5 ms·

I find it a bit curious that this reply focuses on software engineers, who are not at the top: "When I was in charge of hiring". [EDIT:] Let me put my reply in

by lapcat 4y ago

I find it a bit curious that this reply focuses on software engineers, who are not at the top: "When I was in charge of hiring". [EDIT:] Let me put my reply into some further perspective: 1) It's well known that job advertisements blatantly lie about the job description and requirements. The standard advice software engineers give to each other is to apply to jobs even though you don't meet all of the requirements, because the requirements often turn out to be optional, more of a unicorn wish list. 2) Ask yourself, which companies and which jobs specifically do lying software engineers apply to? Do those companies perhaps have a culture rewarding this behavior? And could honest software engineers be averse to applying there, instead seeking places or means of employment that are more amenable to their personal ethics?

robocat 4y ago
I think your reply is insinuating that kodah writes job adverts that egregiously lie, which is not replying in good faith. You could write about common bad industry practices without implying that kodah is participating in those practices. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- lapcat 4y ago
  > You could write about common bad industry practices without implying that kodah is participating in those practices. I literally did that: "It's well known" "The standard advice software engineers give to each other". Is anonymous "kodah" well known? No. Do software engineers give each other standard advice about getting hired by kodah? No. Also, I talked about "companies" plural, not kodah's company singular. The only one who insinuated about kodah, and about me, is you. You ought to read the guidelines yourself with respect to my comment and your own reply. The intended implication of my previous comment was that the behavior of software engineers in our industry is driven largely by how companies are run, by their management practices, how their hiring works, how their promotions work, etc. The engineers themselves are not really in the driver's seat, they're in the passenger's seats, and the incentives for current and potential employees are often perverse.
kodah 4y ago
I was a tech lead, I did first round interviews and had a larger amount of input, outside my manager, with respect to whom to hire. Hopefully that clarifies that bit. 1. I would say that our listing was accurate other than the fact that we actually worked in 4-5 major languages, not just the one advertised. That was never much of an issue though, we screened for a certain level of adaptability. To me there's a very big integrity difference between lying and applying for a role which you don't meet all the requirements. If you tell me, "I haven't worked on Kubernetes before, but I've worked on distributed systems and have messed with a lot of REST apis." I'd be understanding, no one can have all the right experience at once. Contrast that with someone having Kubernetes all over their resume only to find out they've pushed a button on an automated deploy pipeline and don't know the difference between a Deployment and a StatefulSet. The latter I consider a lie. 2. No, I know that company didn't have a culture of rewarding lies. In order to claim things for promotions you had to have multiple peers back up your claims. What preempted the lies was probably discovering that we primarily did software development kit work, which most engineers have not done or don't have a ton of experience doing. Mix that in a bowl with the fact that we were easier to get hired at than Google and paid slightly above average (at times) it was fertile ground to attract candidates willing to espouse some aspirational stuff as if it were an accomplishment. This was especially relevant around Senior hiring when we'd ask about leading initiatives. A lot of SWEs have delivered software in a team, but few SWEs have led those initiatives, or only owned a very small part which they worked with (usually) one other engineer to deliver.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > I would say that our listing was accurate other than the fact that we actually worked in 4-5 major languages, not just the one advertised. That was never much of an issue though, we screened for a certain level of adaptability. You could only screen who applied, and the job posting inaccurately described the language(s) used. How could that not have an effect on the applicant pool, and how the applicants approached the application? > No, I know that company didn't have a culture of rewarding lies. Banking and financial services? Hmm...
  - kodah 4y ago

by lapcat 4y ago

robocat 4y ago

I think your reply is insinuating that kodah writes job adverts that egregiously lie, which is not replying in good faith. You could write about common bad industry practices without implying that kodah is participating in those practices. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

lapcat 4y ago
> You could write about common bad industry practices without implying that kodah is participating in those practices. I literally did that: "It's well known" "The standard advice software engineers give to each other". Is anonymous "kodah" well known? No. Do software engineers give each other standard advice about getting hired by kodah? No. Also, I talked about "companies" plural, not kodah's company singular. The only one who insinuated about kodah, and about me, is you. You ought to read the guidelines yourself with respect to my comment and your own reply. The intended implication of my previous comment was that the behavior of software engineers in our industry is driven largely by how companies are run, by their management practices, how their hiring works, how their promotions work, etc. The engineers themselves are not really in the driver's seat, they're in the passenger's seats, and the incentives for current and potential employees are often perverse.

kodah 4y ago

I was a tech lead, I did first round interviews and had a larger amount of input, outside my manager, with respect to whom to hire. Hopefully that clarifies that bit. 1. I would say that our listing was accurate other than the fact that we actually worked in 4-5 major languages, not just the one advertised. That was never much of an issue though, we screened for a certain level of adaptability. To me there's a very big integrity difference between lying and applying for a role which you don't meet all the requirements. If you tell me, "I haven't worked on Kubernetes before, but I've worked on distributed systems and have messed with a lot of REST apis." I'd be understanding, no one can have all the right experience at once. Contrast that with someone having Kubernetes all over their resume only to find out they've pushed a button on an automated deploy pipeline and don't know the difference between a Deployment and a StatefulSet. The latter I consider a lie. 2. No, I know that company didn't have a culture of rewarding lies. In order to claim things for promotions you had to have multiple peers back up your claims. What preempted the lies was probably discovering that we primarily did software development kit work, which most engineers have not done or don't have a ton of experience doing. Mix that in a bowl with the fact that we were easier to get hired at than Google and paid slightly above average (at times) it was fertile ground to attract candidates willing to espouse some aspirational stuff as if it were an accomplishment. This was especially relevant around Senior hiring when we'd ask about leading initiatives. A lot of SWEs have delivered software in a team, but few SWEs have led those initiatives, or only owned a very small part which they worked with (usually) one other engineer to deliver.

lapcat 4y ago
> I would say that our listing was accurate other than the fact that we actually worked in 4-5 major languages, not just the one advertised. That was never much of an issue though, we screened for a certain level of adaptability. You could only screen who applied, and the job posting inaccurately described the language(s) used. How could that not have an effect on the applicant pool, and how the applicants approached the application? > No, I know that company didn't have a culture of rewarding lies. Banking and financial services? Hmm...
- kodah 4y ago