3 ms·

At a place I worked not too long ago, they fired a guy after two days because he was clearly an extremely huge asshole and stoner, and the reason they gave was

by nwah1 10y ago

At a place I worked not too long ago, they fired a guy after two days because he was clearly an extremely huge asshole and stoner, and the reason they gave was that he wasn't a good culture fit. But it was just a polite way of saying that they didn't want an unkempt, disorderly, drug addict. Although, I must say, he did seem to be a fairly decent developer, as far as I could tell by talking with him over two days.

jameskegel 10y ago
What happened to those who screened/interviewed/hired this person? Were they spoken to about how this slipped under the radar?
- nwah1 10y ago
  We talked about it, and we all agreed that his appearance and demeanor at the interview was much different than his appearance on his first day. He actually missed his start day, without notice, now that I remember, and started late. I looked up his music scene and realized he'd been at a rave in another state all weekend, and was clearly hungover and irritable.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
CaptSpify 10y ago
This is how I always saw it. It's a way for people to be politely unspecific about why they think the candidate is an asshole. I still hate it, but I understand it.
tetrep 10y ago
I think this is what most "culture fit" issues amount to. Attempts at politely declining someone's services. I'd prefer a more harsh/rude/straight/direct "we think you're an asshole" but one of the advantages of not giving someone a rational argument is that you don't have to deal with a rebuttal, you can't (rationally) argue against a culture mismatch, but you can argue that your behavior is not that of an "asshole" (or whatever other label can be applied to your undesirable attributes). This results in a "clean" rejection, where the rejected don't have traction for arguing that they'll "change" or "not do that again" when the rejecters simply don't want to deal with them anymore (for whatever their reasons, rational or otherwise). It's certainly not productive from the rejected's perspective, they truly might not know what they did to offend/displease their coworkers, but it can prevent awkward situations. By not including "real" reasons for rejected, your signaling the the rejected that your not interested in conversing about your decision and that your decision is final, regardless of the logic used to reach it (I think all of these are implicit properties when you don't share your logic behind a decision). As an added bonus, the same strategy works when rejecting people in your personal life, so there's also the societal familiarity/subtext that comes along with the generic rejection that can further emphasize the undesirability of continued interaction and the finality of the decision.

by nwah1 10y ago

jameskegel 10y ago

What happened to those who screened/interviewed/hired this person? Were they spoken to about how this slipped under the radar?

nwah1 10y ago
We talked about it, and we all agreed that his appearance and demeanor at the interview was much different than his appearance on his first day. He actually missed his start day, without notice, now that I remember, and started late. I looked up his music scene and realized he'd been at a rave in another state all weekend, and was clearly hungover and irritable.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

CaptSpify 10y ago

This is how I always saw it. It's a way for people to be politely unspecific about why they think the candidate is an asshole. I still hate it, but I understand it.

tetrep 10y ago

I think this is what most "culture fit" issues amount to. Attempts at politely declining someone's services. I'd prefer a more harsh/rude/straight/direct "we think you're an asshole" but one of the advantages of not giving someone a rational argument is that you don't have to deal with a rebuttal, you can't (rationally) argue against a culture mismatch, but you can argue that your behavior is not that of an "asshole" (or whatever other label can be applied to your undesirable attributes). This results in a "clean" rejection, where the rejected don't have traction for arguing that they'll "change" or "not do that again" when the rejecters simply don't want to deal with them anymore (for whatever their reasons, rational or otherwise). It's certainly not productive from the rejected's perspective, they truly might not know what they did to offend/displease their coworkers, but it can prevent awkward situations. By not including "real" reasons for rejected, your signaling the the rejected that your not interested in conversing about your decision and that your decision is final, regardless of the logic used to reach it (I think all of these are implicit properties when you don't share your logic behind a decision). As an added bonus, the same strategy works when rejecting people in your personal life, so there's also the societal familiarity/subtext that comes along with the generic rejection that can further emphasize the undesirability of continued interaction and the finality of the decision.