7 ms·
As an interviewer it's too hard to tell if a candidate was indeed a victim of circumstance, like an acquisition that turned into a shitty job, or if they are ju
by eloisius 1y ago
As an interviewer it's too hard to tell if a candidate was indeed a victim of circumstance, like an acquisition that turned into a shitty job, or if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge. An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the positive aspects of their job history. Hire a shrink to vent about the toxic shitty job.
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago> if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge. Honestly, I get much better along with malcontents than with these "annoyingly positive" people. So, tastes differ. > An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the positive aspects of their job history. Many highly qualified candidates are bad actors and/or bad self-promoters.
- achierius 1y agoI don't know if you and GP are using 'malcontent' to refer to the same kind of person.
- blitzar 1y agoplural noun: malcontents :- a person who is dissatisfied and rebellious. In Silicon Valley that is called a Founder.
- taormina 1y agoAnd you don’t hire founders.
- Apocryphon 1y agoPithily true, but what about acquihires?
- bumby 1y agoI prefer positive people but can deal with complainers if they’re actively looking to make thinking better. The problem is when malcontents only bitch and rarely do anything about it. That creates a toxic environment.
- rcxdude 1y agoAlso very much depends on whether they're right or not. You can always compain about something, are they actually complaining about the things that matter?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- kentrado 1y agoSo you are saying it is better if the candidate lies. Otherwise you will be forced to reject him because there might be a possibility that the problem was him. Seems like you are hiring the best liars. Or at least the best at playing an arbitrary game of saying and not saying the correct things that won't trigger a rejection. At this point, are you even needed? Maybe we could replace the interview process with a lottery system. Same result, less expensive.
- Arainach 1y agoConstant negativity kills team morale. Even if the complaints are about things which are individually valid, the pattern is toxic. Imagine a sports team. After running around for 45 minutes you're all probably tired. Would you rather work with someone who says "I'm tired, it's hot in here" or someone who focuses on encouraging those around them and talking about the team's accomplishments? Part of the interview is proving you can avoid griping and focus on positives for at least 30-60 minutes, which is an essential skill anywhere.
- hobs 1y agoYes, and toxic positivity obliterates morale - being unable to acknowledge the negative outcomes of decisions means that you are just working towards some idiot's dream until you go play the roulette wheel again to figure out what the next people are not telling you about this place. This is what literally makes tech workers go dream about farming.
- haswell 1y agoSomewhere between toxic negativity and toxic positivity lies a middle ground and I think some of the comments here are presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. When interviewing people, it’s usually possible to identify both extremes. I’d prefer to hire someone who is not toxic. That goes for both extremes.
- franktankbank 1y ago