4 ms·

In this case, "taking care of a sick relative" is also an accurate statement, and reveals less information.

eunoia 4y ago
I think this answer draws the right balance between truth and vulnerability. A corporation is not your friend. The interviewer is probably feeding you less benign little lies about the company simultaneously.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  You must have had some pretty awful managers. I’m sorry. There are better managers out there.
  - eunoia 4y ago
    I’ve had both, been in the industry for a while. The unfortunate thing I’ve discovered about great managers in big companies is that the work (not personal) relationship is temporary. There’s a good chance they get promoted/move on before you do. Edit: I’ve also been a manager and even with the manager cap on I stand by my advice. I would not fault an interviewee if it turned out “Taking care of family health” really meant “Taking care of my own health”. To me it’s no different than a company telling candidates how well funded and good the future prospects are, right up until the layoffs. Ever had a private company recruiter show you a slide deck of how many millions your options will “surely” be worth in a couple years (via their non-GAAP proprietary metrics)? Same stuff, it’s all a game. Loyalty is owed to individuals, not corporations.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    The awful ones are copious and the better ones are diamonds in the rough.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
I would stick with the truth. The truth doesn’t mean the whole truth, but some subset. At minimum you will feel better if you don’t lie, but worst case you get the job and your manager later learns there was no relative. You’ve abused trust and can harm the relationship. You are allowed to be ill. You don’t have to elaborate on the condition. Just emphasize it was serious enough you were unable to work. Assure them you’re recovered and hence now looking. But I would avoid the impulse to lie. It doesn’t matter if everyone else is lying around you. Or if corporations lie. Or whatever. There’s literally nothing to be ashamed of or to hide, so why descend to a level beneath yourself to hide something that doesn’t need hiding? Finally there seems to be a view here that all managers are out to get you or extort you and will lie and cheat to get it done. I’m a hiring manager of hundreds and I genuinely do care about my people as people. When someone is sick I appreciate what that means. You shouldn’t want to work for someone who doesn’t. If the only way to get their job is to lie about something you shouldn’t have to hide, why on earth would you want their job? There are better people out there hiring. Even if it takes a little longer find the RIGHT job not the expedient job.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  It is the truth. Are you not related to yourself? I've said this exact line in a similar situation and I consider my integrity to be fully intact.
  - Plough_Jogger 4y ago
    No, you are not your own relative. > a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on *another* thing
    - actually_a_dog 4y ago
      Fine. A "family member." I'm a member of my family. But, also: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/relative https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/relat... Integrity: still intact. I hope you enjoyed this little exercise.

I think this answer draws the right balance between truth and vulnerability. A corporation is not your friend. The interviewer is probably feeding you less benign little lies about the company simultaneously.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
You must have had some pretty awful managers. I’m sorry. There are better managers out there.
- eunoia 4y ago
  I’ve had both, been in the industry for a while. The unfortunate thing I’ve discovered about great managers in big companies is that the work (not personal) relationship is temporary. There’s a good chance they get promoted/move on before you do. Edit: I’ve also been a manager and even with the manager cap on I stand by my advice. I would not fault an interviewee if it turned out “Taking care of family health” really meant “Taking care of my own health”. To me it’s no different than a company telling candidates how well funded and good the future prospects are, right up until the layoffs. Ever had a private company recruiter show you a slide deck of how many millions your options will “surely” be worth in a couple years (via their non-GAAP proprietary metrics)? Same stuff, it’s all a game. Loyalty is owed to individuals, not corporations.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  The awful ones are copious and the better ones are diamonds in the rough.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

I would stick with the truth. The truth doesn’t mean the whole truth, but some subset. At minimum you will feel better if you don’t lie, but worst case you get the job and your manager later learns there was no relative. You’ve abused trust and can harm the relationship. You are allowed to be ill. You don’t have to elaborate on the condition. Just emphasize it was serious enough you were unable to work. Assure them you’re recovered and hence now looking. But I would avoid the impulse to lie. It doesn’t matter if everyone else is lying around you. Or if corporations lie. Or whatever. There’s literally nothing to be ashamed of or to hide, so why descend to a level beneath yourself to hide something that doesn’t need hiding? Finally there seems to be a view here that all managers are out to get you or extort you and will lie and cheat to get it done. I’m a hiring manager of hundreds and I genuinely do care about my people as people. When someone is sick I appreciate what that means. You shouldn’t want to work for someone who doesn’t. If the only way to get their job is to lie about something you shouldn’t have to hide, why on earth would you want their job? There are better people out there hiring. Even if it takes a little longer find the RIGHT job not the expedient job.

actually_a_dog 4y ago
It is the truth. Are you not related to yourself? I've said this exact line in a similar situation and I consider my integrity to be fully intact.
- Plough_Jogger 4y ago
  No, you are not your own relative. > a thing having a relation to or connection with or necessary dependence on *another* thing
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    Fine. A "family member." I'm a member of my family. But, also: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/relative https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/relat... Integrity: still intact. I hope you enjoyed this little exercise.