3 ms·

> It is perfectly fine to say you left a company because what you were looking for and what the company was doing didn’t align. As someone who has done a good

> It is perfectly fine to say you left a company because what you were looking for and what the company was doing didn’t align. As someone who has done a good share of interviewing and hiring in my career I disagree somewhat. The answer you gave (what you were looking for and what the company was doing didn't align) seems like a good neutral answer, but it immediately brings some questions to mind: 1. Did you not see this misalignment when you interviewed for that last job? Did they deceive you about the environment and work? 2. What exactly are you looking for? If I ask that question after someone told me they quit because of a mismatch I expect the candidate to tell me clearly what they are looking for. That creates a couple of risks. What if the candidate tells me what they're looking for and I interpret that as demanding and fussy? Does the candidate think their personal goals and wants are the most important thing in an employment relationship? Did the candidate take that last job out of desperation despite seeing the warnings, or did they not do the research that would have made the mismatch obvious? Unless the last employer changed everything radically in the last six months I would wonder about how the candidate got themselves into that situation in the first place. I would excuse that for a junior but a senior person should know what they're walking into. 3. My concerns are bringing someone on who aligns with business priorities, adds value, and gets along with the rest of the employees. I want to respect that every candidate has their own goals and preferences but there's a fine line beyond which those start to seem like demands, or maybe exceptions. For example a lot of people now are asking to work remotely before they have demonstrated they can produce anything or function as part of a team. I may not be against remote work but to have that presented as a requirement or something I have to "align" my team with may be too much at the interview stage. I won't say I've never talked myself into taking a job at a dysfunctional company (I have, more than once), but that's a mistake I need to take responsibility for. If I need to explain that in an interview I will be very careful about how I present that. When a prospective employer hears an explanation that amounts to "They lied to me" or "That place sucks" they imagine you feeling the same way in six months at their company. The more you talk bad about the last job the more it will seem like you got fired or encouraged to move on, which is a bad signal to give to a prospective future employer.

ravenstine 5y ago
> What if the candidate tells me what they're looking for and I interpret that as demanding and fussy? If I were the candidate, I'd walk out of that interview. No one needs to work for someone this judgy. > Unless the last employer changed everything radically in the last six months I would wonder about how the candidate got themselves into that situation in the first place. Have you never bought a product you thought would be great that turned out to be a piece of crap? Companies make money by selling themselves, and the sales process doesn't stop before hiring employees. Sometimes companies look great from the outside and you can't know what things are really like unless you either start working there or have an insider contact. I've tried figuring out what the workplace and its methodologies are like through the interview process, and it turns out current employees never want to say anything that makes them look bad and middle management dodges questions or sometimes outright lies. > Does the candidate think their personal goals and wants are the most important thing in an employment relationship? Yeah, they are, because if those aren't getting satisfied by the employment relationship, we look elsewhere. Why should any employee put the employer's needs over their own? > I want to respect that every candidate has their own goals and preferences but there's a fine line beyond which those start to seem like demands, or maybe exceptions. If you don't like their demands, you have the choice to meet those demands or let them go. The employee has the exact same choice. Either your demands are reasonable or they can let you go. This is the most professional perspective because anything beyond that enters the territory of slave driving. > I may not be against remote work but to have that presented as a requirement or something I have to "align" my team with may be too much at the interview stage. That's the entire point of an interview! Why would you consider that "too much"? That's crazy to me. If you aren't willing to negotiate or hear what potential candidates are looking for, why should anyone work for you?
- gregjor 5y ago
  Senior programmers with certain skills and experience may be in the position to walk out of interviews or shop around for the job that best aligns with their personal goals and wants. Most people don't have such a range of options. We're a fairly privileged group in the job market. If you spend any time reading HN you know a lot of people struggle to get any interviews. Most people in the job market are not in a position to put their needs over the needs of the employer, and most employers expect a different kind of relationship somewhere between catering to every need and whim of their employees and "slave driving." Interviewing is all about judging, that's what both parties should be doing -- making judgments before committing to a potentially expensive and significant relationship. A person who walks into the interview with a list of personal demands and needs (yes, I have experienced that) makes a different impression than a person who is ready to negotiate their desires while taking the employer's needs and priorities into account. How that negotiation goes depends on relative strengths of each side's position. A senior developer in this job market may be in a very strong position. Someone trying to get a job as a retail manager may not have such a good hand. I have interviewed people for senior-level jobs who didn't even know what the company did -- they hadn't done any research at all as far as I could tell. It may be hard to learn about internal processes and team dynamics in advance, but it's not impossible, especially now with so much information online. Most people won't commit to a restaurant meal or a pair of shoes these days before reading pages of reviews, so there's no excuse for not researching a potential employer. A perceptive person can ask questions and gather information in the interview process, though it's better to walk in the door with as much information as you can get. If the employer is evasive or secretive that itself is a red flag. > If you don't like their demands, you have the choice to meet those demands or let them go. The employee has the exact same choice. Either your demands are reasonable or they can let you go. This is the most professional perspective because anything beyond that enters the territory of slave driving. That's a false dichotomy. Both sides have room to negotiate. I may ask for full remote, the employer may counter with three days a week. I could quit at that point, or the employer could let me go, but that's probably not the outcome either side wants. What one side thinks reasonable may not seem reasonable to the other, which is why you negotiate. Having to compromise a little is not slave driving, it's a normal part of any relationship, including an employer-employee relationship. The point of the interview is to get an offer. The candidate and the employer should have done their homework before getting to face-to-face interviews, so by that time neither side should be getting any big surprises. I wouldn't wait for an interview to find out that the company doesn't allow remote, I would already know that. If I'm committing my time and effort to interviewing I already have some idea what the company will and will not consider reasonable, so I'm going to wait until I have an offer before negotiating demands, or even the salary and perks.

ravenstine 5y ago

> What if the candidate tells me what they're looking for and I interpret that as demanding and fussy? If I were the candidate, I'd walk out of that interview. No one needs to work for someone this judgy. > Unless the last employer changed everything radically in the last six months I would wonder about how the candidate got themselves into that situation in the first place. Have you never bought a product you thought would be great that turned out to be a piece of crap? Companies make money by selling themselves, and the sales process doesn't stop before hiring employees. Sometimes companies look great from the outside and you can't know what things are really like unless you either start working there or have an insider contact. I've tried figuring out what the workplace and its methodologies are like through the interview process, and it turns out current employees never want to say anything that makes them look bad and middle management dodges questions or sometimes outright lies. > Does the candidate think their personal goals and wants are the most important thing in an employment relationship? Yeah, they are, because if those aren't getting satisfied by the employment relationship, we look elsewhere. Why should any employee put the employer's needs over their own? > I want to respect that every candidate has their own goals and preferences but there's a fine line beyond which those start to seem like demands, or maybe exceptions. If you don't like their demands, you have the choice to meet those demands or let them go. The employee has the exact same choice. Either your demands are reasonable or they can let you go. This is the most professional perspective because anything beyond that enters the territory of slave driving. > I may not be against remote work but to have that presented as a requirement or something I have to "align" my team with may be too much at the interview stage. That's the entire point of an interview! Why would you consider that "too much"? That's crazy to me. If you aren't willing to negotiate or hear what potential candidates are looking for, why should anyone work for you?

gregjor 5y ago
Senior programmers with certain skills and experience may be in the position to walk out of interviews or shop around for the job that best aligns with their personal goals and wants. Most people don't have such a range of options. We're a fairly privileged group in the job market. If you spend any time reading HN you know a lot of people struggle to get any interviews. Most people in the job market are not in a position to put their needs over the needs of the employer, and most employers expect a different kind of relationship somewhere between catering to every need and whim of their employees and "slave driving." Interviewing is all about judging, that's what both parties should be doing -- making judgments before committing to a potentially expensive and significant relationship. A person who walks into the interview with a list of personal demands and needs (yes, I have experienced that) makes a different impression than a person who is ready to negotiate their desires while taking the employer's needs and priorities into account. How that negotiation goes depends on relative strengths of each side's position. A senior developer in this job market may be in a very strong position. Someone trying to get a job as a retail manager may not have such a good hand. I have interviewed people for senior-level jobs who didn't even know what the company did -- they hadn't done any research at all as far as I could tell. It may be hard to learn about internal processes and team dynamics in advance, but it's not impossible, especially now with so much information online. Most people won't commit to a restaurant meal or a pair of shoes these days before reading pages of reviews, so there's no excuse for not researching a potential employer. A perceptive person can ask questions and gather information in the interview process, though it's better to walk in the door with as much information as you can get. If the employer is evasive or secretive that itself is a red flag. > If you don't like their demands, you have the choice to meet those demands or let them go. The employee has the exact same choice. Either your demands are reasonable or they can let you go. This is the most professional perspective because anything beyond that enters the territory of slave driving. That's a false dichotomy. Both sides have room to negotiate. I may ask for full remote, the employer may counter with three days a week. I could quit at that point, or the employer could let me go, but that's probably not the outcome either side wants. What one side thinks reasonable may not seem reasonable to the other, which is why you negotiate. Having to compromise a little is not slave driving, it's a normal part of any relationship, including an employer-employee relationship. The point of the interview is to get an offer. The candidate and the employer should have done their homework before getting to face-to-face interviews, so by that time neither side should be getting any big surprises. I wouldn't wait for an interview to find out that the company doesn't allow remote, I would already know that. If I'm committing my time and effort to interviewing I already have some idea what the company will and will not consider reasonable, so I'm going to wait until I have an offer before negotiating demands, or even the salary and perks.