4 ms·

A couple years ago I took a full day off work to interview with a midsized startup that had been after me for months. Halfway through the interviews it started

A couple years ago I took a full day off work to interview with a midsized startup that had been after me for months. Halfway through the interviews it started to become clear that they'd expect me to work 60-hour weeks, with regular weekend travel, for less pay than I was making at my 9-5. In the final interview with one of the founders I told him I wasn't willing to do that, so I wasn't surprised when the head of HR emailed me a couple days later to say they wouldn't be making an offer. I responded that I understood this was likely due to my need for better work-life balance and asked if they could provide any feedback. She responded that they could not, as it was against the company's policy. This excuse would have made sense coming from a recruiter, but she was the head of HR--she set the policy. This and the work-life balance thing were enough for me to tell others to stay away from that place.

dominotw 7y ago
> he was the head of HR--she set they policy. Head of HR don't set these policies unilaterally.
rconti 7y ago
So you expect the person setting the policy to feel free to break it at will? That would be a terrible example, even if the head of HR set it unilaterally, which, as someone else mentioned, is unlikely. Furthermore, if it WAS unilateral, wouldn't that mean that the head of HR who set the policy was the biggest believer in said policy?
- mdturnerphys 7y ago
  You're right, that does sound like unjustified whining on my part. I looked up the email to check why it might have rubbed me the wrong way. The reason actually given for not sharing feedback was privacy--mine and theirs. Protecting my privacy didn't make any sense--I'm the one asking for it. If privacy of the five interviewers was a concern they could have just anonymized a bullet or two. If they're worried about liability they should just say that.
- ben509 7y ago
  When the question is asked "why are you doing this" and the answer is, "because it's our policy," what that means is, "we are doing this thing because it's the thing we do." I think people who give that answer honestly believe it's a valid answer possibly because they're thinking of the rationale behind the policy rather than the literal meaning of what they're saying. But when I've heard it, it's felt like an insult to my intelligence, like it's some stupid word game to dodge my question.

dominotw 7y ago

> he was the head of HR--she set they policy. Head of HR don't set these policies unilaterally.

rconti 7y ago

So you expect the person setting the policy to feel free to break it at will? That would be a terrible example, even if the head of HR set it unilaterally, which, as someone else mentioned, is unlikely. Furthermore, if it WAS unilateral, wouldn't that mean that the head of HR who set the policy was the biggest believer in said policy?

mdturnerphys 7y ago
You're right, that does sound like unjustified whining on my part. I looked up the email to check why it might have rubbed me the wrong way. The reason actually given for not sharing feedback was privacy--mine and theirs. Protecting my privacy didn't make any sense--I'm the one asking for it. If privacy of the five interviewers was a concern they could have just anonymized a bullet or two. If they're worried about liability they should just say that.
ben509 7y ago
When the question is asked "why are you doing this" and the answer is, "because it's our policy," what that means is, "we are doing this thing because it's the thing we do." I think people who give that answer honestly believe it's a valid answer possibly because they're thinking of the rationale behind the policy rather than the literal meaning of what they're saying. But when I've heard it, it's felt like an insult to my intelligence, like it's some stupid word game to dodge my question.