4 ms·

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 tha

by 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
  > 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? This is reaching imo. Most of the candidates never even got to a point where we were talking that deeply about the languages we worked on primarily. Second to that, candidates were allowed to pick whatever language they wanted for the interviews. > Banking and financial services? Hmm... This is a really odd take. We didn't do banking and we're heavily regulated. Additionally, it was a security product development team. Anyway, this line of conversation from you has been mostly unenjoyable and unhelpful.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Anyway, this line of conversation from you has been mostly unenjoyable and unhelpful. I would imagine, because you seem to be missing the point at every level. The larger point is that when I talk about "the biggest liars and cheats rise to the top", I'm not referring to something like your software development team, which is nowhere near the top. Another point is that people who are nowhere near the top are mostly just reacting to the perverse incentives created by a system designed by the biggest liars and cheats at the top, a system that naturally tends to reward people like them. The less powerful have little choice but to operate within that system and deal with it as it is, flawed as it may be. A small point is that when you talk about "the candidates", these are already the self-selected result of an inaccurate job posting, and thus what you do after you start talking to them doesn't make up for the false impression that was given before you talked to them. > we're heavily regulated So?
    - kodah 4y ago
      I'm not missing the point, I understood what you were saying and I flat out told you that the job listing was accurate. You just seemingly ignore that and go on babbling about your own idea of how our hiring process worked. It's like you live in a different dimension. Maybe take the portal back or something.

by kodah 4y ago

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
> 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? This is reaching imo. Most of the candidates never even got to a point where we were talking that deeply about the languages we worked on primarily. Second to that, candidates were allowed to pick whatever language they wanted for the interviews. > Banking and financial services? Hmm... This is a really odd take. We didn't do banking and we're heavily regulated. Additionally, it was a security product development team. Anyway, this line of conversation from you has been mostly unenjoyable and unhelpful.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Anyway, this line of conversation from you has been mostly unenjoyable and unhelpful. I would imagine, because you seem to be missing the point at every level. The larger point is that when I talk about "the biggest liars and cheats rise to the top", I'm not referring to something like your software development team, which is nowhere near the top. Another point is that people who are nowhere near the top are mostly just reacting to the perverse incentives created by a system designed by the biggest liars and cheats at the top, a system that naturally tends to reward people like them. The less powerful have little choice but to operate within that system and deal with it as it is, flawed as it may be. A small point is that when you talk about "the candidates", these are already the self-selected result of an inaccurate job posting, and thus what you do after you start talking to them doesn't make up for the false impression that was given before you talked to them. > we're heavily regulated So?
  - kodah 4y ago
    I'm not missing the point, I understood what you were saying and I flat out told you that the job listing was accurate. You just seemingly ignore that and go on babbling about your own idea of how our hiring process worked. It's like you live in a different dimension. Maybe take the portal back or something.