10 ms·

I hear this all the time, but I have yet to experience it. It may be because the small companies that I interview with are all startups, but I have yet to be ab

I hear this all the time, but I have yet to experience it. It may be because the small companies that I interview with are all startups, but I have yet to be able to get a call back from any other kind of small company. And the startups I do interview with have a full FAANG interview loops. There seems to be a weird selection bias that if you're FAANG or FAANG adjacent these small companies aren't interested.

codr7 2y ago
Yeah, been there, done that; wannabe FAANGs are the worst.
- drdaeman 2y ago
  At least those are typically honest about what they try to be and give a very clear signal, right at the interview time. It's much worse when the interview gives you different vibes (and expectations) than the actual day-to-day work.
  - solarmist 2y ago
    I've had both I've had ones that only tell you what the next interview looks like. Unless you specifically prior it out of the recruiter's hands.
  - codr7 2y ago
    The only way to test actual work is to do actual work, should be obvious but here we are.
    - solarmist 2y ago
      It is obvious, but it’s also very time-consuming. You can’t solve ambiguous open ended problems in a set amount of time while being watched closely.
      - codr7 2y ago
        I'm not talking about being watched closely, I'm talking about regular work and then making a decision. You have to leave people space to do their thing if you want to see what they're capable of.
        solarmist 2y ago
        Sure, that would be even better. But how would that even look? In the best case applicants needs to apply multiple companies. Companies need to interview multiple applicants and have a way to compare those applicants. Those are the most basic constraints I can think of. How do you make that cost tens of hours for each round?
        codr7 2y ago
        You would have to stop optimizing people to hell and back and start committing to a few at a time. Sounds like a really good idea to me.
        solarmist 2y ago
        That doesn’t answer the question. For me as a job applicant even in the best case I would need to do 3 to 5 interview interviews. The same is true for companies in the best case it will take at least 3 to 5 interviews to find somebody. Are they supposed to have 3 to 5 temporary staff for weeks at a time? How much time should that take per interview? How would somebody that currently has a job manage that kind of time commitment?
        codr7 2y ago
        Yeah, you would need to change your expectations, I figured that much was obvious.
        solarmist 2y ago
        I felt like I was doing that with what I described. What changes to expectations are you talking about?
nickff 2y ago
>”There seems to be a weird selection bias that if you're FAANG or FAANG adjacent these small companies aren't interested.” Many smaller companies have noticed that former and wannabe FAANGers are looking for FAANG-type jobs, and are not good fits in their niche. Small companies often have more uncertainty, fewer clear objectives, less structure, and often lower pay. They’re not a good substitute for megacorps.
- solarmist 2y ago
  And then there's people like me who have been at startups, midsize companies, tiny small businesses and FAANGs. Not everyone at a FAANG is purely motivated by the amount of money that they can get. I’m looking for a smaller company because I’m tired of the FAANG mentality personally.
  - nickff 2y ago
    The problem is that many smaller companies have hired people from FAANG, and had them quite after a short tenure, so they're unwilling to try their luck again, as it's just not worth it. You may be different, but they've heard that story before, and had it not work out.
  - swatcoder 2y ago
    Sure, but in this context, your FAANG experience is a negative signal for people who don't know you well yet. It's unfortunate for you, but a genuine factor you now need to account for. Your path through will probably look like having the luck of breaking in at one of these kinds of companies, and then staying for several years to demonstrate earnest commitment/fit while building a new network of connections, and then leveraging those connections to get more opportunities if it becomes necessary to do so. If you have connection from your previous non-FAANG work, that's probably your best route. It won't happen overnight and you'll always be at a disadvantage when you find yourself applying through resume portals. Good luck!
    - solarmist 2y ago
      I find this attitude baffling. In my time at tier one companies I have worked with the best engineers I have come across in my entire career (even the worst engineers were more than competent) who were working on deep issues that could affect the revenue of the entire company because they’re laser focused on providing value to the business, instead of doing engineering for engineering’s sake. I have grown by far more in these kinds of roles than I have anywhere else because the kind of problems you encounter at such a high scale just don’t exist elsewhere. And most of them have been there for at least five years if not longer you don’t make those kind of contributions to accompany without a long tenure.
samr71 2y ago
Yup. You can check out of FAANG anytime you like, but you can never leave. Was path dependency for careers always this bad?
- solarmist 2y ago
  I don’t feel like it was. Every role is hyper specific nowadays. And most refused to look at anybody deviating from their ideal background in my experience.
  - nickff 2y ago
    >"And most refused to look at anybody deviating from their ideal background in my experience." This is often because the culture of job-hopping for better pay every 18 months has eroded the willingness to pay for training or adaptation. Why pay for someone to learn if they're just gonna leave soon; the pre-trained person is a better deal if you'll have to pay to retain anyway.
    - solarmist 2y ago
      Which was caused by cost cutting measures, MBA disease, in companies to begin with. We’re just seeing the end of the cat and mouse struggle that’s been going on since the 60s. And massively accelerated in the 80s. It’s unfortunate for companies though because they’re the ones that will lose out in the end when all the experienced people start retiring and they have no one to hire. It’s an untenable position to not train people, period. There is no schooling you could go through that would educated junior dev to the level of a senior dev. And it’s the same for any other role. Experience is not optional.
      - nickff 2y ago
        I think the primary stimulus which creating the “job hopping culture” was actually the hot labor market for software developers. Other fields experienced real ‘cost-cutting’, without resulting in a lot of ‘job-hopping’. I agree that this situation is undesirable, but it seems to be stable, somewhat like the result of repeated play of the prisoner’s dilemma.
dilyevsky 2y ago
At a former gig we had a newly hired ex-facebook employee give notice within a month because she didn't like that dev setup had bugs that devs themselves had to fix. At fb they obviously can spend millions of dollars for a whole team that ensures that working dev env is always a button click away, a startup (even a scaleup) usually can't afford to. This is just one example out of many I can tell...
- solarmist 2y ago
  And I’ve heard just as many horror stories about companies hiring from small companies that the engineers haven’t kept up with engineering, culture and practices and are coding like it’s 2004. Also, those types of stories tend to pop up with any engineer who’s only worked at a single place. My point isn’t that there’s not bad engineers at Facebook it’s that there’s bad engineers everywhere and filtering based on random signals like this is not useful.
  - weitendorf 2y ago
    The sad truth of hiring is that you can't afford to interview everyone, and have to keep in mind that prospective employees are showing you a different version of themselves than they'll actually bring to work. Especially in a small company where your hiring manager may also be busy with development and sales, and not have an HR department to run the process for them, you're much better off interviewing candidates you are 50% sure of being a good fit vs 5%. Personally I prefer interviewing candidates coming from FAANG-ish companies and often make exceptions for candidates that demonstrate exceptional skill/interest, but when you can only interview 1-10% of your applicants you have to prioritize those who are likely to succeed at your company (keeping in mind implicit bias and such). > filtering based on random signals like this is not useful. In aggregate it most likely is useful for those companies.
  - dilyevsky 2y ago
    > And I’ve heard just as many horror stories about companies hiring from small companies that the engineers haven’t kept up with engineering, culture and practices and are coding like it’s 2004. Big cos can afford to onboard their engineers for months, sometimes years. Startups usually can not
cableshaft 2y ago
I've had a few good experiences with interviews at small companies and startups, so they do exist. But I have also had really terrible experiences, similar to what you've mentioned. Sounds like you've just gotten unlucky and gotten the terrible ones.

codr7 2y ago

Yeah, been there, done that; wannabe FAANGs are the worst.

drdaeman 2y ago
At least those are typically honest about what they try to be and give a very clear signal, right at the interview time. It's much worse when the interview gives you different vibes (and expectations) than the actual day-to-day work.
- solarmist 2y ago
  I've had both I've had ones that only tell you what the next interview looks like. Unless you specifically prior it out of the recruiter's hands.
- codr7 2y ago
  The only way to test actual work is to do actual work, should be obvious but here we are.
  - solarmist 2y ago
    It is obvious, but it’s also very time-consuming. You can’t solve ambiguous open ended problems in a set amount of time while being watched closely.
    - codr7 2y ago
      I'm not talking about being watched closely, I'm talking about regular work and then making a decision. You have to leave people space to do their thing if you want to see what they're capable of.
      - solarmist 2y ago
        Sure, that would be even better. But how would that even look? In the best case applicants needs to apply multiple companies. Companies need to interview multiple applicants and have a way to compare those applicants. Those are the most basic constraints I can think of. How do you make that cost tens of hours for each round?
        codr7 2y ago
        You would have to stop optimizing people to hell and back and start committing to a few at a time. Sounds like a really good idea to me.
        solarmist 2y ago
        That doesn’t answer the question. For me as a job applicant even in the best case I would need to do 3 to 5 interview interviews. The same is true for companies in the best case it will take at least 3 to 5 interviews to find somebody. Are they supposed to have 3 to 5 temporary staff for weeks at a time? How much time should that take per interview? How would somebody that currently has a job manage that kind of time commitment?
        codr7 2y ago
        Yeah, you would need to change your expectations, I figured that much was obvious.
        solarmist 2y ago
        I felt like I was doing that with what I described. What changes to expectations are you talking about?

nickff 2y ago

>”There seems to be a weird selection bias that if you're FAANG or FAANG adjacent these small companies aren't interested.” Many smaller companies have noticed that former and wannabe FAANGers are looking for FAANG-type jobs, and are not good fits in their niche. Small companies often have more uncertainty, fewer clear objectives, less structure, and often lower pay. They’re not a good substitute for megacorps.

solarmist 2y ago
And then there's people like me who have been at startups, midsize companies, tiny small businesses and FAANGs. Not everyone at a FAANG is purely motivated by the amount of money that they can get. I’m looking for a smaller company because I’m tired of the FAANG mentality personally.
- nickff 2y ago
  The problem is that many smaller companies have hired people from FAANG, and had them quite after a short tenure, so they're unwilling to try their luck again, as it's just not worth it. You may be different, but they've heard that story before, and had it not work out.
- swatcoder 2y ago
  Sure, but in this context, your FAANG experience is a negative signal for people who don't know you well yet. It's unfortunate for you, but a genuine factor you now need to account for. Your path through will probably look like having the luck of breaking in at one of these kinds of companies, and then staying for several years to demonstrate earnest commitment/fit while building a new network of connections, and then leveraging those connections to get more opportunities if it becomes necessary to do so. If you have connection from your previous non-FAANG work, that's probably your best route. It won't happen overnight and you'll always be at a disadvantage when you find yourself applying through resume portals. Good luck!
  - solarmist 2y ago
    I find this attitude baffling. In my time at tier one companies I have worked with the best engineers I have come across in my entire career (even the worst engineers were more than competent) who were working on deep issues that could affect the revenue of the entire company because they’re laser focused on providing value to the business, instead of doing engineering for engineering’s sake. I have grown by far more in these kinds of roles than I have anywhere else because the kind of problems you encounter at such a high scale just don’t exist elsewhere. And most of them have been there for at least five years if not longer you don’t make those kind of contributions to accompany without a long tenure.

samr71 2y ago

Yup. You can check out of FAANG anytime you like, but you can never leave. Was path dependency for careers always this bad?

solarmist 2y ago
I don’t feel like it was. Every role is hyper specific nowadays. And most refused to look at anybody deviating from their ideal background in my experience.
- nickff 2y ago
  >"And most refused to look at anybody deviating from their ideal background in my experience." This is often because the culture of job-hopping for better pay every 18 months has eroded the willingness to pay for training or adaptation. Why pay for someone to learn if they're just gonna leave soon; the pre-trained person is a better deal if you'll have to pay to retain anyway.
  - solarmist 2y ago
    Which was caused by cost cutting measures, MBA disease, in companies to begin with. We’re just seeing the end of the cat and mouse struggle that’s been going on since the 60s. And massively accelerated in the 80s. It’s unfortunate for companies though because they’re the ones that will lose out in the end when all the experienced people start retiring and they have no one to hire. It’s an untenable position to not train people, period. There is no schooling you could go through that would educated junior dev to the level of a senior dev. And it’s the same for any other role. Experience is not optional.
    - nickff 2y ago
      I think the primary stimulus which creating the “job hopping culture” was actually the hot labor market for software developers. Other fields experienced real ‘cost-cutting’, without resulting in a lot of ‘job-hopping’. I agree that this situation is undesirable, but it seems to be stable, somewhat like the result of repeated play of the prisoner’s dilemma.

dilyevsky 2y ago

At a former gig we had a newly hired ex-facebook employee give notice within a month because she didn't like that dev setup had bugs that devs themselves had to fix. At fb they obviously can spend millions of dollars for a whole team that ensures that working dev env is always a button click away, a startup (even a scaleup) usually can't afford to. This is just one example out of many I can tell...

solarmist 2y ago
And I’ve heard just as many horror stories about companies hiring from small companies that the engineers haven’t kept up with engineering, culture and practices and are coding like it’s 2004. Also, those types of stories tend to pop up with any engineer who’s only worked at a single place. My point isn’t that there’s not bad engineers at Facebook it’s that there’s bad engineers everywhere and filtering based on random signals like this is not useful.
- weitendorf 2y ago
  The sad truth of hiring is that you can't afford to interview everyone, and have to keep in mind that prospective employees are showing you a different version of themselves than they'll actually bring to work. Especially in a small company where your hiring manager may also be busy with development and sales, and not have an HR department to run the process for them, you're much better off interviewing candidates you are 50% sure of being a good fit vs 5%. Personally I prefer interviewing candidates coming from FAANG-ish companies and often make exceptions for candidates that demonstrate exceptional skill/interest, but when you can only interview 1-10% of your applicants you have to prioritize those who are likely to succeed at your company (keeping in mind implicit bias and such). > filtering based on random signals like this is not useful. In aggregate it most likely is useful for those companies.
- dilyevsky 2y ago
  > And I’ve heard just as many horror stories about companies hiring from small companies that the engineers haven’t kept up with engineering, culture and practices and are coding like it’s 2004. Big cos can afford to onboard their engineers for months, sometimes years. Startups usually can not

cableshaft 2y ago

I've had a few good experiences with interviews at small companies and startups, so they do exist. But I have also had really terrible experiences, similar to what you've mentioned. Sounds like you've just gotten unlucky and gotten the terrible ones.