6 ms·

I have a general rule not to lie or deceive people. But when I play poker, I lie and deceive as well as I possibly can, without remorse or hesitation. That’s b

by jmull 4y ago

I have a general rule not to lie or deceive people. But when I play poker, I lie and deceive as well as I possibly can, without remorse or hesitation. That’s because lies and deception are part of the game. Likewise, when I engage in an employment relationship with a business, I play by those rules. It is complicated, and to a degree it certainly makes sense to act as though you have a commitment beyond what money paid has bought… but just like all companies do, when enough is at stake, you should recognize that it’s a business relationship and it may not be to your advantage to pretend a higher level of commitment exists between you than really does. It’s a tough call. Burning bridges you don’t have to is not good. Neither is playing the sucker for very long. Edit: Yikes, I should have presented my poker analogy differently to be more clear! Lying and deceit is good in poker, but definitely not in business, IMO. In business the rule is something like this: Pretend that every sentence making claims about the future ends with "... assuming, of course, we either have a signed contract to that effect or nothing significant changes between now and then." That goes for your own statements and the other party's. I think you will do well acting truthfully with those caveats assumed (and avoiding those that don't act truthfully within those caveats). A reply put it like this, which I like: present your "future-perfect-best self" and expect your employer/potential employer to do the same.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bradlys 4y ago
This is a great way to put it. Lying is 100% part of the game with employment. It continues even when you're still at the workplace. Are really people so asinine to believe that hiring managers aren't lying through their teeth the entire time they talk to you? I guess HN is full of people who are naive or have malicious intent. If anyone here thinks their manager truly cares about them (and you work in SV) - you're naive.
- gumby 4y ago
  What is the incentive for a hiring manager to lie? What could they get from it?
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    More and better candidates than if they’re completely honest about their company? A promotion because they managed to keep wages down for staff? A higher salary or more stock for the same reason?
    - bradlys 4y ago
      Legitimately wonder why people find this so so hard to understand. Has no one ever been a manager? Have you never worked with managers who had to do these things? I've known many managers who admit to having to do all of these things. Some of them are proud that they did it - some are ashamed because they didn't want to but ultimately had to otherwise they would've gotten fired. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you do it because you enjoy it or because you have to - what matters is that you're doing it and someone is on the receiving end. Genuinely - how many of you have ever done hiring while searching for a new company yourself? HN is truly full of the self-indulgent and self-righteous to think they're not doing this themselves or that this is wonderful to be around.
      - wins32767 4y ago
        > Genuinely - how many of you have ever done hiring while searching for a new company yourself? There are circumstances where this is ok and others where it isn't. Is it ok to hire for a company that you're retiring from? How about one where you can't continue to advance but you think is a great environment? What if you were at a startup that got acquired by a megacorp and you focus on hiring people who enjoy a big company environment? IMO, so long as you are transparent about the pros and cons of the position, it's perfectly ethical and reasonable.
        bradlys 4y ago
        > IMO, so long as you are transparent about the pros and cons of the position, it's perfectly ethical and reasonable. How often are people genuinely leaving companies because they think it's a great environment but it's just not for them? How often? 80%? 50%? 1%? (I'm guessing closer to 1% than 50%)
- sonofhans 4y ago
  Wow, that is breathtakingly cynical. I’ve hired many people over decades and I’ve never lied to a single one of them. And in the dozen or so tech jobs I’ve had, only one hiring manager (the CEO!) has lied to me. Lastly, I only work places where my manager does give a shit about me. I’ve left a couple gigs because I learned I was wrong about that, but seen it confirmed in plenty of others. Your advice is not universal. Consider broadening your sample size.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
    This is the kind of thing that people tell themselves, to act as an anodyne for their own behavior. In my case, I have always acted with the highest personal standards of Ethics and Integrity. Frequently, the favor has not been returned, and I have had to learn to deal with it. I will say that my Integrity was directly relevant to my career. I worked for a Japanese corporation, and they knew they could trust me. My employees also knew they could trust me. It's entirely possible to live in the corporate world, without surrendering your moral backbone.
    - sonofhans 4y ago
      Yes! I totally agree. The times that I’ve been treated unethically do not excuse similar behavior from me. It’s an awful race to the bottom. I talk about this with my son. A long reputation for consistent, ethical behavior is difficult to get, easy to lose, and impossible to over-value.
  - ditonal 4y ago
    If you can label them breathtakingly cynical, I’d label you breathtakingly naive. And label the grandparent experienced and realistic. When it comes to being “default alive” there is _zero_ consideration for the human impact. I could not agree more strongly that there’s all sorts of social mores around employee behaving well but virtually zero around executive behavior (you put an exclamation after CEO as if it should be surprising, when the opposite should be). I’ve read these CEOs brag about “generous severance” that turns out to be 3 weeks. WSJ reported less than a week ago Coinbase execs netted BILLIONS in PERSONAL profits to execs in the last year. Think any of that money could have been used as a rainy day fund to not fuck over people who resigned from their last job expecting to start at Coinbase? https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/coinbase-leaders-net-1-2-billion-in-share-sales-11653606214 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/coinbase-leaders-net-1-2-bi... The amount of apologism for tech execs who act so selfishly over and over again, while the cogs are held to these insanely high standards of behavior, is infuriating. Call a spade a spade. Brian Armstrong is a selfish piece of trash who dumped hundreds of millions of his company stock for his own profit while reneging on people who took his company’s word for what it was and put their financial health in his hands.
- atq2119 4y ago
  This is far too extreme a position and ends up being false as a consequence. Alternatively, you've had a bad pick of managers. A human relationship with your manager with mutual care is possible. The thing to understand is this: your manager is not the business. Unless you're working in a truly tiny company, they operate under their own set of constraints and will have to make decisions they're not really happy about. If that means firing you or low-balling your salary, then sure, you may not care much for that distinction in the hurt of the moment. And maybe they really are out to get you. But if you treat your manager like an antagonist, don't be surprised if they end up doing the same to you. (HR is a different story)
  - zaidf 4y ago
    Could not agree more strongly!
djbusby 4y ago
It's not really lying or deceit. It's just companies talk about their future-perfect-best self during the interview and offer - as does the candidate. The unspoken rule is that things can change dramatically in a few hours and each party should deal with it - which means it's also totally ok to back out of the offer you received and move on.
- wslack 4y ago
  Some companies don't do this sort of thing. That others do doesn't justify making this sort of choice with every company.
  - pooper 4y ago
    > Some companies don't do this sort of thing. That others do doesn't justify making this sort of choice with every company. Replace companies with jobseekers. Some jobseekers don't do this sort of thing. That others do doesn't justify making this sort of choice with every jobseeker. I've talked to recruiters who have been rude to me for refusing to "give a number" as in my expected salary/wages. I also do not recommend accepting offers and then backing out. However, I submit that there is no company, even if you founded it yourself, that deserves your loyalty forever.
  - ryanbrunner 4y ago
    It's obviously impossible to say anything universal here, but in my experience, you could restate that statement as "Some companies haven't had to do this sort of thing yet". When the viability of the company is at stake, or orders are coming from the board, no company is going to make a significant sacrifice to stay true to their word if there's no legal consequences for breaking it. Edit: to be clear, I don't mean things like knowingly lying beforehand, but if circumstances drastically changed, I would 100% expect companies to rescind outstanding offers, so I similarly wouldn't hold it against a candidate for rescinding their acceptance if their circumstances changed significantly. It's reasonable to expect both companies and candidates to act in good faith, but it's unreasonable for them to face significant hardship just to honour an offer if their situation changes.
- 4y ago
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> when I play poker, I lie and deceive as well as I possibly can, without remorse or hesitation If you make these your rules, you're virtually guaranteeing you'll play with others who think similarly. There is another move at every poker table: get up. Not everyone is playing poker. There are companies and people who interview with integrity. The veteran advantage is in knowing who they are.
- mmmpop 4y ago
  Well, if you're sitting at a poker table I'm going to assume you're playing, else you literally "stand" and exit the game.
  - soledades 4y ago
    I think the implication was that the “poker table” is sometimes just in your mind. Metaphors suck, I know
- bulatb 4y ago
  Two armies take the field. One brings their swords and their gentlemen's honor. This is how Real Men have always fought, it's Right, and it's the way they'll fight today. The other brings machine guns. Maybe there is such a thing as absolute virtue, and maybe the army of swords has found it. Maybe it's worth dying on this literal hill to defend the way of the sword. Maybe they believe insisting that the world "should" work some arbitrary way will make it so. In any case, by fighting this way they've chosen to lose. By losing they've ensured the values they're supposedly defending won't survive—so what was the point? If your actual true goal is to preserve the way of the sword, you bring artillery and tanks and wipe the other army off the map; then you go back to your way. Or make alliances in which your swords can serve some purpose, or use diplomacy to keep the war from starting. Just anything that's not the least effective strategy. If your goal instead is to feel Right, you fight as Real Men do and guarantee the way of the sword is extinguished. There is no world in which you fight with swords against machine guns while ensuring the continued existence of the way of the sword. (There's an echo of the paradox of tolerance here.) You have to choose between defending it effectively, preserving it as much as possible in the world that actually exists, or doubling down and losing everything on purpose for nothing. It's tempting to insist there is such a world, but that's just insisting on the way of the sword, again, except about possible worlds.

by jmull 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bradlys 4y ago

This is a great way to put it. Lying is 100% part of the game with employment. It continues even when you're still at the workplace. Are really people so asinine to believe that hiring managers aren't lying through their teeth the entire time they talk to you? I guess HN is full of people who are naive or have malicious intent. If anyone here thinks their manager truly cares about them (and you work in SV) - you're naive.

gumby 4y ago
What is the incentive for a hiring manager to lie? What could they get from it?
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  More and better candidates than if they’re completely honest about their company? A promotion because they managed to keep wages down for staff? A higher salary or more stock for the same reason?
  - bradlys 4y ago
    Legitimately wonder why people find this so so hard to understand. Has no one ever been a manager? Have you never worked with managers who had to do these things? I've known many managers who admit to having to do all of these things. Some of them are proud that they did it - some are ashamed because they didn't want to but ultimately had to otherwise they would've gotten fired. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you do it because you enjoy it or because you have to - what matters is that you're doing it and someone is on the receiving end. Genuinely - how many of you have ever done hiring while searching for a new company yourself? HN is truly full of the self-indulgent and self-righteous to think they're not doing this themselves or that this is wonderful to be around.
    - wins32767 4y ago
      > Genuinely - how many of you have ever done hiring while searching for a new company yourself? There are circumstances where this is ok and others where it isn't. Is it ok to hire for a company that you're retiring from? How about one where you can't continue to advance but you think is a great environment? What if you were at a startup that got acquired by a megacorp and you focus on hiring people who enjoy a big company environment? IMO, so long as you are transparent about the pros and cons of the position, it's perfectly ethical and reasonable.
      - bradlys 4y ago
        > IMO, so long as you are transparent about the pros and cons of the position, it's perfectly ethical and reasonable. How often are people genuinely leaving companies because they think it's a great environment but it's just not for them? How often? 80%? 50%? 1%? (I'm guessing closer to 1% than 50%)
sonofhans 4y ago
Wow, that is breathtakingly cynical. I’ve hired many people over decades and I’ve never lied to a single one of them. And in the dozen or so tech jobs I’ve had, only one hiring manager (the CEO!) has lied to me. Lastly, I only work places where my manager does give a shit about me. I’ve left a couple gigs because I learned I was wrong about that, but seen it confirmed in plenty of others. Your advice is not universal. Consider broadening your sample size.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  This is the kind of thing that people tell themselves, to act as an anodyne for their own behavior. In my case, I have always acted with the highest personal standards of Ethics and Integrity. Frequently, the favor has not been returned, and I have had to learn to deal with it. I will say that my Integrity was directly relevant to my career. I worked for a Japanese corporation, and they knew they could trust me. My employees also knew they could trust me. It's entirely possible to live in the corporate world, without surrendering your moral backbone.
  - sonofhans 4y ago
    Yes! I totally agree. The times that I’ve been treated unethically do not excuse similar behavior from me. It’s an awful race to the bottom. I talk about this with my son. A long reputation for consistent, ethical behavior is difficult to get, easy to lose, and impossible to over-value.
- ditonal 4y ago
  If you can label them breathtakingly cynical, I’d label you breathtakingly naive. And label the grandparent experienced and realistic. When it comes to being “default alive” there is _zero_ consideration for the human impact. I could not agree more strongly that there’s all sorts of social mores around employee behaving well but virtually zero around executive behavior (you put an exclamation after CEO as if it should be surprising, when the opposite should be). I’ve read these CEOs brag about “generous severance” that turns out to be 3 weeks. WSJ reported less than a week ago Coinbase execs netted BILLIONS in PERSONAL profits to execs in the last year. Think any of that money could have been used as a rainy day fund to not fuck over people who resigned from their last job expecting to start at Coinbase? https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/coinbase-leaders-net-1-2-billion-in-share-sales-11653606214 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/coinbase-leaders-net-1-2-bi... The amount of apologism for tech execs who act so selfishly over and over again, while the cogs are held to these insanely high standards of behavior, is infuriating. Call a spade a spade. Brian Armstrong is a selfish piece of trash who dumped hundreds of millions of his company stock for his own profit while reneging on people who took his company’s word for what it was and put their financial health in his hands.
atq2119 4y ago
This is far too extreme a position and ends up being false as a consequence. Alternatively, you've had a bad pick of managers. A human relationship with your manager with mutual care is possible. The thing to understand is this: your manager is not the business. Unless you're working in a truly tiny company, they operate under their own set of constraints and will have to make decisions they're not really happy about. If that means firing you or low-balling your salary, then sure, you may not care much for that distinction in the hurt of the moment. And maybe they really are out to get you. But if you treat your manager like an antagonist, don't be surprised if they end up doing the same to you. (HR is a different story)
- zaidf 4y ago
  Could not agree more strongly!

djbusby 4y ago

It's not really lying or deceit. It's just companies talk about their future-perfect-best self during the interview and offer - as does the candidate. The unspoken rule is that things can change dramatically in a few hours and each party should deal with it - which means it's also totally ok to back out of the offer you received and move on.

wslack 4y ago
Some companies don't do this sort of thing. That others do doesn't justify making this sort of choice with every company.
- pooper 4y ago
  > Some companies don't do this sort of thing. That others do doesn't justify making this sort of choice with every company. Replace companies with jobseekers. Some jobseekers don't do this sort of thing. That others do doesn't justify making this sort of choice with every jobseeker. I've talked to recruiters who have been rude to me for refusing to "give a number" as in my expected salary/wages. I also do not recommend accepting offers and then backing out. However, I submit that there is no company, even if you founded it yourself, that deserves your loyalty forever.
- ryanbrunner 4y ago
  It's obviously impossible to say anything universal here, but in my experience, you could restate that statement as "Some companies haven't had to do this sort of thing yet". When the viability of the company is at stake, or orders are coming from the board, no company is going to make a significant sacrifice to stay true to their word if there's no legal consequences for breaking it. Edit: to be clear, I don't mean things like knowingly lying beforehand, but if circumstances drastically changed, I would 100% expect companies to rescind outstanding offers, so I similarly wouldn't hold it against a candidate for rescinding their acceptance if their circumstances changed significantly. It's reasonable to expect both companies and candidates to act in good faith, but it's unreasonable for them to face significant hardship just to honour an offer if their situation changes.
4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> when I play poker, I lie and deceive as well as I possibly can, without remorse or hesitation If you make these your rules, you're virtually guaranteeing you'll play with others who think similarly. There is another move at every poker table: get up. Not everyone is playing poker. There are companies and people who interview with integrity. The veteran advantage is in knowing who they are.

mmmpop 4y ago
Well, if you're sitting at a poker table I'm going to assume you're playing, else you literally "stand" and exit the game.
- soledades 4y ago
  I think the implication was that the “poker table” is sometimes just in your mind. Metaphors suck, I know
bulatb 4y ago
Two armies take the field. One brings their swords and their gentlemen's honor. This is how Real Men have always fought, it's Right, and it's the way they'll fight today. The other brings machine guns. Maybe there is such a thing as absolute virtue, and maybe the army of swords has found it. Maybe it's worth dying on this literal hill to defend the way of the sword. Maybe they believe insisting that the world "should" work some arbitrary way will make it so. In any case, by fighting this way they've chosen to lose. By losing they've ensured the values they're supposedly defending won't survive—so what was the point? If your actual true goal is to preserve the way of the sword, you bring artillery and tanks and wipe the other army off the map; then you go back to your way. Or make alliances in which your swords can serve some purpose, or use diplomacy to keep the war from starting. Just anything that's not the least effective strategy. If your goal instead is to feel Right, you fight as Real Men do and guarantee the way of the sword is extinguished. There is no world in which you fight with swords against machine guns while ensuring the continued existence of the way of the sword. (There's an echo of the paradox of tolerance here.) You have to choose between defending it effectively, preserving it as much as possible in the world that actually exists, or doubling down and losing everything on purpose for nothing. It's tempting to insist there is such a world, but that's just insisting on the way of the sword, again, except about possible worlds.