15 ms·

Maybe the author should evaluate _why_ they got catfished. Recruiting processes are so convoluted and hard to break through, that someone who apparently otherw

Maybe the author should evaluate _why_ they got catfished. Recruiting processes are so convoluted and hard to break through, that someone who apparently otherwise would have been a great candidate, had to lie to get an interview. Was a good candidate really only one that had worked at the managers previous employer? How many great candidates are companies missing out on because of arbitrary filters?

CobrastanJorji 8y ago
Yes. This particular candidate should definitely not be hired, but there are probably some other great candidates who can "discuss the pros and cons of MEDDIC" or whatever but aren't getting an interview.
evrydayhustling 8y ago
This doesn't hold up. Unless a candidate is single-mindedly targeting the author's company -- like, they get rejected and come back with a fake resume -- then they decided to fake a resume before talking to the author. The author can't fix the societal experience the candidate has been having, and you have no sign that they filtered unfairly. I am sympathetic to candidates who feel they have skills but lack credentials, but it is no excuse for falsifying info. Make the strongest case you can about your true history, and you'll eventually connect with a company that values the actual you instead of a fake that will eventually break down.
- deedubaya 8y ago
  > Unless a candidate is single-mindedly targeting the author's company -- like, they get rejected and come back with a fake resume -- then they decided to fake a resume before talking to the author You think it was just a coincidence that the fake job/reference the catfish had listed was one of the hiring manager's past employers? > Make the strongest case you can about your true history, and you'll eventually connect with a company that values the actual you instead of a fake that will eventually break down. This is definitely true and the right advice for candidates who are considering lying to get through the recruiter filter.
- noobermin 8y ago
  I don't know about you, but I couldn't finish the article. From the beginning, something irked me and it didn't feel like the author is completely innocent here. One thing that irked me a little is seeing the candidate worked at her previous company made her instantly like him. Once I got to the unnecessary admission the manager uses what even they consider as "unkosher" tactics to learn about the background of potential hires, I immediately closed the tab. I finished it later, but this is the same attitude we see from many managers: they set up poor systems, and get upset when those systems fail, like in this article, and there is no introspection on their part.
  - extra88 8y ago
    There is nothing wrong with considering a shared previous employer a "plus"; the hiring manager knows the employer so if a candidate was good enough for them, there's some reason to think they're good enough for you. If the work environments are similar it could also mean getting them up to speed more quickly. There's nothing wrong with asking the opinions of people other than those a candidate directs you to. With both the references and the others, you need to understand what experience they're speaking from and what their motivations might be for telling you what they do. Anything that seems like gossip (not the speaker's direct experience) should be treated with suspicion, either ignored or backed up by corroboration from others who can speak independently; discussing it with the candidate themselves may be important. I'm more concerned about hearing only good things from official references or not.
    - learc83 8y ago
      Asking people who weren't listed as references can cause all kinds of trouble. In this case the candidate said they left on good terms, but given the author's willingness to go beyond what is "considered kosher" says to me that they likely do this all the time. Even if you're not asking people at a candidate's current employer, if you start poking around asking all of your contacts about someone and it gets back to their current boss, there can be serious consequences for that candidate. The author even said that one of their contacts said he would discretely ask around about the candidate. Are all of the people the contact talked to going to keep discretely asking their coworkers as well? In America it is incredibly easy to fire someone--stop being so paranoid.
- kbar13 8y ago
  this sounds very similar to a lot of dating advice i've received
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > who feel they have skills but lack credentials, but it is no excuse for falsifying info. Why is it no excuse? Because we work in a system where the majority of employees and employers are trying to do the right thing. But that's becoming less and less true - I've interviewed with plenty of companies who have no problem with wasting days of a potential employees time with large take home tests and I've got no qualms about outsourcing those tests.
  - evrydayhustling 8y ago
    It's not just unethical, it's impractical, and the same reason applies to your take-home tests: if the first thing your employer asks you to do is something you want to outsource, what makes you think the tenth thing they ask you to do will be better? It's fair to be annoyed when hiring managers shift costs of filtering over to candidates. If it really bothers you, might be a sign to avoid that company culture entirely.
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > what makes you think the tenth thing they ask you to do will be better? What makes you think the interview process is indicative of the work environment? Most of the time it isn't. I've worked at quite a few great places that had ridiculous interview processes.
      - evrydayhustling 8y ago
        Ok so there is a work environment you respect and want to be part of, but there is an interview process in the way that you feel has nothing to do with the work environment and wastes your time, so deceiving them is self defense. Is outsourcing the take home test the only version of that which is ok, or is resume pumping etc ok too? (This is meant to be pointed, because I disagree, but not rhetorical - I'm genuinely interested in understanding the happy path end to end for this strategy.)
    - gkya 8y ago
      A very small amount of people have such an abundance of opportunities.
huebnerob 8y ago
His work history is materially important to his evaluation as a candidate. He wasn't great in spite of his lies, he was great because of them. Answering a few questions in an interview is just a gut check. The real yardstick is how well a candidate worked for other companies in the past. Anyone who's tried to get their foot in the door of an industry with an entry level position can attest to this. Even the smartest, most charismatic candidates give employers pause when they're untested.
- deedubaya 8y ago
  Yes, work history is almost always materially important, however, if you're using it as a gatekeeper, you're going to have a hard time hiring; especially if it's work history at a specific company. I would have a hard time believing this candidate was the only one who wasn't entry level. The fact that the catfish progressed so far with that specific fake reference had to be materially important, especially when complaining about difficulty hiring prior to this candidate.
ryandrake 8y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. The behavior itself should NOT be condoned but it is arguably understandable. Given the increasing pickiness of employers, candidate screening based on keyword and credential filtering, focus on who you know over what you know, and opaque/arbitrary hiring processes, I’m surprised we don’t see more of this. It’s no longer enough to be a good candidate. One needs to check every checkbox, AND be a star showman/orator under pressure in order to get past the multitude of gates blocking one from gainful employment.
- ironjunkie 8y ago
  In any other profession I would agree with the complete nonsense going on with hiring, but at least in IT (and at least in the bay area), there is such a demand for engineers that I don't see this going on too much except at some of the big shops (Google, Facebook etc) which are frontended with incompetent recruiters that only look at keywords.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Outside of Silicon Valley, there are many ridiculous hiring practices. On the east coast I have applied to multiple companies where I knew enough of the employees to get dinner with the team after. When we talked about hiring policies and practices all but one of those dinners ended up with a fight between the coworkers that fell into two teams of whether they should fail candidates over not wearing a suit because it showed they weren't professional or whether they should fail a candidate for wearing a suit because they valued looks over ability. Hell every single job I've worked at had multiple people whose requirements to hire someone were so difficult that they, themselves wouldn't have been hired A lot of the software worlds application process out of a few tech hubs is just shotgunning applications so that you get your resume in front of enough hiring managers who are having a good day that you get an interview.
    - learc83 8y ago
      I think this is a product of the relative immaturity of our industry, and the problems exist inside SV companies as well as outside. We tend to cargo cult interview practices from whomever the big player of the week is (IBM, then MS, now Google). Then we justify these awful hiring practices by convincing ourselves that programming is so hard that of course we need to put candidates through 6 rounds of interviews and treat people with 20 years of experience like new grads.
AmericanChopper 8y ago
>someone who apparently otherwise would have been a great candidate Dishonesty is an intolerable trait. This person clearly wasn't a great candidate. Lying at work is just about the only thing I'll always fire somebody for.
- justherefortart 8y ago
  So you've never lied at work?
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    No, I haven’t. Is dishonesty something you’d like to defend?
    - lovich 8y ago
      You've walked into work and told your boss that he was a fucking moron when you saw something that angered you immediately? Lieing about feelings is a basic human skill. If you never lied you would be a constant stream of unsociable behaviour that would get you shunned Minor lies are such a part of human society that it's a sign of some disorder if a child is actually incapable of lieing
      - AmericanChopper 8y ago
        A lie is saying something that's not true. It's not suppressing the a compulsion to act like a total jackass, no matter how much you really want to. If my boss asked me for an opinion on something I thought was a bad idea, I'd express my thoughts (with empathy). Honesty is not immediately blurting out every thought that passes through your mind, and it's not dishonest to withhold information that people aren't entitled to. You're (perhaps intentionally) confusing honesty with openness. Sometimes it takes courage to be honest, but in my opinion, there's more dangers in dishonesty.
      - RoyTyrell 8y ago
        I've never thought my boss was a "fucking moron". While there have been things that have made me frustrated or irritated, I believe I have enough maturity, and so does he, that we can talk like adults and either come to a compromise or better understand their actions/decisions and them understand mine. I don't know what kind of world you live in where not blurting out the first insulting comment is considering lying...
sanderjd 8y ago
> How many great candidates are companies missing out on because of arbitrary filters? A hell of a lot. And then they proclaim that there is a major shortage of workers.

CobrastanJorji 8y ago

Yes. This particular candidate should definitely not be hired, but there are probably some other great candidates who can "discuss the pros and cons of MEDDIC" or whatever but aren't getting an interview.

evrydayhustling 8y ago

This doesn't hold up. Unless a candidate is single-mindedly targeting the author's company -- like, they get rejected and come back with a fake resume -- then they decided to fake a resume before talking to the author. The author can't fix the societal experience the candidate has been having, and you have no sign that they filtered unfairly. I am sympathetic to candidates who feel they have skills but lack credentials, but it is no excuse for falsifying info. Make the strongest case you can about your true history, and you'll eventually connect with a company that values the actual you instead of a fake that will eventually break down.

deedubaya 8y ago
> Unless a candidate is single-mindedly targeting the author's company -- like, they get rejected and come back with a fake resume -- then they decided to fake a resume before talking to the author You think it was just a coincidence that the fake job/reference the catfish had listed was one of the hiring manager's past employers? > Make the strongest case you can about your true history, and you'll eventually connect with a company that values the actual you instead of a fake that will eventually break down. This is definitely true and the right advice for candidates who are considering lying to get through the recruiter filter.
noobermin 8y ago
I don't know about you, but I couldn't finish the article. From the beginning, something irked me and it didn't feel like the author is completely innocent here. One thing that irked me a little is seeing the candidate worked at her previous company made her instantly like him. Once I got to the unnecessary admission the manager uses what even they consider as "unkosher" tactics to learn about the background of potential hires, I immediately closed the tab. I finished it later, but this is the same attitude we see from many managers: they set up poor systems, and get upset when those systems fail, like in this article, and there is no introspection on their part.
- extra88 8y ago
  There is nothing wrong with considering a shared previous employer a "plus"; the hiring manager knows the employer so if a candidate was good enough for them, there's some reason to think they're good enough for you. If the work environments are similar it could also mean getting them up to speed more quickly. There's nothing wrong with asking the opinions of people other than those a candidate directs you to. With both the references and the others, you need to understand what experience they're speaking from and what their motivations might be for telling you what they do. Anything that seems like gossip (not the speaker's direct experience) should be treated with suspicion, either ignored or backed up by corroboration from others who can speak independently; discussing it with the candidate themselves may be important. I'm more concerned about hearing only good things from official references or not.
  - learc83 8y ago
    Asking people who weren't listed as references can cause all kinds of trouble. In this case the candidate said they left on good terms, but given the author's willingness to go beyond what is "considered kosher" says to me that they likely do this all the time. Even if you're not asking people at a candidate's current employer, if you start poking around asking all of your contacts about someone and it gets back to their current boss, there can be serious consequences for that candidate. The author even said that one of their contacts said he would discretely ask around about the candidate. Are all of the people the contact talked to going to keep discretely asking their coworkers as well? In America it is incredibly easy to fire someone--stop being so paranoid.
kbar13 8y ago
this sounds very similar to a lot of dating advice i've received
sheepmullet 8y ago
> who feel they have skills but lack credentials, but it is no excuse for falsifying info. Why is it no excuse? Because we work in a system where the majority of employees and employers are trying to do the right thing. But that's becoming less and less true - I've interviewed with plenty of companies who have no problem with wasting days of a potential employees time with large take home tests and I've got no qualms about outsourcing those tests.
- evrydayhustling 8y ago
  It's not just unethical, it's impractical, and the same reason applies to your take-home tests: if the first thing your employer asks you to do is something you want to outsource, what makes you think the tenth thing they ask you to do will be better? It's fair to be annoyed when hiring managers shift costs of filtering over to candidates. If it really bothers you, might be a sign to avoid that company culture entirely.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > what makes you think the tenth thing they ask you to do will be better? What makes you think the interview process is indicative of the work environment? Most of the time it isn't. I've worked at quite a few great places that had ridiculous interview processes.
    - evrydayhustling 8y ago
      Ok so there is a work environment you respect and want to be part of, but there is an interview process in the way that you feel has nothing to do with the work environment and wastes your time, so deceiving them is self defense. Is outsourcing the take home test the only version of that which is ok, or is resume pumping etc ok too? (This is meant to be pointed, because I disagree, but not rhetorical - I'm genuinely interested in understanding the happy path end to end for this strategy.)
  - gkya 8y ago
    A very small amount of people have such an abundance of opportunities.

huebnerob 8y ago

His work history is materially important to his evaluation as a candidate. He wasn't great in spite of his lies, he was great because of them. Answering a few questions in an interview is just a gut check. The real yardstick is how well a candidate worked for other companies in the past. Anyone who's tried to get their foot in the door of an industry with an entry level position can attest to this. Even the smartest, most charismatic candidates give employers pause when they're untested.

deedubaya 8y ago
Yes, work history is almost always materially important, however, if you're using it as a gatekeeper, you're going to have a hard time hiring; especially if it's work history at a specific company. I would have a hard time believing this candidate was the only one who wasn't entry level. The fact that the catfish progressed so far with that specific fake reference had to be materially important, especially when complaining about difficulty hiring prior to this candidate.

ryandrake 8y ago

I wholeheartedly agree. The behavior itself should NOT be condoned but it is arguably understandable. Given the increasing pickiness of employers, candidate screening based on keyword and credential filtering, focus on who you know over what you know, and opaque/arbitrary hiring processes, I’m surprised we don’t see more of this. It’s no longer enough to be a good candidate. One needs to check every checkbox, AND be a star showman/orator under pressure in order to get past the multitude of gates blocking one from gainful employment.

ironjunkie 8y ago
In any other profession I would agree with the complete nonsense going on with hiring, but at least in IT (and at least in the bay area), there is such a demand for engineers that I don't see this going on too much except at some of the big shops (Google, Facebook etc) which are frontended with incompetent recruiters that only look at keywords.
- lovich 8y ago
  Outside of Silicon Valley, there are many ridiculous hiring practices. On the east coast I have applied to multiple companies where I knew enough of the employees to get dinner with the team after. When we talked about hiring policies and practices all but one of those dinners ended up with a fight between the coworkers that fell into two teams of whether they should fail candidates over not wearing a suit because it showed they weren't professional or whether they should fail a candidate for wearing a suit because they valued looks over ability. Hell every single job I've worked at had multiple people whose requirements to hire someone were so difficult that they, themselves wouldn't have been hired A lot of the software worlds application process out of a few tech hubs is just shotgunning applications so that you get your resume in front of enough hiring managers who are having a good day that you get an interview.
  - learc83 8y ago
    I think this is a product of the relative immaturity of our industry, and the problems exist inside SV companies as well as outside. We tend to cargo cult interview practices from whomever the big player of the week is (IBM, then MS, now Google). Then we justify these awful hiring practices by convincing ourselves that programming is so hard that of course we need to put candidates through 6 rounds of interviews and treat people with 20 years of experience like new grads.

AmericanChopper 8y ago

>someone who apparently otherwise would have been a great candidate Dishonesty is an intolerable trait. This person clearly wasn't a great candidate. Lying at work is just about the only thing I'll always fire somebody for.

justherefortart 8y ago
So you've never lied at work?
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  No, I haven’t. Is dishonesty something you’d like to defend?
  - lovich 8y ago
    You've walked into work and told your boss that he was a fucking moron when you saw something that angered you immediately? Lieing about feelings is a basic human skill. If you never lied you would be a constant stream of unsociable behaviour that would get you shunned Minor lies are such a part of human society that it's a sign of some disorder if a child is actually incapable of lieing
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      A lie is saying something that's not true. It's not suppressing the a compulsion to act like a total jackass, no matter how much you really want to. If my boss asked me for an opinion on something I thought was a bad idea, I'd express my thoughts (with empathy). Honesty is not immediately blurting out every thought that passes through your mind, and it's not dishonest to withhold information that people aren't entitled to. You're (perhaps intentionally) confusing honesty with openness. Sometimes it takes courage to be honest, but in my opinion, there's more dangers in dishonesty.
    - RoyTyrell 8y ago
      I've never thought my boss was a "fucking moron". While there have been things that have made me frustrated or irritated, I believe I have enough maturity, and so does he, that we can talk like adults and either come to a compromise or better understand their actions/decisions and them understand mine. I don't know what kind of world you live in where not blurting out the first insulting comment is considering lying...

sanderjd 8y ago

> How many great candidates are companies missing out on because of arbitrary filters? A hell of a lot. And then they proclaim that there is a major shortage of workers.