9 ms·

I don't think we should use such stories as a reason to make the hiring process even more paranoid. In general people are pretty honest so I wouldn't like to se

I don't think we should use such stories as a reason to make the hiring process even more paranoid. In general people are pretty honest so I wouldn't like to see them having to jump through even more hoops because of a few fraudsters. Advice number 1 is probably best : "Trust your gut". If something doesn't make sense it's worth clearing that up.

Clubber 9y ago
Yes, this and reference checks. Plus, if a guy isn't working out, fire him. Not a huge deal. The current tech hiring process, at least what I read on here, is absurd.
- organsnyder 9y ago
  Depends on what "isn't working out" means. If the employee is just bad at their job in mundane ways like low performance, poor quality, etc. then that's probably not too harmful (or it shouldn't be, if your company is more than a dozen people or so). However, if "isn't working out" means that the employee has behavioral issues that harm colleagues, is inappropriate with clients, steals intellectual property, or something like that, the damage could be much worse—even catastrophic. Of course, companies should be built to be resilient to these situations, but it's rarely "not a huge deal". All that being said, I agree with your premise that much of tech hiring is "absurd". Too many companies (especially consultancies) are built with a very low tolerance for underperformance, to the point that they don't contribute to the development of the overall workforce.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Sure, deciding why to let someone go is up to the company or manager. Firing someone isn't the huge deal, the reasons for firing them certainly can be. With development, you can actually have negative productivity. An example would be spending money to un-hose what the developer did years after they've left. If enough stuff was built on top of a mistake, it's unfeasible to fix. Bad design decisions tend to lead to other bad design decisions. I'm dealing with a lot of that where I am now. I think part of the reason these tech interviews are so absurd is people are emotionally terrified of firing people, so they take great pains to ensure they won't have to. I'm just speculating though.
BadThink6655321 9y ago
Depends on the culture of the people. I have experienced numerous instances where an Indian candidate is not who they claim to be. Person X is hired, person Y shows up. Person X conducts the phone interview for person Y. And so on. And this has happened for not just me.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I just experienced this with a contractor. I have never seen him do anything himself. I strongly suspect he is sending his work somewhere else.
  - freeone3000 9y ago
    He's a contractor. That's the difference between him and an employee: He chooses the time, place, and manner of his work, including subcontracting it. If he's not allowed to do this, chances are you have an employee.
    - frisco 9y ago
      Not true, limitations on subcontracting (or at least limiting it to approved subcontractors) are allowed and common. Just because he’s a contractor doesn’t mean NDAs are meaningless.
      - lovich 9y ago
        Limiting work to people with security clearances is an example of ok limitations. Adding so many limits that the acceptable people to do work are the single contractor means youve jaut made a constructive way to get around hiring a person as an employee
        zero_intp 9y ago
        your statements are unsupported. It is my observation that you are stating spirit of law to your understanding, but not what occurs in law or practice.
gowld 9y ago
"Trust your gut" slides into "culture fit" slides into "I'm not sure someone who looks/talks like that could really do what they say they do" and "This person looks like someone who I'd expect could do the job".
keithnz 9y ago
problem is there's two things going on here with "trusting your gut" his gut was actually mainly telling him the person was great... but there was something fishy about their work history. Which caused a niggle. My experience is, and I'd guess for most people who have recruited a lot, when you find someone who is good, it's obvious. So, in this case he probablly had found someone good for the job. ( depending on how they validated the persons skills ) I'd want to give the guy an opportunity to explain... The deception of having worked for a company that he never did is a pretty serious deception, not quite a minor altering of the facts, but I'd still want to know a bit more about the reason for the deception. did it mean the candidate did it to get the opportunity to interview? and if he didn't do it he may not of got the opportunity to interview? In which cased I may be sympathetic. Or, perhaps there was bad blood from previous employment? or, is there something more neferous going on, fraud, sexual misconduct, etc. This would be an instant no go for me.
tigershark 9y ago
I also thought that people were pretty honest, but after reading this discussion with people asserting that “everyone lies” at work and other people defending the liars, I’m not so sure anymore. Much better to err on the side of the caution then and add more checks.

Clubber 9y ago

Yes, this and reference checks. Plus, if a guy isn't working out, fire him. Not a huge deal. The current tech hiring process, at least what I read on here, is absurd.

organsnyder 9y ago
Depends on what "isn't working out" means. If the employee is just bad at their job in mundane ways like low performance, poor quality, etc. then that's probably not too harmful (or it shouldn't be, if your company is more than a dozen people or so). However, if "isn't working out" means that the employee has behavioral issues that harm colleagues, is inappropriate with clients, steals intellectual property, or something like that, the damage could be much worse—even catastrophic. Of course, companies should be built to be resilient to these situations, but it's rarely "not a huge deal". All that being said, I agree with your premise that much of tech hiring is "absurd". Too many companies (especially consultancies) are built with a very low tolerance for underperformance, to the point that they don't contribute to the development of the overall workforce.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Sure, deciding why to let someone go is up to the company or manager. Firing someone isn't the huge deal, the reasons for firing them certainly can be. With development, you can actually have negative productivity. An example would be spending money to un-hose what the developer did years after they've left. If enough stuff was built on top of a mistake, it's unfeasible to fix. Bad design decisions tend to lead to other bad design decisions. I'm dealing with a lot of that where I am now. I think part of the reason these tech interviews are so absurd is people are emotionally terrified of firing people, so they take great pains to ensure they won't have to. I'm just speculating though.

BadThink6655321 9y ago

Depends on the culture of the people. I have experienced numerous instances where an Indian candidate is not who they claim to be. Person X is hired, person Y shows up. Person X conducts the phone interview for person Y. And so on. And this has happened for not just me.

maxxxxx 9y ago
I just experienced this with a contractor. I have never seen him do anything himself. I strongly suspect he is sending his work somewhere else.
- freeone3000 9y ago
  He's a contractor. That's the difference between him and an employee: He chooses the time, place, and manner of his work, including subcontracting it. If he's not allowed to do this, chances are you have an employee.
  - frisco 9y ago
    Not true, limitations on subcontracting (or at least limiting it to approved subcontractors) are allowed and common. Just because he’s a contractor doesn’t mean NDAs are meaningless.
    - lovich 9y ago
      Limiting work to people with security clearances is an example of ok limitations. Adding so many limits that the acceptable people to do work are the single contractor means youve jaut made a constructive way to get around hiring a person as an employee
      - zero_intp 9y ago
        your statements are unsupported. It is my observation that you are stating spirit of law to your understanding, but not what occurs in law or practice.

gowld 9y ago

"Trust your gut" slides into "culture fit" slides into "I'm not sure someone who looks/talks like that could really do what they say they do" and "This person looks like someone who I'd expect could do the job".

keithnz 9y ago

problem is there's two things going on here with "trusting your gut" his gut was actually mainly telling him the person was great... but there was something fishy about their work history. Which caused a niggle. My experience is, and I'd guess for most people who have recruited a lot, when you find someone who is good, it's obvious. So, in this case he probablly had found someone good for the job. ( depending on how they validated the persons skills ) I'd want to give the guy an opportunity to explain... The deception of having worked for a company that he never did is a pretty serious deception, not quite a minor altering of the facts, but I'd still want to know a bit more about the reason for the deception. did it mean the candidate did it to get the opportunity to interview? and if he didn't do it he may not of got the opportunity to interview? In which cased I may be sympathetic. Or, perhaps there was bad blood from previous employment? or, is there something more neferous going on, fraud, sexual misconduct, etc. This would be an instant no go for me.

tigershark 9y ago

I also thought that people were pretty honest, but after reading this discussion with people asserting that “everyone lies” at work and other people defending the liars, I’m not so sure anymore. Much better to err on the side of the caution then and add more checks.