4 ms·

Every place I've interviewed at, and my current company as well, gives candidates all the time they want to learn about the company and usually the most compete

by Kranar 6y ago

Every place I've interviewed at, and my current company as well, gives candidates all the time they want to learn about the company and usually the most competent hires are very selective, have multiple job offers, and use the information they gain about company culture to determine where they want to work. There is absolutely no benefit to a potential employee or the employer not to be up front about these things to good hires. A good hire can easily find another job in a matter of weeks and given the cost to the company to train new hires and get them familiar with the project, it would be a colossal waste to hide these things until after they are hired only to have them leave and have to repeat the entire hiring process all over again.

hitekker 6y ago
The asymmetry of information the GP describes boils down to the asymmetry of power between employer and candidate. You aimed to resolve that uncomfortable tension by exaggerating the power of the candidate. In fantasy, a "good hire" is a rockstar; an amazing, fantastic individual who exists on the same plane as their paymaster. Of course, this one person and this group of people see eye-to-eye; they're equals! In reality, particularly in the job realities outside of software engineering, candidates and employers are not equals. The applicant is the supplicant; they compete to do one job for a low price and at low risk to the company. Rejection for that candidate is hardship: a month without a paycheck, a month of uncertainty. Whereas rejection for the average company is just another process, a few more days filling a recruitment pipeline. Such disparity sets the stage for the interview and beyond: the candidate refrains from poking into the gray areas of company for fear of losing the offer, and the company rigorously dissects the candidate for their own enjoyment. Maybe, once the candidate starts the job and sees the company's ugliness, they'll question their decision. But in most cases I've seen, the employee bows to the simple truth that they need their employers more than their employers need them.
- MarblePillar 6y ago
  Would you say that candidate:employer::supplicant:benefactor::debtor:creditor?
- chii 6y ago
  > Whereas rejection for the average company is just another process, a few more days filling a recruitment pipeline. or the company fails because they can't hire a key employee. Companies that are competent in their business operation (not their domain, but the operation of running their business) will not suffer this hardship because they planned for it, and have put in redundancies or backups for business continuity. It is indeed harder for a human candidate to do the same - but not impossible. That's why the FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early) principle has the idea that you need to have at least 6-12 months of emergency funding. If you get rejected, this funding can keep you going and you're not shit out of luck (and be forced to accept a subpar offer). The only problem is that most humans don't run their life like a business. But they should!
MichaelMoser123 6y ago
if the place is looking at software devs as a kind of human resource, then legerdemain/grandparent poster is right, if they are looking for co-founders then Kranar/parent poster is right. i have worked mainly for bigger firms, where legerdemain seems to be correct. The practicality of this advise also depends on the situation of the job seeker: if you are looking for a job to pay your bills, then you will probably not try ask too many questions, for fear of giving the appearance of being 'difficult to work with'. however the questions in the article are very thoughtful ones, i think that this article teaches how to ask good questions, that's also important.
ditonal 6y ago
The obvious benefit to the company is to get the candidate to sign. Companies generally have tech sourcers use software like Gem to spam thousands of candidates, link press releases about their funding rounds, then expect candidates to be excited about the company right away. Very rarely is much invested in selling the company, I think it’s actually gotten worse over the years due to platforms that automate candidate experience like Gem. I got “bait-and-switched” on some key details of my current job, but it’s not so simple at all to just leave. Hiring managers don’t like job hoppers, they will wonder if you got fired, whatever. The idea that candidates are swamped with multiple offers is also just a oft repeated false narrative . I’ve 10+ years experience, was SWE at Google, CS degree from good school, can do most Leetcode medium and hard with ease, but still have about a 20% on-site to offer ratio. Companies say they are desperate to hire but can still be very picky. And to extent I understand why I got so many rejections I think it ties into me struggling with the “topgrading” grillings about why I left previous jobs, which would only get worse if I stormed out of a new job over anything that wasn’t a massive issue. There’s a few reasons why the narrative employees have so much power persists in tech - excuse to push for more government funded training and visas, awful hiring practices that emphasize “false negative > false positive”, companies that pay way below market surprised candidates dont accept, outlier stories from rare candidates who played the job search game and negotiation game extremely well. But on average employers still have way, way more power in hiring and this idea that an engineer can just quit a new job and waltz into another one is absurd and false.
Supermancho 6y ago
> There is absolutely no benefit to a potential employee or the employer not to be up front about these things to good hires I think you are making a questionable statement, specifically because you fail to describe what you mean by "these things" when talking about "these things or those things" can leak sensitive company information. For example, you would not want to describe what technology is used for secrets management or laptop security. What you mean may be very different, but that's the problem with the discussion: a lack of specifics. Everyone chooses to take the safest route. > use the information they gain about company culture to determine where they want to work. Yeah, culture, that you will inevitably talk about during your following interviews. This is a liability issue and game theory (again, because modern capitalism) dictates that you want to give the potential as little as possible when securing an agreement. Yes you can over-correct and probably do as a company for some situations, but it's better than the alternative.

by Kranar 6y ago

hitekker 6y ago

The asymmetry of information the GP describes boils down to the asymmetry of power between employer and candidate. You aimed to resolve that uncomfortable tension by exaggerating the power of the candidate. In fantasy, a "good hire" is a rockstar; an amazing, fantastic individual who exists on the same plane as their paymaster. Of course, this one person and this group of people see eye-to-eye; they're equals! In reality, particularly in the job realities outside of software engineering, candidates and employers are not equals. The applicant is the supplicant; they compete to do one job for a low price and at low risk to the company. Rejection for that candidate is hardship: a month without a paycheck, a month of uncertainty. Whereas rejection for the average company is just another process, a few more days filling a recruitment pipeline. Such disparity sets the stage for the interview and beyond: the candidate refrains from poking into the gray areas of company for fear of losing the offer, and the company rigorously dissects the candidate for their own enjoyment. Maybe, once the candidate starts the job and sees the company's ugliness, they'll question their decision. But in most cases I've seen, the employee bows to the simple truth that they need their employers more than their employers need them.

MarblePillar 6y ago
Would you say that candidate:employer::supplicant:benefactor::debtor:creditor?
chii 6y ago
> Whereas rejection for the average company is just another process, a few more days filling a recruitment pipeline. or the company fails because they can't hire a key employee. Companies that are competent in their business operation (not their domain, but the operation of running their business) will not suffer this hardship because they planned for it, and have put in redundancies or backups for business continuity. It is indeed harder for a human candidate to do the same - but not impossible. That's why the FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early) principle has the idea that you need to have at least 6-12 months of emergency funding. If you get rejected, this funding can keep you going and you're not shit out of luck (and be forced to accept a subpar offer). The only problem is that most humans don't run their life like a business. But they should!

MichaelMoser123 6y ago

if the place is looking at software devs as a kind of human resource, then legerdemain/grandparent poster is right, if they are looking for co-founders then Kranar/parent poster is right. i have worked mainly for bigger firms, where legerdemain seems to be correct. The practicality of this advise also depends on the situation of the job seeker: if you are looking for a job to pay your bills, then you will probably not try ask too many questions, for fear of giving the appearance of being 'difficult to work with'. however the questions in the article are very thoughtful ones, i think that this article teaches how to ask good questions, that's also important.

ditonal 6y ago

The obvious benefit to the company is to get the candidate to sign. Companies generally have tech sourcers use software like Gem to spam thousands of candidates, link press releases about their funding rounds, then expect candidates to be excited about the company right away. Very rarely is much invested in selling the company, I think it’s actually gotten worse over the years due to platforms that automate candidate experience like Gem. I got “bait-and-switched” on some key details of my current job, but it’s not so simple at all to just leave. Hiring managers don’t like job hoppers, they will wonder if you got fired, whatever. The idea that candidates are swamped with multiple offers is also just a oft repeated false narrative . I’ve 10+ years experience, was SWE at Google, CS degree from good school, can do most Leetcode medium and hard with ease, but still have about a 20% on-site to offer ratio. Companies say they are desperate to hire but can still be very picky. And to extent I understand why I got so many rejections I think it ties into me struggling with the “topgrading” grillings about why I left previous jobs, which would only get worse if I stormed out of a new job over anything that wasn’t a massive issue. There’s a few reasons why the narrative employees have so much power persists in tech - excuse to push for more government funded training and visas, awful hiring practices that emphasize “false negative > false positive”, companies that pay way below market surprised candidates dont accept, outlier stories from rare candidates who played the job search game and negotiation game extremely well. But on average employers still have way, way more power in hiring and this idea that an engineer can just quit a new job and waltz into another one is absurd and false.

Supermancho 6y ago

> There is absolutely no benefit to a potential employee or the employer not to be up front about these things to good hires I think you are making a questionable statement, specifically because you fail to describe what you mean by "these things" when talking about "these things or those things" can leak sensitive company information. For example, you would not want to describe what technology is used for secrets management or laptop security. What you mean may be very different, but that's the problem with the discussion: a lack of specifics. Everyone chooses to take the safest route. > use the information they gain about company culture to determine where they want to work. Yeah, culture, that you will inevitably talk about during your following interviews. This is a liability issue and game theory (again, because modern capitalism) dictates that you want to give the potential as little as possible when securing an agreement. Yes you can over-correct and probably do as a company for some situations, but it's better than the alternative.