he's interested in, end it with something more professional than a wall of text saying that they'd rather kill themselves than continue working on it. Reading the article I saw red flags from both sides.
I like your point about if you're going to burn bridges, at least do some damage haha
I wanted to end it on more professional footing, but then there come some random guy, who was writing there for the first time, and he said that "we are extending the definition of success" in the middle of the week. I simply snapped at them. Was it wrong? Maybe, but anyway the CTO messaged me latter with different job offer.
Friend: Normally it is done in a way that the candidate should be out of their comfort zone. However, if a backend developer would receive purely frontend work, then I would say that something went wrong.
That sounds like it's just an excuse-generator so they can pluck out their desired hire without respect for any other factors.
The CTO's answer was that they understood, they wanted to check if I was "a good fit for their culture" (of hiring backend engineers and assigning them unrelated frontend work)
This fish sucks at climbing our trees! (And of course, the "culture fit".)
Until the workers are in control of hiring and firing, at least for their own teams, expect these shenanigans to continue.
I had a fairly interesting experience lately: I was approached by Company Recruiter asking if I'd be interested in talking with them and as I actually use their product daily I said yes. The call comes and the recruiter opens up with "so what are you looking for?" ... Hm, well, nothing: I was approached, I thought you'd try to sell me on you, not the other way around.
But no worries, this is just a normal phrase in the end, and we chat about what they're doing and so on for about an hour. At the end they ask if I'd be willing to continue the process, which would involve three technical interviews culminating in a possible offer. At this point I'm sufficiently positive that I say yes: it'll at least be interesting since I'm talking from a position of relative strength, having a stable job wherein recent dark clouds haven't really arrived at. The recruiter says they'll send an email after the call, and we say our goodbyes.
Then nearly a week passes without any email forthcoming. Eventually I send an email myself asking if they'd perhaps forgotten. After a few more days they respond to me saying that this time they decided to not proceed with the process. Huh, okay! That actually kind of stings: I didn't even apply yet I got rejected!
But that's not the end! A few weeks later I'm participating in a bigger programming conference and the recruiter emails me: they're there as well and ask me if I'd like to have dinner with them and perhaps restart the interview process! Since they were paying I did indeed go to that dinner and had a fun time talking with a few of the engineers at the company, but... It's not like I paused the process so how come it's an option (or on me) to restart it? Bizarre.
This happened to me when I interviewed at Rackspace a decade ago. They flew me to San Francisco, where their Python team had recommended me to management on the basis that I was good with Python and had experience with Twisted. The interview consisted of trying to convince me to know Lua, a language not on my CV, so that they could put me in their brand-new Lua team.
I feel like there's a need for a popular "guide to corporate IT environment" page that gets people prepared for interactions like that. I'm not trying to defend what happens there, but people aren't aware.
There will be delays, whether you're internal or external - losing a day to the process of getting some access is normal/expected. Things will be delayed. You're a tiny cog in a process that cares about aggregate metrics, not your individual success/failure. Many places will have a blanket policy on no feedback: potential loss - lawsuit, potential gain - nothing. Communication will be bad sometimes and things like job tests will get swapped and missed. Etc. etc.
This would both set expectations and filter out people who don't want to deal with this day to day.
There will be delays, whether you're internal or external - losing a day to the process of getting some access is normal/expected. Things will be delayed.
Yeah, but I had fixed time to finish this task. And to be able to do so, I needed to resort to 3rd party communication channels with people outside of the process, to get these. Delays are normal/expected in regular work, where I am capable of waiting, not during recruitment process, which should not affect my day to day operations. That is huge difference.
Many places will have a blanket policy on no feedback: potential loss - lawsuit, potential gain - nothing.
Actually, because I am in the EU and I am covered by GDPR laws, I can request them to provide me with all details and internal notes about myself. So the only thing they are gaining is the fact, that they sound unprofessional and make me feel that the whole process was consultations about their process instead of legitimate recruitment process.
This would both set expectations and filter out people who don't want to deal with this day to day.
I would not have much of a problem with that, if only I would have a time to spare. Would that also apply to them, if I would tell them, that I need more time to finish the task that they gave me? I highly doubt. So that gives them unfair advantage.
In the retrospective I probably should do exactly nothing, do not push anyone to give me accesses or anything, just wait till the end of the week only waiting for their machine to turn, and then just take the pay check. It would save me some nerves.
You’re not doing yourself any favors with this. If you really want to publish this when you have a job then that’s a less bad idea.
The first interview experience seems ideal. You got a sense of the job. You got paid for it. You even got offered the job.
Here’s some friendly advice. In the working world, what marks you as a professional is how you handle situations that are broken. Anyone can remain in control of themselves when things go as expected. But pros stay cool regardless.
Remember: When things are broken, that’s when you get to decide whether you want to be a professional. It’s an opportunity.
Please understand that being a professional doesn’t mean you have to eat crap. It means that if you’re served a plate of crap, you know how to set it aside without drama.
they had quite an "interesting" hiring process, where they ordered you to work for a week on the take-home project (fortunately they paid for that time). I hoped it changed a little since then, and it did - now they hire you for one week, where you work on the project.
Am I missing a joke? These seem identical from a practical perspective (well, modulo benefits like health insurance, I guess - which are not-inconsequential, but it's hard to imagine them making a big different on the scale of a week).