7 ms·

Proctorio is on my red flag list. If any current or former employees of a flagged company apply for a job on my team I expect their reason for leaving to be fo

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• bena 6y ago
  I don't think that's entirely fair to the candidates. I don't know your stance on Proctorio and I'm not going to air dirty laundry to an effective stranger. And any company or hiring manager who tries to bait me into bad-mouthing a company I've worked at gets a red flag from me.
  • yhoneycomb 6y ago
    Agreed. An employer could just as easily say they don’t want anyone who bad mouths their previous employers because it reflects poorly on them. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
    • lostcolony 6y ago
      Only if the goal is simply "get a job, anywhere". If the interview is to mutually figure out if you should work for the company, there is no such thing as a damned if you do, damned if you don't; all it can be is a "they care about what I care about" or "I don't want to work there".
      • yhoneycomb 6y ago
        Being able to pick your job that way is a privilege, and it certainly isn’t granted to everyone in all fields
        • lostcolony 6y ago
          Hence my first statement. That said, the whole context was about a software company.
  • lostcolony 6y ago
    Sure it is. My first job outta college was for a defense contractor. It's perfectly fair to ask me why I left, or even more pointedly, "how do you feel about working for a defense contractor?" It's not an invitation to badmouth, it IS an invitation to discuss the ethical concerns involved, and why you found it acceptable (even if it's just that it was a meal ticket until you found something you objected to less)
    • crosvenir 6y ago
      Out of curiosity, how _do_ you feel about having worked for a defense contractor and, separately, working for one again? What tradeoffs have you experienced (good and bad) moving from defense to non-defense industry? I'm personally beginning to think there is a crossroads coming up for me and would value your perspectives if you have time to share. Thanks!
      • lostcolony 6y ago
        So this was about a decade ago and only a couple years of my life; I really wouldn't want to misrepresent my experience at the time as being reflective of what it's like now. So I'll just touch on the things that likely are the same now. The bidding process for defense contracts means a lot of Big Design Up Front, and an inability to change things easily once signed, means that though there are attempts at being agile, they likely involve only the technical delivery side (CI/CD pipelines, automated testing, etc), not the interaction with product and other stakeholders (no fail fast and pivot, real MVP, etc). I know there's been some attempts at moving in this direction, but I honestly can't see it happening, since it's innately at odds with the short term incentives that Congress has (and the Pentagon operates under). The place I worked at had decent perks, but nothing like Silicon Valley tech companies. We had a cafeteria and a Starbucks in the building, but neither was subsidized. Vending machine snacks, again, at cost. Pay and benefits were reasonably competitive for the area as best I could tell (but didn't look that much; when I was ready to move on I wanted different geography as well). General culture was fairly laid back; only the month or so before something was due did it feel crunchy, and then only for certain people. A lot of dead weight, but a lot of job security, especially for those who delivered. The projects could be interesting. I worked on a distributed data visualization system that got me exposed to the CAP theorem back in 2011ish, which helped set the trajectory of my career, though I didn't realize it at the time. I also encountered people who said, half jokingly, that their skills had stagnated to the point they weren't hireable elsewhere. I doubt that as true, but certainly at the time there was work on technical things that didn't translate outside of defense (but many of the skills did even if not the technology). In terms of would I go back to the defense industry? Probably not if I have a choice. While there are a lot of problems in public sector tech companies too, and many with the same issues as defense contractors, there are more of them, and the constraints placed on them tend not to feel as daunting or arbitrary as some of the ones placed on defense companies. Ultimately the impression I got was that defense companies tend to be very stable and predictable, and I just don't appreciate that as much as I appreciate being able to suggest changes and seek improvements. Approaching this the other way - stepping into my first public sector company, I got to appreciate being agile, actually working with stakeholders to understand and address their needs directly. I got to make technology choices with the team based on what would address the problem the best (and that we were interested in supporting) instead of being told what they were based on what the contract said. And I got to work on smaller more focused teams. Longer term, I've gotten better compensation I feel like (though haven't directly compared; is there more than just a ~15% bonus offered at defense companies now?), the feeling of a lot more things 'done', and the ability to change jobs (without having to change geographic locations) when I felt like I needed a change.
  • yowlingcat 6y ago
    I'm not sure whether I can take this statement at its word. If that's the response when questioned about working at a company whose entire purpose is purportedly ethical, I would strongly reconsider your position. There are many corporate cultures where this kind of apathy and whatabout-ism would be considered a red flag. That would certainly be the case for any process I've run.
    • bena 6y ago
      Let me put it this way, asking why you left an employer is fine. Expecting a certain answer for a subjective situation and rejecting an applicant because they didn't give you exactly that answer is not exactly a healthy behavior. I'm here for a job, not to play weird mind games.
      • mynameisvlad 6y ago
        Bingo. If you discard my resume because I refuse to badmouth a previous employer in an interview then that's just a sign that I'd probably rather not work for you. And as other people mentioned, especially in an interview where you're being intensely judged and have to give second thought to everything you say, I'm not about to give anything other than a neutral answer that's supposed to appease most people.
      • pessimizer 6y ago
        Then why ask? All job interviews are weird mind games. My assumption when I'm asked why I left my last employer is that they're looking to second-guess my other answers based on what I say, or checking to see if I'm a disagreeable person who is willing to badmouth somebody generous enough to employ me. This is just taking the latter in the opposite direction.
        • bena 6y ago
          There are plenty of reasons to move employers that doesn't involve saying that company you were working for is unethical. You could say that you've reached your ceiling and are looking for the next step up. That's a fair one. The company you are leaving may not be able to promote you. You're looking to work on new projects and your current company is just maintaining and/or adding features. That's also fair. > checking to see if I'm a disagreeable person who is willing to badmouth somebody generous enough to employ me. Ah, but you see, the guy I originally replied to is checking to see if you're willing to badmouth companies he dislikes. And if you don't, he will dismiss your application. It's an unspoken rule you can violate without ever knowing you're in violation of it and has a huge affect on the outcome of the scenario. No reasonable interviewer is going to put you in the position of having to cast aspersions on a previous employer. That's a minefield for all sorts of reasons.
  • driverdan 6y ago
    There's a difference between bad-mouthing your employer and discussing ethical issues that are public knowledge.
• hyperpape 6y ago
  I'm conflicted about this. I agree with you that I think working for this company and not having an ethical objection is a red flag. But the interview environment is fraught. Is it really obvious that no candidate would think "this question is a trap"? There's a lot of interview advice that says your answer to this question can only ever hurt you, so be as bland as possible. Some employers want compliant employees who don't rock the boat. Some employers will hear complaints about proctorio's software and hear "SJW shit". I don't want to work for those kinds of employers, but I sympathize with people who want a job and might fear that their honest answer could be used against them. Ultimately, I think I have to come down on this policy being a bad idea, however understandable.
  • ivan888 6y ago
    Yeah it's a tricky area. In multiple cases I have been tempted to badmouth someone or a company in an interview type context, but have almost always been glad that I avoided it and just found a more subdued (but still honest) way to express my feelings.
  • driverdan 6y ago
    > There's a lot of interview advice that says your answer to this question can only ever hurt you, so be as bland as possible. Seems like terrible advice to me. If someone gives me bland answers I'll assume they're a bland person. > Some employers want compliant employees who don't rock the boat. Good for them, I do. I want people who are willing to stand up for what is right and say "no".
    • nickysielicki 6y ago
      > Good for them, I do. I want people who are willing to stand up for what is right and say "no". See, the problem is you think you're selecting for ethics when in reality you're just selecting for how easily they can read you and the rest of the room.
      • driverdan 6y ago
        That's all interview questions.
• c7DJTLrn 6y ago
  Ah yes, screw those people for... needing to pay the bills.
  • tingol 6y ago
    Someone working at a high profile software company has problems paying bills? Yeah sure...
    • inetknght 6y ago
      People come from all walks of life. You should learn some empathy.
    • jlund-molfese 6y ago
      It can be pretty hard to get, for example, visa sponsorship. A pariah company might be the only option which allows some people to meet their goals.
    • newsclues 6y ago
      Is it possible that that employer is the first one to give a struggling person a job?
    • c7DJTLrn 6y ago
      Even if nobody wanted to work for them, they'd just offer even better salaries until people did. Punish the politicians who allow this unethical software. Punish the CEOs and managers who make it happen. But don't punish the guys on the ground just making a living.
      • stale2002 6y ago
        > Even if nobody wanted to work for them, they'd just offer even better salaries until people did. Well then that is all the more justification for discriminating against them, for ethical reasons, right? They were highly compensated. Therefore, there is no problem with discriminating against them for ethical reasons.
      • 6y ago
• 2ion 6y ago
  Yeah sure. I also discriminate against people because I don't like the color of their skin while feeling high and mighty. What you're saying is, that if company A bids more salary than company B, you reserve the prerogative to judge that anybody should join company B because you deem the totally legal company A bad, even though the principles of the labour market dictate that if company A furthers the welfare of the worker more he should join company A. This means you're denying the validity of a mechanism that you as the hiring manager -- proudly calling yourself leadership in your bio -- are exploiting yourself every day to influence the commitment of your own employees. Pretty hypocritic. Chase the money but only if I want you to! -- you wish.
  • driverdan 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say. When people have options no one chooses a job purely on economic motives. The ethics of the role and the company should absolutely be a consideration. If that's not something you consider then you may be sociopathic. I also take exception to comparing a protected class to something like ethical behavior. I would never filter candidates by protected class and no one else should either. Past unethical behavior is absolutely something you should consider. Look at my website (in my bio). I've done unethical things in the past. I expect potential employers to question me about them.
• edm0nd 6y ago
  You should not be letting your bias and personal opinions remove hiring candidates.
• crazygringo 6y ago
  Unless those ethical concerns directly impact your own team, then that's deeply unprofessional and unethical on your part, and you should reconsider your priorities. Who appointed you moral judge of others? You discriminating against candidates based on their moral views unrelated to their work is no different from discriminating based on religion or political party affiliation. It is legitimately within your purview to ensure that that a candidate doesn't have moral objections to the work they'll be expected to do, as well as look for legitimate objective red flags such as previously embezzling from an employer. But the idea that you'd appoint yourself as some kind of moral purity guardian is deeply objectionable in a world where people legitimately disagree in good faith over ethical issues. You should re-examine this.
  • mhuffman 6y ago
    Hey, don't you know that "culture fit" means hating all the same things that I hate?
  • driverdan 6y ago
    > Unless those ethical concerns directly impact your own team Privacy issues impact every team. The threat of SLAPP lawsuits impacts every person willing to exercise their freedom of speech. If someone has worked for a company that does privacy invasive unethical things then it's reasonable to assume they'd be fine with doing privacy invasive unethical things somewhere else.
    • crazygringo 6y ago
      It's up to a company to set its own policies around privacy and ensure employees follow them. The fact that an employee worked somewhere with different, or opposed, privacy policies, doesn't mean they're unable to follow yours, any more than the fact that working at a company that used a 4-space-width tab to indent code means they're unable to follow your guideline of two-space indents. What does it matter if an employee would be fine doing what you consider to be privacy invasive things at another company? If they can do the job you expect them to, following your company's privacy policies, then that's all that matters. Otherwise, their personal moral compass is absolutely none of your business, and it's offensively paternalistic to suggest otherwise.
• throwwawayyy 6y ago
  I was an early employee at a Proctorio competitor. We actually beat them to market but they managed to get more market traction than we did. In complete transparency, I left because I didn't get paid enough - not because of ethical reasons. Just-out-of-college me was sold hard on the argument: "Good students who work hard and don't cheat are getting screwed over by bad students - cheaters. There is no solution for this in online classes. We need to build one" In hindsight, it is crazy how long a simple argument, being ethical itself, can rationalize other shitty decisions and compromises. It's kind of like a religion or a cult when you are in it. Constantly surrounded by other people who are drinking the same koolaid as you. You might feel a little uneasy, but hive-mind grabs ahold of you and when you see other devotees to the company vision, it soothes that uneasiness. Which no...is not good. It wasn't until I was no longer an employee that I saw things much more clearly. In the "name of justice", we built an unethical product that fucked over many students. Plain and simple. You know the phrase. The road to hell... Good intentions...