4 ms·

I think this is a fair and nuanced comment. However, you seem to be stating (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are really two categories of situations here -

• skissane 5y ago
  > However, you seem to be stating (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are really two categories of situations here - situation A, where someone is an Asshole with a capital A, and situation B where you have a neurodiverse or immigrant candidate that is misinterpreting the situation and should not be dismissed based on their behavior. Well, to be honest I think a lot of "capital A assholes" actually are neurodiverse – if not in the more common sense of ASD/ADHD/etc, then in the sense of narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, etc. But, there are limits to the extent of neurodiversity anyone can handle: schizophrenia is a form of neurodiversity too, but a candidate who exhibits florid symptoms of psychosis in a job interview is obviously not a suitable candidate at this time (but they might make an excellent candidate in the future if their psychosis remits). If someone's behaviour is somewhat outside the norm, but they show some insight, willingness to take on feedback and attempt to change, etc, they can still make a positive contribution to a team. If they appear to have no insight, no ability or willingness to consider the feedback of others, no ability or willingness to change or compromise or meet others half-way – it probably isn't going to work out. > However, based on my (admittedly anecdotal, but extensive) experience situation A is probably something like 95% of the time and situation B is probably something like 5% of the time. Do you actually know the split is really 95% vs 5%? Is it possible that, some of that 95% really belongs to the 5% but you didn't realise it? A couple of strategies which might help: (1) force yourself to stop and think about other possible explanations, and whether you have any reason to think any of those other explanations could apply in that particular case; (2) try to gently broach the subject with the candidate, and try to see if you can get any information on the interaction from their perspective. Possibly, their behaviour may seem less unreasonable when you understand it from their point of view. Also, you can judge how open they are to receive feedback and responding to it – there is a big difference between "yeah, I could have handed that situation better" and a rigid insistence that they did nothing wrong. I'm sceptical of intentionally putting any kind of "hidden test" in a hiring process. When the process is totally transparent – directly ask relevant questions about technical skills/knowledge/experience, soft skills, etc – I think that is fairest on the candidate, and minimises the risk of unintentional indirect discrimination–and I think lawyers who specialise in employment discrimination law would probably agree with that. I don't think that means one has to completely ignore any incidental feedback outside of the transparent formal process, but there is a big difference between incidental feedback and intentionally engineering a "hidden test". Also, I don't think one should rule out an otherwise good candidate on the basis of such incidental feedback without some serious thought and investigation.
• d110af5ccf 5y ago
  > Is there an easy and objective way to tell the difference? Better question, does it matter? As you said, bad hires are expensive. We aren't talking about language barriers here, we're talking about behavior that comes across as (your words) capital A asshole. If the person is going to behave that way on the job and it drags the team down, does it matter why they behave that way? I know I wouldn't want to be stuck working with them.
  • skissane 5y ago
    Who is an "asshole" depends a lot on perception though. One thing which noduerme said in their comment [0] struck me: > It also goes to the WASP distaste or disdain for the Jewish style of discourse. Historically, someone at IBM saying a candidate was brusque could quite easy be code for saying they were Jewish. I have the kind of personality which likes facts, details, debate, argument, pedantry, technicalities, obscurities, etc – given that, I get on quite well with other people who have that kind of personality. I'm not especially bothered by bluntness, and though I try not to be too blunt, I probably am sometimes anyway. But I know some people sometimes perceive personalities like mine as "rude" – possibly even "assholes". When my wife and I were getting married, I got in a dispute with the church secretary over what kind of proof of identity documents we were legally required to produce. I pointed out to her she was wrong, and that if she read section 42 of the Marriage Act 1961 it should be obvious to her that she was wrong. She was very offended by that suggestion. In hindsight, I try to see things from her point of view – she's probably never read any legislation in her life, wouldn't even know where to look for it, the idea of reading legislation sounds scary, she isn't used to reading legal texts and might struggle to understand it (or worry that she would), etc. Whereas, for me, I'm the kind of person who reads legislation for fun, and of course I'm going to read the laws about marriage before getting married – and the thought that most other people aren't like me isn't the first thought that pops into my head, I have a somewhat autistic mind which gravitates to the facts immediately, and is slower to think about the impact those facts might have on the thoughts and feelings of others. Then again, the thought that there are people like me probably didn't pop into her head either, and if it did she would likely have been far less offended. I'm not Jewish myself (mostly Irish Catholic ancestry), but I actually have an appreciation for some of the bluntness of traditional Jewish culture – Israelis often call themselves sabra, after the Hebrew word for the prickly pear, the idea being that while they do have somewhat of a reputation for rudeness and bluntness on the surface (the prickles), it hides a soft and sweet interior (as the prickly pear itself does). I suppose I have some appreciation for that cultural trait precisely because some aspects of it overlap with my own personality. Also, I'm Australian, and Australians have somewhat of a reputation for being blunt, rude, overly informal, particularly by American standards. I remember once reading an interview with an outgoing US Ambassador to Australia (I wish I could find it now) explaining how he was a bit taken aback by this cultural difference at first but got used to it over time. On the other hand, one of my Argentine colleagues once told me that I am "extremely polite" – I think in certain ways I actually am – although I also have absolutely no clue what Argentine ideas of politeness are and how they may compare to Australian or American or Israeli or whatever politeness standards. Anyway, my point is, sometimes "drags the team down" may be because a person really is behaving in an objectively problematic way, other times "drags the team down" may actually be because the existing team has insufficient awareness of cultural and personal diversity, and is being overly judgemental of someone who is different from them. I'm sure both sometimes happen. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31267442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31267442