5 ms·

There's a missing bit of context here about what "laid off" actually means in this person's case. We are assuming it means a non-performance related reduction i

There's a missing bit of context here about what "laid off" actually means in this person's case. We are assuming it means a non-performance related reduction in force, but it may be something different. If I had to guess, I'd suspect the hiring committee found reason to suspect this person was laid off for performance / behavior. For example, perhaps their company has not conducted a large layoff, or is known for laying off based on performance. We also don't know what else happened in the interview. Perhaps he talked ill of their former employer in relation to the layoff. He may have cleared the technical rounds but the interviewer noted this, and the HC weighted it negatively. All of this is conjecture - for all I know Databricks' HC is really made of idiots, but it's probably not the first assumption to make based on a Blind post that lacks context.

jsnell 4y ago
> There's a missing bit of context here about what "laid off" actually means in this person's case. We are assuming it means a non-performance related reduction in force, but it may be something different. But that's basically the definition of a layoff; the elimination of roles from a company due to reasons unrelated to the performance of the laid off people (e.g. lack of work, economic conditions). If somebody loses their job due to reasons related to their individual performance, they were not laid off. They were fired.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  I am aware of and agree with this definition. But... One company I worked for had two rounds of layoffs - the first round got rid of exclusively low performers (they didn't announce it that way but it was clear) while the second cut across the board. If someone had that insight, they'd be right to consider someone cut in the first wave as a red flag. But more generally, I don't think people stick to this definition, especially when talking about themselves. "I was laid off from X"... No dude, you got fired for harassment. Again, all of this is conjecture - we have no idea what the situation in question actually was nor how the person communicated with the company about it.
  - guax 4y ago
    I have never met a company that was able to reliably gauge performance. And would not put that against anyone unless they were intentionally fired and we're evasive about it.
    - xyzelement 4y ago
      // I have never met a company that was able to reliably gauge performance I have had the opposite experience. Every company I've worked for, the employee ranking matched my perception of that employee pretty well on average.
      - astrange 4y ago
        How did you know their ranking? Smells of circularity.
        xyzelement 4y ago
        Two ways. Seeing who was laid off in performance rounds. Also as a manager, sat in plenty of calibration meetings where we lined up rankings across managers.
        astrange 4y ago
        …sure, but that's what circularity means. You think it's accurate because you set it. The problem is when people are doing something useful the managers haven't noticed. (Or is successfully bullshitting instead of contributing anything.)
- VirusNewbie 4y ago
  if a company decided to reduce staff by X%, and they decide to factor in performance when deciding who to lay off…that’s still not being fired.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    Legally that would be the same as being fired. There's quite a few stipulations for a company to conduct a legitimate and recognized layoff.
    - xyzelement 4y ago
      What I've seen happen in practice is the company position it as a layoff in the way you describe, but the folks let go tend to skew weaker.
- brahbrah 4y ago
  Not necessarily true. I have seen in the past employees be “laid off” solely due to their performance. Rather than fire the employee for performance reasons they opt to eliminate the role altogether, and not rehire for it. The team had a lot of flexibility and mobility in roles, so they could reallocate people to pick up any slack. I think they do this partially for the benefit of the person being let go, and partially because it’s more “paperwork” otherwise.
nibbleshifter 4y ago
> for all I know Databricks' HC is really made of idiots Given you have one of them replying in the comments on that site and throwing around vague accusations, I'd say they are idiots.
hiyer 4y ago
> I'd suspect the hiring committee found reason to suspect this person was laid off for performance / behavior. For example, perhaps their company has not conducted a large layoff, or is known for laying off based on performance. Even if true, this is something the recruiter and/or some of the interviewers should also have been aware of. The candidate should not have to go through the entire interview loop (I would imagine at least 5 rounds) only to be rejected for this reason.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  That's what I am saying. The HC is there to make final judgement based on the data. This is what's making me think it's not a systematic thing (we never hire people who were laid off) but something specific to that person (we suspect he was fired for a reason)

jsnell 4y ago

> There's a missing bit of context here about what "laid off" actually means in this person's case. We are assuming it means a non-performance related reduction in force, but it may be something different. But that's basically the definition of a layoff; the elimination of roles from a company due to reasons unrelated to the performance of the laid off people (e.g. lack of work, economic conditions). If somebody loses their job due to reasons related to their individual performance, they were not laid off. They were fired.

xyzelement 4y ago
I am aware of and agree with this definition. But... One company I worked for had two rounds of layoffs - the first round got rid of exclusively low performers (they didn't announce it that way but it was clear) while the second cut across the board. If someone had that insight, they'd be right to consider someone cut in the first wave as a red flag. But more generally, I don't think people stick to this definition, especially when talking about themselves. "I was laid off from X"... No dude, you got fired for harassment. Again, all of this is conjecture - we have no idea what the situation in question actually was nor how the person communicated with the company about it.
- guax 4y ago
  I have never met a company that was able to reliably gauge performance. And would not put that against anyone unless they were intentionally fired and we're evasive about it.
  - xyzelement 4y ago
    // I have never met a company that was able to reliably gauge performance I have had the opposite experience. Every company I've worked for, the employee ranking matched my perception of that employee pretty well on average.
    - astrange 4y ago
      How did you know their ranking? Smells of circularity.
      - xyzelement 4y ago
        Two ways. Seeing who was laid off in performance rounds. Also as a manager, sat in plenty of calibration meetings where we lined up rankings across managers.
        astrange 4y ago
        …sure, but that's what circularity means. You think it's accurate because you set it. The problem is when people are doing something useful the managers haven't noticed. (Or is successfully bullshitting instead of contributing anything.)
VirusNewbie 4y ago
if a company decided to reduce staff by X%, and they decide to factor in performance when deciding who to lay off…that’s still not being fired.
- flangola7 4y ago
  Legally that would be the same as being fired. There's quite a few stipulations for a company to conduct a legitimate and recognized layoff.
  - xyzelement 4y ago
    What I've seen happen in practice is the company position it as a layoff in the way you describe, but the folks let go tend to skew weaker.
brahbrah 4y ago
Not necessarily true. I have seen in the past employees be “laid off” solely due to their performance. Rather than fire the employee for performance reasons they opt to eliminate the role altogether, and not rehire for it. The team had a lot of flexibility and mobility in roles, so they could reallocate people to pick up any slack. I think they do this partially for the benefit of the person being let go, and partially because it’s more “paperwork” otherwise.

nibbleshifter 4y ago

> for all I know Databricks' HC is really made of idiots Given you have one of them replying in the comments on that site and throwing around vague accusations, I'd say they are idiots.

hiyer 4y ago

> I'd suspect the hiring committee found reason to suspect this person was laid off for performance / behavior. For example, perhaps their company has not conducted a large layoff, or is known for laying off based on performance. Even if true, this is something the recruiter and/or some of the interviewers should also have been aware of. The candidate should not have to go through the entire interview loop (I would imagine at least 5 rounds) only to be rejected for this reason.

xyzelement 4y ago
That's what I am saying. The HC is there to make final judgement based on the data. This is what's making me think it's not a systematic thing (we never hire people who were laid off) but something specific to that person (we suspect he was fired for a reason)