4 ms·

I recently applied for a position at Etsy, and one of the main points I make in my self summary is that I am most motivated by craftsmanship and an attention to

by p4wnc6 11y ago

I recently applied for a position at Etsy, and one of the main points I make in my self summary is that I am most motivated by craftsmanship and an attention to quality (I think a lot of developers feel this way, and more should practice speaking up about it for interviews). I was told I would have a phone interview with someone from the hiring team. Weeks went by and I got zero response. I figured I had just been rejected with usual company non-response b.s. But after about three weeks I received an impromptu message from HR saying they were sorry about the delay, and also that unfortunately someone internal had put in a request for the job I would have interviewed for, and they wanted to proceed with their internal candidate. I was grateful for the message and thanked that HR representative. I think it spoke well of Etsy that they bothered to give me some reply about my status. But I also thought, as far as engineering goes, that it sounded less than ideal to me that their hiring process could go like that. Why wouldn't internal candidates have been vetted prior to spending time on the application process and phone interviews with others? They said they thanked me for my understanding and would be in touch about future roles. I have never heard back. So it's puzzling that they seem to want to hire developers with a focus on craftsmanship, but aren't willing to consider me after previously at least feeling that I was good enough for a phone screen. It's not so much that this is "bad" or "good" for Etsy, but more that it gives an overwhelming feeling of "What on earth is going on inside Etsy? What are they doing?"

beeboop 11y ago
It's probably some poorly implemented HR policy that if there's a job opening they still have to publicly post it even if there's someone internally who fits the bill and wants it. I ran into something similar at my first job out of college (which was a shitty place to work in many ways). There was a job opening, they posted it, and even as an existing employee they wouldn't interview me for it because they already had someone in mind internally that was essentially going to be a shoe-in. Requiring a public posting is a good idea in theory, but in reality it seems most places are just wasting people's time because external candidates are never seriously considered.
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  But what was weird is that they did go through a non-trivial amount of the initial interview process with me, then became silent for 3 weeks, and then said that they had an internal candidate. (It sounded to me like the internal candidate applied for the role after my first interview, but I can't say for sure). That's why it struck me as so strange.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    Sometimes the job posting is done for the reason of renewing a worker's visa. Maybe showing there was some real action taken towards considering other candidates (15 minute phone screen) helps cover their ass in case the government comes knocking on their door.
    - p4wnc6 11y ago
      That makes sense. The most egregious interview hassle I had was with a large insurance company based in Connecticut. They had me do 1 HR phone call and then a difficult 1-hour technical phone interview. After that interview they gave me a lot of positive feedback and said they wanted to proceed, but then pressured me heavily that in order to proceed past that point, they needed a lot of specifics about my desired salary. Foolishly, I agreed to share, thinking that I didn't want to miss the chance for additional interviews. I did not hear a word of reply from them for months, at least 4 months. Then, out of nowhere, I received what was clearly an automated email sent to many people, which said basically the following: "Thank you for participating in our exploratory market survey for the role of 'Data Scientist' -- regretfully, we have decided to move the company in a different direction and so the position will not be filled." That dramatically changed my perspective about how to approach job interviews, how to relentlessly avoid ever sharing salary data, etc.
- ozy123 11y ago
  Yup. I saw this happen at my last company. They knew exactly who they wanted to hire internally but were under pressure to recruit externally so went through the rigmarole of advertising, interviewing and rejecting people only to give the job to the person they were already pretty much decided upon.
kafkaesq 11y ago
Why wouldn't internal candidates have been vetted prior to spending time on the application process and phone interviews with others? It could be that the internal process started simultaneously, just that the internal candidate "grabbed the thread", and either the HR contact wasn't informed, or didn't think / wasn't coached to notify the external candidates as to the change in status. Until they went back to clean up their inbox. "What on earth is going on inside Etsy? What are they doing?" I've come to accept that even when all parties involved have the best of intentions, the workflow of candidate vetting, combined with the inherent game theoretic aspects[1] of finding the best available candidate on the market (when one generally has no idea what market looks like until one has churned through a goodly number of candidates), all come together to make the process more complex (and time consuming) than people generally anticipate. Unfortunately what gets added to this is that seldom do people stop to think, "Wait, if we don't treat ALL candidates nicely during the process, that means the good ones won't apply again. And they won't recommend their friends to apply to join us, either." And so, "Maybe we should put a little more thought into candidate experience, and make a point of treating them better." Again, this is under the best of circumstances, and assuming that the parties involve seem to have put some degree of thought into, and to have some sense of discipline behind their vetting and communication process. Sadly, this isn't very often the case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem
ExtremePopcorn 11y ago
I interviewed with Etsy for an internship position last year. After the on-site was finished, our group of interns was told we'd hear back within a few days (but likely the very next day.) After two weeks of silence, I emailed them asking if they had an update or a new timeline and was told they'd get back to me in a week or so. This happened two or three more times over the next couple months, until I eventually gave up. Like you, I was more confused than anything. Either way, I can't really say I recommend interviewing with them.

by p4wnc6 11y ago

beeboop 11y ago

It's probably some poorly implemented HR policy that if there's a job opening they still have to publicly post it even if there's someone internally who fits the bill and wants it. I ran into something similar at my first job out of college (which was a shitty place to work in many ways). There was a job opening, they posted it, and even as an existing employee they wouldn't interview me for it because they already had someone in mind internally that was essentially going to be a shoe-in. Requiring a public posting is a good idea in theory, but in reality it seems most places are just wasting people's time because external candidates are never seriously considered.

p4wnc6 11y ago
But what was weird is that they did go through a non-trivial amount of the initial interview process with me, then became silent for 3 weeks, and then said that they had an internal candidate. (It sounded to me like the internal candidate applied for the role after my first interview, but I can't say for sure). That's why it struck me as so strange.
- beeboop 11y ago
  Sometimes the job posting is done for the reason of renewing a worker's visa. Maybe showing there was some real action taken towards considering other candidates (15 minute phone screen) helps cover their ass in case the government comes knocking on their door.
  - p4wnc6 11y ago
    That makes sense. The most egregious interview hassle I had was with a large insurance company based in Connecticut. They had me do 1 HR phone call and then a difficult 1-hour technical phone interview. After that interview they gave me a lot of positive feedback and said they wanted to proceed, but then pressured me heavily that in order to proceed past that point, they needed a lot of specifics about my desired salary. Foolishly, I agreed to share, thinking that I didn't want to miss the chance for additional interviews. I did not hear a word of reply from them for months, at least 4 months. Then, out of nowhere, I received what was clearly an automated email sent to many people, which said basically the following: "Thank you for participating in our exploratory market survey for the role of 'Data Scientist' -- regretfully, we have decided to move the company in a different direction and so the position will not be filled." That dramatically changed my perspective about how to approach job interviews, how to relentlessly avoid ever sharing salary data, etc.
ozy123 11y ago
Yup. I saw this happen at my last company. They knew exactly who they wanted to hire internally but were under pressure to recruit externally so went through the rigmarole of advertising, interviewing and rejecting people only to give the job to the person they were already pretty much decided upon.

kafkaesq 11y ago

Why wouldn't internal candidates have been vetted prior to spending time on the application process and phone interviews with others? It could be that the internal process started simultaneously, just that the internal candidate "grabbed the thread", and either the HR contact wasn't informed, or didn't think / wasn't coached to notify the external candidates as to the change in status. Until they went back to clean up their inbox. "What on earth is going on inside Etsy? What are they doing?" I've come to accept that even when all parties involved have the best of intentions, the workflow of candidate vetting, combined with the inherent game theoretic aspects[1] of finding the best available candidate on the market (when one generally has no idea what market looks like until one has churned through a goodly number of candidates), all come together to make the process more complex (and time consuming) than people generally anticipate. Unfortunately what gets added to this is that seldom do people stop to think, "Wait, if we don't treat ALL candidates nicely during the process, that means the good ones won't apply again. And they won't recommend their friends to apply to join us, either." And so, "Maybe we should put a little more thought into candidate experience, and make a point of treating them better." Again, this is under the best of circumstances, and assuming that the parties involve seem to have put some degree of thought into, and to have some sense of discipline behind their vetting and communication process. Sadly, this isn't very often the case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem

ExtremePopcorn 11y ago

I interviewed with Etsy for an internship position last year. After the on-site was finished, our group of interns was told we'd hear back within a few days (but likely the very next day.) After two weeks of silence, I emailed them asking if they had an update or a new timeline and was told they'd get back to me in a week or so. This happened two or three more times over the next couple months, until I eventually gave up. Like you, I was more confused than anything. Either way, I can't really say I recommend interviewing with them.