6 ms·

What’s wrong with just telling him it’s inappropriate and that the answer is no?

by al45tair 12y ago

jackmaney 12y ago
Because he needs to face consequences for his behavior. He's a massive liability to his company.
- beeworker 12y ago
  What if he's a 10x engineer? He's a massive PR liability because of our insane outrage culture, but he's a very valuable asset for, you know, his actual job.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    What if he scares off 10 1x engineers because he's poisonous? Or what if he scares off another 10x engineer who happens to be a woman? Keeping toxic people around is not usually going to pay off, regardless of "outrage culture" (which is an odd way of describing a culture that punishes abuse of power).
    - beeworker 12y ago
      What if he's a 0.5x engineer and firing him would be good anyway? I was merely illustrating that just because someone acts in an outrageous way doesn't make them a liability, net. There's no rule saying effective companies must be filled with saints, even if that would be nice.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        You implied that if he's really good at his job then he must necessarily be a very valuable asset. My point is that he could easily be a liability even if he's excellent at his job, and not because of "outrage culture."
      - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
        I've been around long enough to see what a toxic superstar can do. It's really easy to look at the "superstar" and see it as an asset, but forget how much liability to associate with the toxic - and therefore to conclude "net win" when it isn't. Not saying it could never happen, but it tends to leave your company a prisoner. You can't lose the superstar, but you can't attract other top-level talent because the superstar is toxic, which leaves you even more dependent on the superstar...
    - johnnyfaehell 12y ago
      "which is an odd way of describing a culture that punishes abuse of power" The guy wasn't abusing his power. He was being a fucking weirdo, after rejecting her for a job. So that power dynamic was over. Now he's being very unprofessional, weird, creepy, and a whole bunch of other things. Also outrage culture, we're talking about a culture where someone got fired for making jokes about "forking" another guys repo and big dongles in a private conversation. Then the person who got him fired then got fired for having her companies web site DDoS'd off the internet. That's just one of many not quite right things that's happened in our culture.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        People keep saying that there's no power dynamic because she already got rejected. I don't get it. Interview decisions can change. People can interview for a different position at the same company. It's not as straightforward as everybody seems to want it to be. We are not talking about a culture where someone got fired for "forking" jokes. That may be the culture, but it's completely unrelated to the issue being discussed here.
        johnnyfaehell 12y ago
        "People keep saying that there's no power dynamic because she already got rejected. I don't get it. Interview decisions can change. People can interview for a different position at the same company. It's not as straightforward as everybody seems to want it to be." Very unlikely for a start up that'll you'll interview again for a different position. They would just offer you the other position. Also very unlikely is a rejection turned into acceptance. "We are not talking about a culture where someone got fired for "forking" jokes. That may be the culture, but it's completely unrelated to the issue being discussed here." That is exactly what the person was talking about and this thread is very much the same. A bunch of people outraged because they should be.
        mikeash 12y ago
        They don't always hire for everything at once. Why is it so absurd that a startup might hire for a different position a few months down the line? And why is changing a "no" to a "yes" unlikely? Do interviewers never change their mind afterwards? Personally, I'm not outraged because I "should be." I'm mildly annoyed at the person in question, and I'm outraged at all the people coming out of the woodwork to defend him.
  - jackmaney 12y ago
    I don't give a fuck if he's a 10,000x engineer or a 10e100x engineer. If his idiocy destroys his company, then it doesn't matter. Any number multiplied by zero is zero.
  - bearclough 12y ago
    This comment leaves me queasy in the stomach. Just because someone is good at their jobs shouldn't excuse inappropriate behavior. It lessens everyone else on the team and those seeking employment. Look at professional sports just because they're 10x ers should they get away with their transgressions. Or, because they are so good should they be held to higher standards.
  - MollyR 12y ago
    From what I've heard, most companies will do the explicit math and decide whether to keep him or not. It's not unheard off. Personal Anecdote: I've known a friend, who keeps the most obnoxious programmer around at his company because he wrote the core money making algorithm by himself and is the only one who understands it. The ceo actively protects other employees from this programmer, but won't fire him because they need him more than anyone else at the company.
    - jackmaney 12y ago
      No attempt has been made to bring someone else in (either internally or a new hire) to understand the algorithm and the code behind it? Even if this guy is obnoxious, it's smart to have a back up plan in case he leaves.
      - Frondo 12y ago
        From what I've seen, people in that position almost never leave. It seems like for those folks, the most important thing is to be irreplacable. They like being needed, they like being a key person in the operation, more than they like money or doing a good job.
        jackmaney 12y ago
        Even so, what if the obnoxious programmer gets hit by a bus? What if a critical production issue crops up just after he gets ill and takes PTO/sick leave for several days?
        Frondo 12y ago
        Oh yes, I think it's a terrible place for the business to find themselves. It just seems like getting hit by a bus is the only way they leave the organization--they'll even stay through retirement! Anyone who wants to own some part of the business that thoroughly is a liability.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - SaraMG 12y ago
    Sounds like the kind of "10x engineer" who gets there by demoralizing the rest of his team to 0.1x productivity by being an asshole. Do not want. Do not need. GTFO
  - ircmaxell 12y ago
    I don't hire nor value 10x engineers. So no problem there. I hire and value engineers that elevate those around them to 10x. And this behavior lowers people, not elevates. So no, that person is not a valuable asset. He's the very definition of a liability.
    - johnnyfaehell 12y ago
      Your comment sounds good but that's it. It's flawed. You don't hire 10x just people who make other people 10x? Then that person you just hired is 10x. The person is clearly a liability, it's still possible he's an asset. In simple business terms you have a guy who'll get you sued for 1 million but will make you 10 million. That person while a douche is still a valuable asset. Chances of that ever being the case or anyone ever choosing to keep a known douche about is another thing.
      - ircmaxell 12y ago
        > You don't hire 10x just people who make other people 10x? Then that person you just hired is 10x. The point was more that I value a person's ability to lift those around them much higher than their abilities to outperform them. It's hard to scale one person. But one person who can help scale an entire team is infinitely more valuable. > In simple business terms you have a guy who'll get you sued for 1 million but will make you 10 million. He's not a liability because of potential lawsuits. He's a liability because he brings the team down (antics like this do have a huge impact on the rest of the team).
        johnnyfaehell 12y ago
        > The point was more that I value a person's ability to lift those around them much higher than their abilities to outperform them. It's hard to scale one person. But one person who can help scale an entire team is infinitely more valuable. It seems like while trying to dislike 10x you fundamentally want 10x. All those things are in my opinion what 10x is, they bring 10x more value to the team. Some may be 10x because they literally code faster and better, or they could be 10x because their code helps other people also code faster (I suspect the two are pretty well linked), or they could just be the leader who gives them more confidence to do stuff, etc. 10x may or may not be a myth. I don't think it is, I just don't think it's someone who codes 10x faster than everyone else. I think they just make the entire team better. I also think someone who is 10x one place isn't always going to be 10x in another team due to team dynamics. I.E. the team also makes them better. > He's a liability because he brings the team down (antics like this do have a huge impact on the rest of the team). While I get what you mean, I don't see how the team fits in to this. It's not like it was at a team event, team were involved. They most likely will never know this happened. This could just literally be a once off weird thing the guy does while being a cool guy just as much as it could be that he's an around weirdo who does weird things and is constantly belittling people.
  - picks_at_nits 12y ago
    If he’s interviewing, then that is his actual job. If he’s hitting on people while representing the company in any context, e.g. at conferences, that is his actual job. The way you framed this as a “PR liability” suggests you don’t think there’s anything wrong here, it’s just a question of dollars and cents to the company’s bottom line. That’s exactly the kind of sociopathy that is the problem. You have to stop and decide that there is a moral and values problem, and that these things matter more than a few bucks. If the company has values around this, it will make sure people have training around what is not acceptable behaviour. It will not pass out cards, 10x engineers get a green card, 5x engineers get a yellow card, 1x engineers get a red card. Everyone will get the same message about what the company values, and steps--I will not say what those steps are, maybe training should have happened before this incident, maybe coaching should happen afterwards, maybe firing is not necessary--and steps will be taken to ensure that everyone in the company acts in accordance with the company’s values.
    - picks_at_nits 12y ago
      Also, my sociopathic HR lawyers says that if you decline to hire someone, and then any one of your employees hit on them, you are exposing your company to a lawsuit alleging that they were qualified, but you elected not to hire them to pave the ay for hitting on them without any repercussions, e.g. embarrassment if they turn you down and tell all your colleagues that you hit on them. Guard against this possibility is remarkably easy: Nobody hits on job applicants. If you are interviewing people, it is your duty to know this, and your company’s duty to ensure that you know this. Either that, or you had better have one hell of a documented paper trail explaining how they were good enough to interview, but not good enough to hire, and explaining why the person you ended up hiring was clearly superior. In my experience, any company with the kind of process that can defend itself against such lawsuits wouldn’t permit an employee to expose them to the lawsuit in the first place. If one of their managers has read this, I’m sure they’re horrified.
      - beeworker 12y ago
        You're right I don't see anything wrong with the situation as presented. It's funny, guy has some balls to ask for a date after that. I'll agree he was pretty stupid about it. But I see all the time much stupider advances that actually get accepted instead of rejected. I'd say forgive and forget but I don't see anything to forgive. Asking for a date is how you get dates, even if the context for asking is unusual. I'd like for shy men to still be able to hear the worst thing that'll happen is "she'll say 'lol no, loser'", but now the worst thing that can happen is she'll be so offended she'll throw a fit and publicly name you and destroy your career. Thankfully that hasn't happened here yet. "This made me feel upset. How should I handle this, random internet people?" is a reasonable way to approach this if you don't already have a philosophy that says "chill out and move on". There's a side conversation here that I'm sort of interested in. There is a certain moral obligation to protecting the company you work for and not putting it under risk with thing like discrimination-based non-hires -- but why should sociopathic lawyers get to decide what risks are actually there or not? It's immoral some of the things many companies do in all legality, risk-free. You won't stir up an internet shit storm for every one of them, even if you can get a few. Not so long ago the behavior this woman reported would have not been cause for such outrage and moralizing displayed on this page. What changed in humans since then? I really don't think we've gotten all that more moral. I'd say instead what changed is the sociopathic lawyers became even more powerful, and saw a great and endless revenue stream for themselves by making it easy to destroy people and businesses for these very basic and human drives, faux pas mistakes at worst.
- 300bps 12y ago
  Because he needs to face consequences for his behavior. Does he? Is "facing consequences" the only way for someone to learn? If I "faced consequences" for every stupid thing I've done in my life time I'd probably have spent the last 30 years in jail. Because at the age of 42, I've done a ton of dumb, inappropriate and just plain stupid things in my life. Most of the time, someone has explained to me that what I did was wrong and I was able to learn from it and change my behavior. And look at me today - gainfully employed since I was 14, happily married, three children. These zero tolerance policies of "facing consequences" for any infraction don't benefit society at all. There is no true binary decision of, Bad Behavior = Punishment, Good Behavior = No Punishment. Bad behavior can be challenged, forgiven and forgotten without having to ruin someone's career over it. Repeated bad behavior, on the other hand... Of course you need to escalate at that point.
  - jackmaney 12y ago
    > Is "facing consequences" the only way for someone to learn? No. Most people learn the basic lesson of not hitting job candidates up for dates (and other related ethical issues) either during orientation in their first job or--even before that--when learning about the harm caused by abuses of power. > Repeated bad behavior, on the other hand... Of course you need to escalate at that point. From reddit OP's description, it seems likely that the interviewer has done this sort of thing before.
  - vec 12y ago
    "Face consequences" doesn't necessarily mean "get fired". In this case it may be as simple as his boss pulling him aside to explain exactly how stupid what he did was. It may mean being pulled off the interview team and replaced with someone who's better at that task. It's worth noting that neither we nor the original interviewee know whether this is repeated bad behavior or not. It might've been a one-time slip-up, or he might be serially abusing his position. We can't know, but his boss can and probably does. Go ahead and report to the folks who are in a position to make an intelligent decision.
eli 12y ago
Because the OP is not in a position to help him understand why this is inappropriate behavior or to see that it is sufficiently addressed. Personally, I would not want to have any further contact with someone who treated me like that.

What’s wrong with just telling him it’s inappropriate and that the answer is no?

jackmaney 12y ago

Because he needs to face consequences for his behavior. He's a massive liability to his company.

beeworker 12y ago
What if he's a 10x engineer? He's a massive PR liability because of our insane outrage culture, but he's a very valuable asset for, you know, his actual job.
- mikeash 12y ago
  What if he scares off 10 1x engineers because he's poisonous? Or what if he scares off another 10x engineer who happens to be a woman? Keeping toxic people around is not usually going to pay off, regardless of "outrage culture" (which is an odd way of describing a culture that punishes abuse of power).
  - beeworker 12y ago
    What if he's a 0.5x engineer and firing him would be good anyway? I was merely illustrating that just because someone acts in an outrageous way doesn't make them a liability, net. There's no rule saying effective companies must be filled with saints, even if that would be nice.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      You implied that if he's really good at his job then he must necessarily be a very valuable asset. My point is that he could easily be a liability even if he's excellent at his job, and not because of "outrage culture."
    - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
      I've been around long enough to see what a toxic superstar can do. It's really easy to look at the "superstar" and see it as an asset, but forget how much liability to associate with the toxic - and therefore to conclude "net win" when it isn't. Not saying it could never happen, but it tends to leave your company a prisoner. You can't lose the superstar, but you can't attract other top-level talent because the superstar is toxic, which leaves you even more dependent on the superstar...
  - johnnyfaehell 12y ago
    "which is an odd way of describing a culture that punishes abuse of power" The guy wasn't abusing his power. He was being a fucking weirdo, after rejecting her for a job. So that power dynamic was over. Now he's being very unprofessional, weird, creepy, and a whole bunch of other things. Also outrage culture, we're talking about a culture where someone got fired for making jokes about "forking" another guys repo and big dongles in a private conversation. Then the person who got him fired then got fired for having her companies web site DDoS'd off the internet. That's just one of many not quite right things that's happened in our culture.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      People keep saying that there's no power dynamic because she already got rejected. I don't get it. Interview decisions can change. People can interview for a different position at the same company. It's not as straightforward as everybody seems to want it to be. We are not talking about a culture where someone got fired for "forking" jokes. That may be the culture, but it's completely unrelated to the issue being discussed here.
      - johnnyfaehell 12y ago
        "People keep saying that there's no power dynamic because she already got rejected. I don't get it. Interview decisions can change. People can interview for a different position at the same company. It's not as straightforward as everybody seems to want it to be." Very unlikely for a start up that'll you'll interview again for a different position. They would just offer you the other position. Also very unlikely is a rejection turned into acceptance. "We are not talking about a culture where someone got fired for "forking" jokes. That may be the culture, but it's completely unrelated to the issue being discussed here." That is exactly what the person was talking about and this thread is very much the same. A bunch of people outraged because they should be.
        mikeash 12y ago
        They don't always hire for everything at once. Why is it so absurd that a startup might hire for a different position a few months down the line? And why is changing a "no" to a "yes" unlikely? Do interviewers never change their mind afterwards? Personally, I'm not outraged because I "should be." I'm mildly annoyed at the person in question, and I'm outraged at all the people coming out of the woodwork to defend him.
- jackmaney 12y ago
  I don't give a fuck if he's a 10,000x engineer or a 10e100x engineer. If his idiocy destroys his company, then it doesn't matter. Any number multiplied by zero is zero.
- bearclough 12y ago
  This comment leaves me queasy in the stomach. Just because someone is good at their jobs shouldn't excuse inappropriate behavior. It lessens everyone else on the team and those seeking employment. Look at professional sports just because they're 10x ers should they get away with their transgressions. Or, because they are so good should they be held to higher standards.
- MollyR 12y ago
  From what I've heard, most companies will do the explicit math and decide whether to keep him or not. It's not unheard off. Personal Anecdote: I've known a friend, who keeps the most obnoxious programmer around at his company because he wrote the core money making algorithm by himself and is the only one who understands it. The ceo actively protects other employees from this programmer, but won't fire him because they need him more than anyone else at the company.
  - jackmaney 12y ago
    No attempt has been made to bring someone else in (either internally or a new hire) to understand the algorithm and the code behind it? Even if this guy is obnoxious, it's smart to have a back up plan in case he leaves.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      From what I've seen, people in that position almost never leave. It seems like for those folks, the most important thing is to be irreplacable. They like being needed, they like being a key person in the operation, more than they like money or doing a good job.
      - jackmaney 12y ago
        Even so, what if the obnoxious programmer gets hit by a bus? What if a critical production issue crops up just after he gets ill and takes PTO/sick leave for several days?
        Frondo 12y ago
        Oh yes, I think it's a terrible place for the business to find themselves. It just seems like getting hit by a bus is the only way they leave the organization--they'll even stay through retirement! Anyone who wants to own some part of the business that thoroughly is a liability.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
- SaraMG 12y ago
  Sounds like the kind of "10x engineer" who gets there by demoralizing the rest of his team to 0.1x productivity by being an asshole. Do not want. Do not need. GTFO
- ircmaxell 12y ago
  I don't hire nor value 10x engineers. So no problem there. I hire and value engineers that elevate those around them to 10x. And this behavior lowers people, not elevates. So no, that person is not a valuable asset. He's the very definition of a liability.
  - johnnyfaehell 12y ago
    Your comment sounds good but that's it. It's flawed. You don't hire 10x just people who make other people 10x? Then that person you just hired is 10x. The person is clearly a liability, it's still possible he's an asset. In simple business terms you have a guy who'll get you sued for 1 million but will make you 10 million. That person while a douche is still a valuable asset. Chances of that ever being the case or anyone ever choosing to keep a known douche about is another thing.
    - ircmaxell 12y ago
      > You don't hire 10x just people who make other people 10x? Then that person you just hired is 10x. The point was more that I value a person's ability to lift those around them much higher than their abilities to outperform them. It's hard to scale one person. But one person who can help scale an entire team is infinitely more valuable. > In simple business terms you have a guy who'll get you sued for 1 million but will make you 10 million. He's not a liability because of potential lawsuits. He's a liability because he brings the team down (antics like this do have a huge impact on the rest of the team).
      - johnnyfaehell 12y ago
        > The point was more that I value a person's ability to lift those around them much higher than their abilities to outperform them. It's hard to scale one person. But one person who can help scale an entire team is infinitely more valuable. It seems like while trying to dislike 10x you fundamentally want 10x. All those things are in my opinion what 10x is, they bring 10x more value to the team. Some may be 10x because they literally code faster and better, or they could be 10x because their code helps other people also code faster (I suspect the two are pretty well linked), or they could just be the leader who gives them more confidence to do stuff, etc. 10x may or may not be a myth. I don't think it is, I just don't think it's someone who codes 10x faster than everyone else. I think they just make the entire team better. I also think someone who is 10x one place isn't always going to be 10x in another team due to team dynamics. I.E. the team also makes them better. > He's a liability because he brings the team down (antics like this do have a huge impact on the rest of the team). While I get what you mean, I don't see how the team fits in to this. It's not like it was at a team event, team were involved. They most likely will never know this happened. This could just literally be a once off weird thing the guy does while being a cool guy just as much as it could be that he's an around weirdo who does weird things and is constantly belittling people.
- picks_at_nits 12y ago
  If he’s interviewing, then that is his actual job. If he’s hitting on people while representing the company in any context, e.g. at conferences, that is his actual job. The way you framed this as a “PR liability” suggests you don’t think there’s anything wrong here, it’s just a question of dollars and cents to the company’s bottom line. That’s exactly the kind of sociopathy that is the problem. You have to stop and decide that there is a moral and values problem, and that these things matter more than a few bucks. If the company has values around this, it will make sure people have training around what is not acceptable behaviour. It will not pass out cards, 10x engineers get a green card, 5x engineers get a yellow card, 1x engineers get a red card. Everyone will get the same message about what the company values, and steps--I will not say what those steps are, maybe training should have happened before this incident, maybe coaching should happen afterwards, maybe firing is not necessary--and steps will be taken to ensure that everyone in the company acts in accordance with the company’s values.
  - picks_at_nits 12y ago
    Also, my sociopathic HR lawyers says that if you decline to hire someone, and then any one of your employees hit on them, you are exposing your company to a lawsuit alleging that they were qualified, but you elected not to hire them to pave the ay for hitting on them without any repercussions, e.g. embarrassment if they turn you down and tell all your colleagues that you hit on them. Guard against this possibility is remarkably easy: Nobody hits on job applicants. If you are interviewing people, it is your duty to know this, and your company’s duty to ensure that you know this. Either that, or you had better have one hell of a documented paper trail explaining how they were good enough to interview, but not good enough to hire, and explaining why the person you ended up hiring was clearly superior. In my experience, any company with the kind of process that can defend itself against such lawsuits wouldn’t permit an employee to expose them to the lawsuit in the first place. If one of their managers has read this, I’m sure they’re horrified.
    - beeworker 12y ago
      You're right I don't see anything wrong with the situation as presented. It's funny, guy has some balls to ask for a date after that. I'll agree he was pretty stupid about it. But I see all the time much stupider advances that actually get accepted instead of rejected. I'd say forgive and forget but I don't see anything to forgive. Asking for a date is how you get dates, even if the context for asking is unusual. I'd like for shy men to still be able to hear the worst thing that'll happen is "she'll say 'lol no, loser'", but now the worst thing that can happen is she'll be so offended she'll throw a fit and publicly name you and destroy your career. Thankfully that hasn't happened here yet. "This made me feel upset. How should I handle this, random internet people?" is a reasonable way to approach this if you don't already have a philosophy that says "chill out and move on". There's a side conversation here that I'm sort of interested in. There is a certain moral obligation to protecting the company you work for and not putting it under risk with thing like discrimination-based non-hires -- but why should sociopathic lawyers get to decide what risks are actually there or not? It's immoral some of the things many companies do in all legality, risk-free. You won't stir up an internet shit storm for every one of them, even if you can get a few. Not so long ago the behavior this woman reported would have not been cause for such outrage and moralizing displayed on this page. What changed in humans since then? I really don't think we've gotten all that more moral. I'd say instead what changed is the sociopathic lawyers became even more powerful, and saw a great and endless revenue stream for themselves by making it easy to destroy people and businesses for these very basic and human drives, faux pas mistakes at worst.
300bps 12y ago
Because he needs to face consequences for his behavior. Does he? Is "facing consequences" the only way for someone to learn? If I "faced consequences" for every stupid thing I've done in my life time I'd probably have spent the last 30 years in jail. Because at the age of 42, I've done a ton of dumb, inappropriate and just plain stupid things in my life. Most of the time, someone has explained to me that what I did was wrong and I was able to learn from it and change my behavior. And look at me today - gainfully employed since I was 14, happily married, three children. These zero tolerance policies of "facing consequences" for any infraction don't benefit society at all. There is no true binary decision of, Bad Behavior = Punishment, Good Behavior = No Punishment. Bad behavior can be challenged, forgiven and forgotten without having to ruin someone's career over it. Repeated bad behavior, on the other hand... Of course you need to escalate at that point.
- jackmaney 12y ago
  > Is "facing consequences" the only way for someone to learn? No. Most people learn the basic lesson of not hitting job candidates up for dates (and other related ethical issues) either during orientation in their first job or--even before that--when learning about the harm caused by abuses of power. > Repeated bad behavior, on the other hand... Of course you need to escalate at that point. From reddit OP's description, it seems likely that the interviewer has done this sort of thing before.
- vec 12y ago
  "Face consequences" doesn't necessarily mean "get fired". In this case it may be as simple as his boss pulling him aside to explain exactly how stupid what he did was. It may mean being pulled off the interview team and replaced with someone who's better at that task. It's worth noting that neither we nor the original interviewee know whether this is repeated bad behavior or not. It might've been a one-time slip-up, or he might be serially abusing his position. We can't know, but his boss can and probably does. Go ahead and report to the folks who are in a position to make an intelligent decision.

eli 12y ago

Because the OP is not in a position to help him understand why this is inappropriate behavior or to see that it is sufficiently addressed. Personally, I would not want to have any further contact with someone who treated me like that.