8 ms·

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

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.
    - extra88 8y ago
      > asking all of your contacts about someone That escalated quickly. Checking references is one of the last things we do and insist that one be their a current manager so being "outed" by someone else isn't an issue. If I talk to a non-reference who I think is in a position to know about a candidate's performance, I would make it clear that discretion is called for; that's no guarantee but again, reference checks are the end game, they're either "the one" or maybe one of two if it's a really hard choice.
- wgerard 8y ago
  > One thing that irked me a little is seeing the candidate worked at her previous company made her instantly like him. I think that's a really hard bias to get over, even if people don't readily admit it like the author did. Presumably you have feelings about previous places you worked at, and thoughts about the general culture at them ("everyone was great!" or "that place was a dump!"). If you have strong feelings about a place, it's pretty hard not to let those feelings influence decisions like this. It's a bit like trying to be unbiased about hiring a friend: Even if you never admit it, how could you possibly be totally unbiased? Of course, in an ideal world the ethical thing to do is to remove yourself from the hiring process because of a conflict of interest. That, also of course, can be impossible in some places (no one to take your place, rigid processes that insist you interview or decline the candidate, etc.).
  - lovich 8y ago
    I don't know that I've ever worked at a place that would bias Mr towards a candidate one way or another unless I worked with them. Either it was a small enough place that I knew everybody and could rate them based off of personal experience, or it was a big place and I don't know if this guy was on the team that wrote Project A which held the whole team back, or the guy on project B which had us getting new clients every week because it was made so well. Just going, "oh he wored at the same company as me so I should like him" seems like a frat/sorority mentality
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.

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.
  - extra88 8y ago
    > asking all of your contacts about someone That escalated quickly. Checking references is one of the last things we do and insist that one be their a current manager so being "outed" by someone else isn't an issue. If I talk to a non-reference who I think is in a position to know about a candidate's performance, I would make it clear that discretion is called for; that's no guarantee but again, reference checks are the end game, they're either "the one" or maybe one of two if it's a really hard choice.
wgerard 8y ago
> One thing that irked me a little is seeing the candidate worked at her previous company made her instantly like him. I think that's a really hard bias to get over, even if people don't readily admit it like the author did. Presumably you have feelings about previous places you worked at, and thoughts about the general culture at them ("everyone was great!" or "that place was a dump!"). If you have strong feelings about a place, it's pretty hard not to let those feelings influence decisions like this. It's a bit like trying to be unbiased about hiring a friend: Even if you never admit it, how could you possibly be totally unbiased? Of course, in an ideal world the ethical thing to do is to remove yourself from the hiring process because of a conflict of interest. That, also of course, can be impossible in some places (no one to take your place, rigid processes that insist you interview or decline the candidate, etc.).
- lovich 8y ago
  I don't know that I've ever worked at a place that would bias Mr towards a candidate one way or another unless I worked with them. Either it was a small enough place that I knew everybody and could rate them based off of personal experience, or it was a big place and I don't know if this guy was on the team that wrote Project A which held the whole team back, or the guy on project B which had us getting new clients every week because it was made so well. Just going, "oh he wored at the same company as me so I should like him" seems like a frat/sorority mentality

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.