4 ms·

I strongly disagree. Perhaps he should have made up an excuse and be less confrontational. But it's not OK to let people abuse you. If you don't respect yoursel

by alecco 14y ago

I strongly disagree. Perhaps he should have made up an excuse and be less confrontational. But it's not OK to let people abuse you. If you don't respect yourself nobody will.

timsally 14y ago
> But it's not OK to let people abuse you. Yes of course. But what specifically in this story do you think constitutes abuse? The situation could at worst be described as a lack of tact by some of the interviewers. If your bar for abuse is that low, you're going to have a bad time in this industry. Or any industry for that matter! Pulling the ripcord because, surprise, a few 20-something engineers don't have flawless social skills is simply a mistake. Far better to figure out how to navigate the situation to mutual advantage, as Patrick's straightforward algorithm demonstrates.
- alecco 14y ago
  > If your bar for abuse is that low, you're going to have a bad time in this industry It shouldn't be like that. Tech industry must grow up.
  - sitkack 14y ago
    My litmus test is, could I witness a person I cared about being treated like that. If not, then I probably shouldn't be there.
    - peacemaker 14y ago
      You know, your comment really hit me for some reason. I'm working at a place now where the boss is really quite rude to some of the junior devs. It's gotten to the point they are afraid to ask questions for fear of his response. As a senior I see this and make an effort to talk and sympathize with the junior guys but feel powerless to stop my boss acting this way - he is very defensive and argumentative whenever I bring this stuff up. So your comment about watching people being treated a certain way really hit home. Perhaps it's time for a more frank (and private) discussion with my boss, or even a new job.
      - alecco 14y ago
        Get a good job offer first. It'll be him asking you why you consider leaving. If the talk goes bad he suffers his own inflicted wound and perhaps will learn a lesson, while you land on your feet.
  - cube13 14y ago
    It's not just tech. If you're not able to take criticism during an interview, or deal with a company culture that appears to be different from your expectations, you're have to have a difficult time getting job in any industry. The only remotely questionable thing in that entire account was a criticism for "not following very dogmatic principles to the letter of the law". And even that may not be completely questionable, considering that we don't know the question the interviewer asked, nor the answer that the interviewee gave. Without context, this is pure hearsay.
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      And yet companies quite naturally will judge unfavorably any criticism given by an interviewee. The subtext is that if you don't accept an unequal and mildly-to-moderately abusive relationship with you on bottom, you don't belong in the industry.
      - cube13 14y ago
        You do realize that, in the vast majority of all interviews, regardless of industry, the interviewee went to the company and asked for a job? They're hardly in a position where that kind of criticism is warranted, especially as an outsider who wants to be hired.
        slurgfest 14y ago
        How do you know that the interviewee wasn't contacted first? Does 'hardly in a position' dictate what is a reasonable and polite way to treat people? If company needs programmer and programmer needs job, the relationship is more or less symmetrical. If the company doesn't really need a programmer that much, I guess you are right that the programmer is not in a position to do anything except lick boots.
        cube13 14y ago
        >If company needs programmer and programmer needs job, the relationship is more or less symmetrical. If the company doesn't really need a programmer that much, I guess you are right that the programmer is not in a position to do anything except lick boots. Only if there's one programmer for the job. If there are many equally skilled programmers applying and interviewing for the position, then the company absolutely has the power. And to be clear, I never said that the interviewee should be willing to take abuse or insults. However, it is perfectly valid for an interviewer to see how the interviewee handles constructive criticism of their work. That can tell a lot about an applicant, especially on how they might fit in your company's culture.
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Tech industry must grow up. Seriously! No more running around the office in sandals. Damn kids!
- lmm 14y ago
  I wouldn't call it abusive as such, but I would expect to be told upfront if an interview is going to take more than a couple of hours, and would consider it fair game to leave if I haven't been.
sabat 14y ago
There really is no point in continuing an interview in an environment you find toxic. Allies? I don't think so; this guy clearly felt that the people he had spoken to were damaged, and I doubt he'd want them to be allies of any kind. Be polite, sure. But I'd get out, too, if I really felt this way.
- euroclydon 14y ago
  Damaged? Which behavior of the interviewers qualifies them as damaged?
  - sabat 14y ago
    Damaged as in mentally imbalanced or unstable. I've interviewed with people who fit that term.
    - euroclydon 14y ago
      If I asked you, "please define 'damaged'", would you then answer my original question?
- sillysaurus 14y ago
  Say your next product was in a domain that would solve a direct daily problem for the lead dev at this shop. By needlessly being judgemental (the people were "damaged"? Is that really how you go through life?) you've lost the opportunity to sell him your product. In other words, you've prevented yourself from furthering your long-term strategies / from implementing your overall vision for no reason. More simply, there is no possible benefit in acting this way.
  - JabavuAdams 14y ago
    > More simply, there is no possible benefit in acting this way. I agree that what you suggest is prudent, but the statement is false. For many people, simply avoiding certain kinds of annoyance is a benefit. If avoiding certain annoyances keeps someone from reaching his stated goals, then obviously it's a bad strategy. However, often it doesn't.
euroclydon 14y ago
I read the question again and I don't think he was "abused". The strongest event, prior to him abruptly (and as he describes it, ineptly) ending the interview, was He was criticized as being wrong for not following very dogmatic principles to the letter of the law.
- sabat 14y ago
  It all depends on context. I've had an interview where someone raised his voice nearly to the point of shouting, while leveling criticisms at me. You'll have to take my word for it that I did nothing to provoke this; it was clear to me at the time that I was dealing with an angry person who enjoyed his perceived sense of power over me. I didn't walk out, but god knows I declined further interviews with that company. So if it was like that, then sure, walk out. If hypercriticism seems to be part of the culture, you owe it to yourself to cut it short. What's the reason for staying? You wouldn't want to do business with that kind of company, period. I think @patio11 and others are imagining a much more civil exchange, but the story struck me as describing a toxic environment. TL;DR Don't stick around toxic environments.
harryh 14y ago
Exactly how was he abused? He lists a few reasons: 1) He was criticized as being wrong for not following very dogmatic principles to the letter of the law. 2) He was also concerned that nobody really seemed to care much about his relevant business experience and really only judged him intensely on his programming skills, which he felt was only one aspect of his software development experience. 3) It was an open floor plan where everybody wore jeans, t-shirts and sandals. 4) The vast majority were in their early 20's with the oldest person and lead developer being 30. 5) They expected him to be involved in side projects and code for fun when he wasn't in the office. Which of these are really abuse? Only #1 seems in any way negative, and that sounds more like a slightly bad interviewer than any sort of abuse. Honestly it seems like the OP felt that he was interviewing poorly and decided to walk out instead of being rejected. Now that's a perfectly natural human response; everyone wants to be in control of their own destiny. But is it a professional response to some sort of abuse? No, it doesn't really seem like it.
- alecco 14y ago
  You conveniently skipped: 0) It was an all day interview where everybody was given chances to grill him.
  - harryh 14y ago
    True I did leave that out. My mistake. Personally I wouldn't consider that abuse either. IMHO a good interview is supposed to be hard. How else can you differentiate good candidates from bad? Perhaps others disagree.
    - alecco 14y ago
      >> everybody
    - michaelt 14y ago
      A good interview doesn't just filter out bad candidates - it also persuades good candidates, who will undoubtedly get other job offers, that they want to work for you. It shouldn't be a courtroom-style grilling - it should be difficult but fun. Honey to catch your flies instead of vinegar. I'm not saying this was a problem with the interview described as there isn't enough detail in the original post to say what happened really.
paganel 14y ago
> But it's not OK to let people abuse you. If you don't respect yourself nobody will. Plus, it was a one-day interview. I've been in job-interviews like this one, where mid-way through the whole thing I was realizing that I would not be a good fit for them, but in my case I could afford to be patient because the interview wasn't going to last more than a couple of hours anyway. But a one-day thingie where for at least 6 hours I would be reminded of me not being worthy for the guys trying to hire me would utterly depress me. I'm scared shitless of depression (pardon my French), so I'd just run away. And a second thing. Once you get through more things in life which a 20-something man hasn't confronted yet (divorce, leaving your parents behind etc.) you begin to value honest no-bullshit decisions like this one. There's no gain in playing actors.
- euroclydon 14y ago
  But a one-day thingie where for at least 6 hours I would be reminded of me not being worthy for the guys trying to hire me would utterly depress me If I had 3 person-days of top developer attention aimed at me over the next six hours, I'd make the most of it. I'd find out exactly what it takes to succeed at that company, and if I really wanted to work there, I'd go home and learn those things better.
  - rimantas 14y ago
    Guy did not to work there so he walked out. What's the problem?
- legutierr 14y ago
  > And a second thing. Once you get through more things in life which a 20-something man hasn't confronted yet (divorce, leaving your parents behind etc.) you begin to value honest no-bullshit decisions like this one. There's no gain in playing actors. I think that that's the main reason that it matters that all these guys were in their 20's. I wonder if any have had kids, a family, anything that's more important to them than their work. If I were slated to interview at a company for an entire day, and I knew for certain that I wouldn't be joining them after only a couple of hours, I would without a doubt make the decision to go home to be with my kids. One thing I would do that this gentleman did not do, however, would be to speak to the principal about my concerns alone before walking out. Seriously, he forced the guy to follow him to the elevator to get an explanation. That's terribly insulting, regardless of the situation. Give the guy a chance to prove your impressions wrong.

by alecco 14y ago

I strongly disagree. Perhaps he should have made up an excuse and be less confrontational. But it's not OK to let people abuse you. If you don't respect yourself nobody will.

timsally 14y ago

> But it's not OK to let people abuse you. Yes of course. But what specifically in this story do you think constitutes abuse? The situation could at worst be described as a lack of tact by some of the interviewers. If your bar for abuse is that low, you're going to have a bad time in this industry. Or any industry for that matter! Pulling the ripcord because, surprise, a few 20-something engineers don't have flawless social skills is simply a mistake. Far better to figure out how to navigate the situation to mutual advantage, as Patrick's straightforward algorithm demonstrates.

alecco 14y ago
> If your bar for abuse is that low, you're going to have a bad time in this industry It shouldn't be like that. Tech industry must grow up.
- sitkack 14y ago
  My litmus test is, could I witness a person I cared about being treated like that. If not, then I probably shouldn't be there.
  - peacemaker 14y ago
    You know, your comment really hit me for some reason. I'm working at a place now where the boss is really quite rude to some of the junior devs. It's gotten to the point they are afraid to ask questions for fear of his response. As a senior I see this and make an effort to talk and sympathize with the junior guys but feel powerless to stop my boss acting this way - he is very defensive and argumentative whenever I bring this stuff up. So your comment about watching people being treated a certain way really hit home. Perhaps it's time for a more frank (and private) discussion with my boss, or even a new job.
    - alecco 14y ago
      Get a good job offer first. It'll be him asking you why you consider leaving. If the talk goes bad he suffers his own inflicted wound and perhaps will learn a lesson, while you land on your feet.
- cube13 14y ago
  It's not just tech. If you're not able to take criticism during an interview, or deal with a company culture that appears to be different from your expectations, you're have to have a difficult time getting job in any industry. The only remotely questionable thing in that entire account was a criticism for "not following very dogmatic principles to the letter of the law". And even that may not be completely questionable, considering that we don't know the question the interviewer asked, nor the answer that the interviewee gave. Without context, this is pure hearsay.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    And yet companies quite naturally will judge unfavorably any criticism given by an interviewee. The subtext is that if you don't accept an unequal and mildly-to-moderately abusive relationship with you on bottom, you don't belong in the industry.
    - cube13 14y ago
      You do realize that, in the vast majority of all interviews, regardless of industry, the interviewee went to the company and asked for a job? They're hardly in a position where that kind of criticism is warranted, especially as an outsider who wants to be hired.
      - slurgfest 14y ago
        How do you know that the interviewee wasn't contacted first? Does 'hardly in a position' dictate what is a reasonable and polite way to treat people? If company needs programmer and programmer needs job, the relationship is more or less symmetrical. If the company doesn't really need a programmer that much, I guess you are right that the programmer is not in a position to do anything except lick boots.
        cube13 14y ago
        >If company needs programmer and programmer needs job, the relationship is more or less symmetrical. If the company doesn't really need a programmer that much, I guess you are right that the programmer is not in a position to do anything except lick boots. Only if there's one programmer for the job. If there are many equally skilled programmers applying and interviewing for the position, then the company absolutely has the power. And to be clear, I never said that the interviewee should be willing to take abuse or insults. However, it is perfectly valid for an interviewer to see how the interviewee handles constructive criticism of their work. That can tell a lot about an applicant, especially on how they might fit in your company's culture.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Tech industry must grow up. Seriously! No more running around the office in sandals. Damn kids!
lmm 14y ago
I wouldn't call it abusive as such, but I would expect to be told upfront if an interview is going to take more than a couple of hours, and would consider it fair game to leave if I haven't been.

sabat 14y ago

There really is no point in continuing an interview in an environment you find toxic. Allies? I don't think so; this guy clearly felt that the people he had spoken to were damaged, and I doubt he'd want them to be allies of any kind. Be polite, sure. But I'd get out, too, if I really felt this way.

euroclydon 14y ago
Damaged? Which behavior of the interviewers qualifies them as damaged?
- sabat 14y ago
  Damaged as in mentally imbalanced or unstable. I've interviewed with people who fit that term.
  - euroclydon 14y ago
    If I asked you, "please define 'damaged'", would you then answer my original question?
sillysaurus 14y ago
Say your next product was in a domain that would solve a direct daily problem for the lead dev at this shop. By needlessly being judgemental (the people were "damaged"? Is that really how you go through life?) you've lost the opportunity to sell him your product. In other words, you've prevented yourself from furthering your long-term strategies / from implementing your overall vision for no reason. More simply, there is no possible benefit in acting this way.
- JabavuAdams 14y ago
  > More simply, there is no possible benefit in acting this way. I agree that what you suggest is prudent, but the statement is false. For many people, simply avoiding certain kinds of annoyance is a benefit. If avoiding certain annoyances keeps someone from reaching his stated goals, then obviously it's a bad strategy. However, often it doesn't.

euroclydon 14y ago

I read the question again and I don't think he was "abused". The strongest event, prior to him abruptly (and as he describes it, ineptly) ending the interview, was He was criticized as being wrong for not following very dogmatic principles to the letter of the law.

sabat 14y ago
It all depends on context. I've had an interview where someone raised his voice nearly to the point of shouting, while leveling criticisms at me. You'll have to take my word for it that I did nothing to provoke this; it was clear to me at the time that I was dealing with an angry person who enjoyed his perceived sense of power over me. I didn't walk out, but god knows I declined further interviews with that company. So if it was like that, then sure, walk out. If hypercriticism seems to be part of the culture, you owe it to yourself to cut it short. What's the reason for staying? You wouldn't want to do business with that kind of company, period. I think @patio11 and others are imagining a much more civil exchange, but the story struck me as describing a toxic environment. TL;DR Don't stick around toxic environments.

harryh 14y ago

Exactly how was he abused? He lists a few reasons: 1) He was criticized as being wrong for not following very dogmatic principles to the letter of the law. 2) He was also concerned that nobody really seemed to care much about his relevant business experience and really only judged him intensely on his programming skills, which he felt was only one aspect of his software development experience. 3) It was an open floor plan where everybody wore jeans, t-shirts and sandals. 4) The vast majority were in their early 20's with the oldest person and lead developer being 30. 5) They expected him to be involved in side projects and code for fun when he wasn't in the office. Which of these are really abuse? Only #1 seems in any way negative, and that sounds more like a slightly bad interviewer than any sort of abuse. Honestly it seems like the OP felt that he was interviewing poorly and decided to walk out instead of being rejected. Now that's a perfectly natural human response; everyone wants to be in control of their own destiny. But is it a professional response to some sort of abuse? No, it doesn't really seem like it.

alecco 14y ago
You conveniently skipped: 0) It was an all day interview where everybody was given chances to grill him.
- harryh 14y ago
  True I did leave that out. My mistake. Personally I wouldn't consider that abuse either. IMHO a good interview is supposed to be hard. How else can you differentiate good candidates from bad? Perhaps others disagree.
  - alecco 14y ago
    >> everybody
  - michaelt 14y ago
    A good interview doesn't just filter out bad candidates - it also persuades good candidates, who will undoubtedly get other job offers, that they want to work for you. It shouldn't be a courtroom-style grilling - it should be difficult but fun. Honey to catch your flies instead of vinegar. I'm not saying this was a problem with the interview described as there isn't enough detail in the original post to say what happened really.

paganel 14y ago

> But it's not OK to let people abuse you. If you don't respect yourself nobody will. Plus, it was a one-day interview. I've been in job-interviews like this one, where mid-way through the whole thing I was realizing that I would not be a good fit for them, but in my case I could afford to be patient because the interview wasn't going to last more than a couple of hours anyway. But a one-day thingie where for at least 6 hours I would be reminded of me not being worthy for the guys trying to hire me would utterly depress me. I'm scared shitless of depression (pardon my French), so I'd just run away. And a second thing. Once you get through more things in life which a 20-something man hasn't confronted yet (divorce, leaving your parents behind etc.) you begin to value honest no-bullshit decisions like this one. There's no gain in playing actors.

euroclydon 14y ago
But a one-day thingie where for at least 6 hours I would be reminded of me not being worthy for the guys trying to hire me would utterly depress me If I had 3 person-days of top developer attention aimed at me over the next six hours, I'd make the most of it. I'd find out exactly what it takes to succeed at that company, and if I really wanted to work there, I'd go home and learn those things better.
- rimantas 14y ago
  Guy did not to work there so he walked out. What's the problem?
legutierr 14y ago
> And a second thing. Once you get through more things in life which a 20-something man hasn't confronted yet (divorce, leaving your parents behind etc.) you begin to value honest no-bullshit decisions like this one. There's no gain in playing actors. I think that that's the main reason that it matters that all these guys were in their 20's. I wonder if any have had kids, a family, anything that's more important to them than their work. If I were slated to interview at a company for an entire day, and I knew for certain that I wouldn't be joining them after only a couple of hours, I would without a doubt make the decision to go home to be with my kids. One thing I would do that this gentleman did not do, however, would be to speak to the principal about my concerns alone before walking out. Seriously, he forced the guy to follow him to the elevator to get an explanation. That's terribly insulting, regardless of the situation. Give the guy a chance to prove your impressions wrong.