While reading this, the author didn't come across to me as sympathetic.
In the corporate world, it's not that shocking that it takes a day to get access to things or to talk to somebody in a different timezone. How somebody reacts to these events is great signal for cultural fit. Somebody who is effective in corporate life will use that time well, because it will happen on an ongoing basis.
It's not that shocking that the work most in need of completion is outside of some predefined box. A candidate willing to step out of their box is more valuable to the business than somebody who limits themselves to a particular scope. Of course, asking somebody to work outside of their area of expertise ought to result in slower progress and a worse result - which ought to be expected to everyone in this story - but a business is going to prefer that over outright refusal.
It's not surprising that it takes weeks for recruiters to schedule interviews (given the volume they're dealing with), or that reaching out to a VP on LinkedIn makes the process faster. Again, in corporate life, knowing when to reach out to a VP is part of the job.
If recruiters ask for feedback despite declining to provide it to candidates, where that is the most memorable part of the experience, that seems like great feedback to provide.
Perhaps most jarring to me was the crossed out "bitch" line at the top. It is never acceptable to refer to a colleague or prospective colleague in this way. Disagreements are fine, gendered ad hominems are not.
the author didn't come across to me as sympathetic
I do not have any sympathy for the people who disrespect me.
It's not that shocking that the work most in need of completion is outside of some predefined box. A candidate willing to step out of their box is more valuable to the business than somebody who limits themselves to a particular scope.
If only anywhere in the process there would be anything about TypeScript or any kind of frontend work. The job description was describing purely backend work. I said that I have been doing almost exclusively backend and sysops. So if someone is offering me purely backend work, and then out of blue give me a task I know nothing about, and expects that in 32h (at most) I will be able to provide working solution with "designs matching rest of the system", then I see this as pure disrespect to my experience and knowledge. I spent over 10 years as backend developer and about 7 years of it was spent on observability and performance. My only heavier frontend experience was 8 years ago when I was adding some functionality to existing Vua application.
If you are trying to evaluate my experience and knowledge via such task, then I simply assume that you do not want me there. But instead being cultured and say that directly, you want to disrespect and insult me by forcing me to do pointless stuff that will make me suffer.
It's not surprising that it takes weeks for recruiters to schedule interviews
For me it is surprising, because one of their senior/principal/staff engineer (I do not know his exact position description) vouched for me with said VP two weeks earlier and I know that he acknowledged that.
If recruiters ask for feedback despite declining to provide it to candidates, where that is the most memorable part of the experience, that seems like great feedback to provide.
Yeah, I provided that as a feedback, as well I have written to recruiter for details for invoice, so I can charge them for my consultations about their hiring process.
Fortunately I have other ways to get that feedback, private ways as well as legal ways to do so (as I am in the EU, I am allowed to request all their notes and details about my process thanks to GDPR).
I do not have any sympathy for the people who disrespect me.
You are not wrong about the process and the bait-and-switch ... but you do come across as childish and unprofessional.
To the extent that "professional" means "getting shafted", maybe a little unprofessionalism is necessary for sanity if not for progress. It'll be professional when your job is outsourced to an underpaid prompt engineer in Hyderabad. Will you professionally thank the consultancy scraping your API for it?
It is not me, who is paid for this. I tried to be professional there. When I am not treated as professional then why I am supposed to keep smile on?
I have just recovered from burnout due to poor management, and I do not want to end in that situation again. If people will not publicly call out bad behaviours, then these will continue to happen to others.
When I am not treated as professional then why I am supposed to keep smile on?
Presumably because you cannot reliability tell the difference between people “disrespecting” you and you misinterpreting the situation. A professional maintains poise regardless to inject calm into storms and, over time, establish a reputation for being reliable and level-headed under all conditions.
A professional maintains poise regardless to inject calm into storms and, over time, establish a reputation for being reliable and level-headed under all conditions.
Also known as a pushover to some managers. Someone who:
Never challenges their hierarchy.
Never refuses a task.
Never refuses to tighten their deadlines.
Stays late to honour those deadlines.
I’ve met at least 7 such managers. They’re not the majority, but still a good number. And honestly, fuck those assholes. Sure I’d rather not burn too many bridges, but at this point I’d rather not even cross some of them.
No, a professional is the opposite of a pushover. It's someone who is seen as a serious person and has earned the power to push back because, when they push back, they do so with poise and forceful reason that cannot be ignored.
In contrast to your claims, I'd expect the opposite from a professional:
A professional always challenges their hierarchy when it's getting in the way, but does so by routing around problems (e.g., jumping up the chain of command) or moving within the organization.
A professional always refuses a task when it violates professional ethics.
A professional aways refuses to tighten deadlines that would threaten the project, the client, or the implied duty to society that comes with being a professional.
A professional always maintains a safe and sustainable work load because to do otherwise jeopardizes the project, its downstream dependants, and the professional's implied duty to society.
The problem is the gap, the gulf, between a perceived professional, and an actual one.
It's someone who is seen as —
How does a new or (prospective) hire is seen? Realistically? Truth is, it’s not something the new hire can do anything about, because they new. They had no time to prove themselves, all they have is their prior reputation. And that’s if they have any at all: much of the time the folks at the new workplace simply have no idea where the new one comes from, and if they’re any good.
In my 20 years of being paid to program experience, my reputation in a workplace depends much more on the people around me than what I do myself. I mean I have a big résumé now, and that helps a ton, but when there’s an asshole in charge and I do my professional duty to politely push back on his bullshit, I’m fired all the same.
Here’s a telling example of how I once failed to land a contract: the subject matter (cryptography) both interests me and falls squarely on my expertise. The interview goes very well. Then I got rejected. Why? "Sorry, the guy is better than our lead dev, it won’t work out".
How does a new or (prospective) hire [supposed to be seen as a professional]?
The answer is straightforward: by being a professional. That way, every shred of information that the company gleans from its limited interactions with you will argue that you are a professional. What's the first impression you want to make? That you're a professional. The second impression? That you're a professional. The third? That you're a professional.
Yes, it's hard to lean on your past reputation when the company knows nothing about you. But in that information vacuum, the signals you send are especially powerful. So it pays to make sure that every signal points to you being a professional. Likewise, sending just one signal that you have poor judgement or behave childishly is enough to sink you.
Again, the best way to establish yourself as a professional is to be professional. Always.
The answer is straightforward: by being a professional.
You’re gonna have to define "professional" with a bit more detail than that, else that’s just circular reasoning. Sure, you gave me a glimpse with your bullet points above, but those bullet points are precisely what got me fired a couple times.
Here’s what I think: the good companies (or teams) will appreciate actual professionals. I’ve seen it happen. The bad ones however tend to want sycophants instead, and will reject or fire the professionals. Of course they will call the sycophants "professionals" and the actual professionals "divas" or similar, and some aren’t above ruining reputations. Still, calling them out is professional in my opinion. Even using strong language.
You’re gonna have to define "professional" with a bit more detail than that.
I'd suggest starting with the IEEE Code of Ethics and the (much wordier and thus less actionable) ACM Code of Ethics. But I expect that the duty to "to treat all persons fairly and with respect" is probably the most actionable requirement in this context.
Here’s what I think: the good companies (or teams) will appreciate actual professionals. I’ve seen it happen. The bad ones however tend to want sycophants instead, and will reject or fire the professionals.
I tend to agree. That's why it's best to always be professional. That way, you'll self-select away from the bad companies and end up working with other professionals at good companies.
Still, calling them [bad companies] out is professional in my opinion. Even using strong language.
Calling out brokeness is one of the responsibilities of a professional. But so is doing it in a way that must be taken seriously. Using strong, snarky, and/or childish language (e.g., "I prefer to take a bath with a toaster") only gets in the way and marks the speaker as unreliable, making the message easier to ignore.
I include cursing and swearing. I mean, not on the actual job to your boss’ face, but in a blog post relating the events, that’s still well within the bounds of what I call "professional". For instance, "this joke that passes for a hiring process is fucking ridiculous" (not an actual quote).
One has to be careful how such wording is used however: directly insulting someone in a publication is straight up illegal in many legislations.
I include cursing and swearing. I mean, not on the actual job to your boss’ face, but in a blog post relating the events, that’s still well within the bounds of what I call "professional". For instance, "this joke that passes for a hiring process is fucking ridiculous" (not an actual quote).
I agree that, on a personal blog, cursing and swearing aren't likely to make you seem unprofessional (unless it's excessive or all you have to offer, substance wise). But I do think that if you have to resort to it, your writing is likely to be weaker for it. For example, the pretend quote you offered above is a weak argument. It's all emotion and personal opinion; neither suggests that the author is to be taken seriously or has a point that rests on reason and evidence. If the author did have a clear and compelling thesis, wouldn't they have led with it?
For example, the pretend quote you offered above is a weak argument. It's all emotion and personal opinion;
Correct. Even without the swear words (say, "this hiring process does not work at all"), I’d need to justify it. It’s the kind of sentence I’d use as a conclusion, after laying out the actual arguments.
Nicely said, just I was not in a position to do anything from your list, simply because I was not an employee. They wanted to test how well I can perform as an employee from what I understand. In that case they totally failed to do so, because they were trying to check how well this fish can climb the tree.
Presumably because you cannot reliability tell the difference between people “disrespecting” you and you misinterpreting the situation.
So when I say, that I applied for position of Senior Backend Developer where the job description do not contained anything about TypeScript or any frontend work, and they are giving me a purely frontend task, with no actually backend work, it is me misinterpreting the situation? How so? It is not that I haven't pointed it out to them. I did, quite vocally. They just said that this is the task that they prepared for me and there is nothing that can be changed there.
If it is not plain disrespect to the candidate and their expertise, then what it is exactly? Test how much of a pushover you are?
They just said that this is the task that they prepared for me and there is nothing that can be changed there.
Then why not leave immediately? You're coming across at the pushover in this situation trying to figure out a work assignment you didn't sign up for.
I don't buy your reasoning of staying out of respect for your friends' referral, because one of them said they would leave if they were in your place. Also, if you cared for them, you probably wouldn't post this publicly and put their reputation at risk.
Was it sensible or healthy? No, but that is what it was.
This self-reflection is what is missing for me in your post IMO, and also in the other comments of yours I've read here. Your takeaway from this situation sounds very one-sided, so acknowledging and reflecting on where you might have gone wrong too may help shift your perspective about the situation and maybe handle situations better in the future.
Look, I agree that their hiring process was dumb. But that's irrelevant. Nothing, not even a dumb hiring process, waives a professional's responsibilities. It's not just me saying this. Take a quick look at the IEEE Code of Ethics. It doesn't say, "If you are confident that some person or company is disrespecting you and/or your expertise, then you are released from your professional duties." Every single one of those duties is unconditional.
That's what it means to be a professional. Nobody else's behavior can be an excuse to be unprofessional. If you are a professional, you keep your promises to yourself and to society regardless.
I do not have any sympathy for the people who disrespect me.
Do you have any sympathy for people whom you believe disrespected you but, perhaps, you have judged mistakenly? Is it possible that, given what they know and you do not, that your interpretation could be wrong?
That's why it's generally considered the mark of a professional to bear the working life's slings and arrows—intended or not—with equanimity.
And, for the sake of trying to help you, consider the following question: What percentage of working professionals would agree that it's good for your reputation and future career prospects to write things like "I prefer to take a bath with a toaster rather than work another minute on this" in a professional setting? Would you be better served to remain calm and level-headed in all circumstances?
If you think a working relationship sucks, you have the option to end the relationship professionally: "I appreciate your investment in interviewing me, but this exercise has helped me to realize that I'm not a good fit for this position. I hereby withdraw my candidacy. Thanks for having considered me." How do you benefit by burning bridges instead?
What percentage of working professionals would agree that it's good for your reputation and future career prospects to write things like "I prefer to take a bath with a toaster rather than work another minute on this" in a professional setting?
It may be the only way to cut through corporate speak to speak truth to power. I'm reminded of this joke:
The workers spoke among themselves, saying, "It is a crock of shit, and it stinketh."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odour thereof."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers, saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors, saying, "It is a vessel of fertiliser, and none may abide its strength."
And the Directors spoke amongst themselves, saying one to another, "It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors then went onto the Vice Presidents, saying unto them, "It promotes growth and is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went unto the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigour of the company; with powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan, and saw that it was good.
It may be the only way to cut through corporate speak to speak truth to power.
Is it? Or is the reality that it does the opposite of speaking truth to power by (1) making the candidate's criticisms easy to dismiss as a childish outburst, not to be taken seriously and (2) reinforcing the perceived value of their current hiring process because it allowed them to "dodge a bad hire"?
The only thing that power respects is their own time and money. And when a candidate sends strong signals that they are a first-rate professional, one that every company would want, and then declines to proceed with the interview process, that's a message that is more likely to be heard. It says to the leadership team, "we are wasting our time and money and paying a large opportunity cost on a hiring process that makes the engineers we want to hire go to our competitors instead."
Which message speaks truth to power more powerfully? The one that is easy to dismiss or the one that threatens the bottom line?
when a candidate sends strong signals that they are a first-rate professional, one that every company would want
What signal? How? Nail the interview? But what if they still want you to work for a week on their assignment? If it’s just a stupid process thing you may get away with refusing, but more often than not they really want to test you, because they haven’t yet received a signal strong enough — interviews are notoriously unreliable. And in that second case, declining, however politely, is a sure way to look like a lazy ass who would have been a bad hire anyway.
When you're dealing with a broken company, there's often no good way to cut through the brokenness. That's just reality. But you stand better chances when everything you do is clearly professional and well reasoned. Do you seriously believe that behaving childishly is likely to be more effective?
When you're dealing with a broken company, there's often no good way to cut through the brokenness.
Yes! That’s where it is perfectly appropriate to slam the figurative door, and tell everyone about it. It’s not childish to tell other people who got the same that they’re not alone.
Okay, you've identified a benefit in your cost/benefit analysis. Now, what about the costs? And, for most people seeking a job, is this benefit worth the costs?
The cost is that they will potentially will not want to hire me in the future.
It's not just this one company with its broken hiring process that will want to avoid hiring you. You published a very public rant about what you did on your blog. And then doubled down on what you did in discussions here. I'd wager that appoximately 100% of hiring decision-makers would find your conduct childish and unprofessional. How does this behavior help you get hired at another company?
If they are checking how well a fish can climb a tree, ...
Not that I think it's a good idea, but some companies ask fish to climb trees to check how well they can decline the request. And if that is what this company was checking, how does telling them that you'd rather "take a bath with a toaster" make you look? How does writing a public blog post about it make you look to other companies? How does submitting that post here and then doubling down on your decisions make you look to other companies?
I'm not writing these things to be mean. I'm writing them to help you, to help you to confront the possibility that you are not helping yourself.
but some companies ask fish to climb trees to check how well they can decline the request.
Purposefully demean the candidate to see if they "have what it takes", whatever "it" is? Here’s the thing though: many many companies do that kind of stuff not to see how well the candidate declines the bullshit, but how well they put up with it. And then only hire the pushovers.
I'm writing them to help you, to help you to confront the possibility that you are not helping yourself.
Speaking about bad stuff publicly is how people organise, or at least are warned that this is a thing before it’s too late (that is, happens to themselves. Encouraging someone not to speak up may help them in the short term, but in the long term it hurts everyone.
Here’s the thing though: many many companies do that kind of stuff not to see how well the candidate declines the bullshit, but how well they put up with it.
Sure, that happens. But what does that have to do with whether a candidate behaves like a professional when they decline to put up with it? How is it better for the candidate, how it it better for "how people organize," to decline with a childish rant?
Encouraging someone not to speak up...
If you believe I am encouraging the OP not to speak up, you haven't really read what I've written. A professional isn't a pushover. A professional actually has a duty to push back on brokenness. But, when a professional pushes back, they don't do it with a childish rant, they do it with poise and unignorable reason. That's what makes the pushback effective. That's what draws other people to the cause.
What I encouraged the OP to do was consider whether their behavior looked like a professional pushing back or something else. And, if their behavior looked like something else, consider whether shining a spotlight on it was good for their goals.
What unignorable reason? What makes you think there is any?
Well, you just wrote that, "speaking about bad stuff publicly is how people organise, or at least are warned that this is a thing before it’s too late." Presumably, you believe that there is some "bad stuff that is a thing" that we all need to be aware of and should be organizing against. So, I'm just accepting your premise and arguing that you'll be more effective at these goals if you seem like serious people who are warning us about a real problem and not just disgruntled candidates ranting about a bad experience and how you got in some snarky shots on the way out.
Ah, but we’re addressing different audiences there. I’m pretty sure the most effective language for addressing corporate power, is likely quite different from the most effective language for addressing your peers.
And yes, corporate power want people to neuter their language, and constantly threaten them with not hiring them again. Not in so many words on course, but there’s a reason you’re warning that such blog posts may burn bridges: because sadly, you’re right. This background blackmail makes it more difficult for people for talking about their problems at work, and organise themselves. This is by design. And those who speak up, if they want to do it effectively, kinda have to take one for the team.
Note: whistleblowers have it worst. Because their speech have the most impact, even if all they do is politely lay out the facts they can prove in clinical language, they’re often sued, harassed, blacklisted, perhaps even murdered in some cases.
I don't know. When I think about the most influential technical writers, people like Richard Feynman, Donald Knuth, and Edsger Dijkstra, I note that they almost always use language that I think you would classify as "neutered". No swearing, no personal drama, no scoring points for emotional self gratification. Their writing is simple, vivid, direct, and persuasive by the force and clarity of their arguments. I think that this kind of writing is hard to beat for persuading both corporate leaders and technical peers. A compelling argument presented clearly and plainly hits almost every audience forcefully.
I agree that when communicating with close peers and colleagues, it's fine to be less formal and more familiar with language. It takes work not do use those shortcuts. But, at least in my experience, the strongest arguments do not rely on swearing, memes, personal attacks, snark, and so on; they are strong because they rest on irrefutable logic that shines brightly because nothing stands in the way.
But that's just my experience. Yours could be different.
Edsger Dijkstra, I note that they almost always use language that I think you would classify as "neutered"
Not always. I recall Dijkstra being fairly scathing in a number of his notes. Remember the quote about BASIC inflicting irrecoverable brain damage or something? Sure, no swear words. But he doesn’t pull his punches either.
But that's just my experience. Yours could be different.
Well, I can only speak for how I perceive swearing in writing. I do use the occasional swear word in forum comments, but almost never in my blog. In part because it would make my sentences longer, and I like my essays short.
Disagreements are fine, gendered ad hominems are not.
Disagreements are expected, but never namecalling of any kind. Corporate speak exists to make it possible to have two people, on the opposite side of every big question in life, and still be able to make wonderful progress together on a corporate objective.
My read was the same as yours. I know this is a rant among friends. If any of it leaked to me in an interview stage, I'd likely turn down the interview.
Corporate speak exists to make it possible to have two people, on the opposite side of every big question in life, and still be able to make wonderful progress together on a corporate objective.
You seem to have forgotten to put quotations around "progress". As the majority of corporate speak seems to be aimed at dancing around a subject rather than tackle it head on. I should also note that this seems to be predominantly US corporate speak as well. In my experience even working with cultures known to do this they don't elevate it to this practice.
I should also note that there is no direct name calling involved. The title of the blog is a play on a popular internet meme and to me reads as a general remark towards the audacity of companies in their recruitment process.
If you read the article, I can't blame the author given both examples. Specifically the first thing is borderline ridiculous. How would you classify these examples? As reasonable, streamlined recruitment processes? Or as something else?
The title of the blog is a play on a popular internet meme and to me reads as a general remark towards the audacity of companies in their recruitment process.
It is. Especially that all people described in negative light there were male. The only female person mentioned there is the one that I am praising.
The frustration is clear in this post, and I'm sympathetic because the experiences described are not great. It's common for companies to spend a lot of time on the interview process and not necessarily respect the candidate's time: if this is your company and you see it, you should call it out. It's losing you hires.
I personally would sit on my hands for a bit and edit before posting an article like this. I think it stands a better chance of landing with a more constructive tone.
The part that I like least about this is that I personally would hesitate to hire OP if I read this post. I don't say that easily - I have a positive impression of @hauleth from other posts, I am sympathetic to the experience and overall I don't think less of them for writing this. I am also not, generally speaking, a person who will audit your GitHub profile or social media history before considering working with you.
However, in the absence of other strong signals around somebody that I essentially don't know, this kind of post would make me worry that if a potential hire perceived something as unfair or wrong at work they would struggle to communicate it effectively, and that can lead to avoidable problems.
Thing is? I do think this post could be reworked only slightly to give a positive signal instead of a negative one. Tone down the frustration (a little - don't lose it, it's justified) and maybe better express the cost to the company that's hiring - you're wasting time and money, and putting off good candidates.
Now if I read it? I know what you like and don't like in a hiring process. I can talk to you about it. And I can see a senior engineer who can make a constructive argument for change.
Maybe OP doesn't want to work with me, and they've just screened me out with the article as is - in which case, we're fine, no hard feelings. But I think there's better in here.
($WORK is not an Elixir shop, nor am I hiring - so you're safe from me. But either way, @hauleth, best of luck and I hope you land somewhere great)
Perhaps most jarring to me was the crossed out "bitch" line at the top. It is never acceptable to refer to a colleague or prospective colleague in this way. Disagreements are fine, gendered ad hominems are not.
They were editing an existing meme in a humorously lazy fashion. Google the unedited phrase to see more.
Given that multiple people in the comments haven't recognized it at all... it doesn't seem like an effective use of a meme even if you set aside the potential to offend with the language.
How can one know that in advance of actually using the meme?
Also come on, the most I’ve seen of Narnia was discussions of it in LessWrong, it’s my first time seeing that meme, and even I could understand it. To be honest I’m genuinely surprised at the interpretations I’ve seen here.
Maybe you can't know... but you can reasonably surmise that if you use a meme that depends on off-color language and people don't recognize it that it might lead to misunderstandings. Doubly so when you're publishing something to a broad audience likely to have varying levels of English and terminally onlineness.
I have to agree with you here: while the bait-and-switch the company did is not okay, this blog post tells more about the OP than those companies do. I would not hire them based on this post; it comes across as childish and unprofessional.
Somebody who is effective in corporate life will use that time well, because it will happen on an ongoing basis.
When it’s my first day when I have no assignment, no work environment to speak of, and no way to move things forward without harassing my prospective (or new) employer, the only way I’m going to use my time is by doing absolutely nothing — or do personal stuff. If that makes me a bad culture fit, fine.
At least the author looked at the code and issued a PR. That’s kinda useful, right? I did something similar once. Code review at the explicit behest of the client. They didn’t like my feedback, and it contributed big time for my contract to end at the end of the second week. Had I known, I would have politely declined to review anything.
I had a similar response when reading, and I agree with the points you made about the realities of a corporate environment. I also think that a willingness to work outside of the immediate bounds of your expertise, in addition to being valued by your employer, can open up interesting career and learning opportunities that you might not even know about if you insist on staying within your domain. The important thing is to communicate where those bounds are so that expectations and timelines can be set appropriately. Whether or not you can is a strong signal in an interview.
All things in balance, though. I also sympathize with the author; if you already have a crystal clear idea of where you want your career to go, and the projects you're being asked to work on aren't moving you in that direction, then your time may be better spent elsewhere. But I wouldn't take personal offense just because my and my employer's goals are conflicting, nor would I risk burning bridges over it.
I also think that a willingness to work outside of the immediate bounds of your expertise, in addition to being valued by your employer, can open up interesting career and learning opportunities that you might not even know about if you insist on staying within your domain.
Sure, but not in the first fucking week after being hired for something entirely different. OP is absolutely right in leaving that place behind.
The important thing is to communicate where those bounds are so that expectations and timelines can be set appropriately. Whether or not you can is a strong signal in an interview.
This is kinda hard though. In any job you would probably be asked to work on something not immediately in (or even way outside of) your expertise or interest. Arguing too hard about not wanting to do anything like different would be a major red flag. Sometimes unfortunate things just need to get done and an overly rigid stick-in-the-mud mindset would be unproductive. It's different if you'd be doing this a substantial amount of time. And, like I said, it should definitely not be the first thing you're asked.
This entire "putting you out of your comfort zone" bullshit is offputting as hell. The point of the first month or so is as a trial period for both the company and the employee. They should be focused on trying to gauge whether the employee can do what he was hired for, and trying as well as they can to make the onboarding comfortable and efficient. And the employee should be focused on whether they would enjoy working for that company, and in this case he rightly quit.
nor would I risk burning bridges over it
I would be a bit more hesitant as well to post such things in public. However, if I did, I would probably use the company's real name to warn others. I see no point in posting it under a pseudonym, because the involved companies would know (especially since they have friends working there) and nobody else would. That's exactly the opposite if what I would want from posting something like this.
Yeah the “oh this is a one off frontend task” is a very dangerous game to play when it’s the first thing at a new job. I’ve done plenty of work that I wasn’t well suited for at previous jobs, but it was after I had already done what was described in my resume.
Before joining one company I made it explicitly clear I wanted to design and build systems, I did not want to just sling around yaml or do frontend. I reiterated this throughout the process, and the recruiter and hiring manager acknowledged this. Then once I start, all I’m doing is integrating telemetry into the frontend code, making dashboards, and helping a team do migrations. I told my manager continually that this wasn’t what I wanted to do and trudged through, until my performance suffered due to lack of motivation. I also wasn’t allowed to switch teams due to poor perf, so basically my options were quit or get PIPed. This was an absolute low point in my career.
So yeah a bait and switch right from the beginning would be a huge red flag for me. In the OP’s situation I probably would’ve stopped right there and then if they made me continue with this frontend task after explaining I’m a backend engineer.
I agree on all of this. But I also think that there was an opportunity for the author to communicate with more tact. If he decides it's not a direction he's interested in, end it with something more professional than a wall of text saying that they'd rather kill themselves than continue working on it. Reading the article I saw red flags from both sides.
I like your point about if you're going to burn bridges, at least do some damage haha
I wanted to end it on more professional footing, but then there come some random guy, who was writing there for the first time, and he said that "we are extending the definition of success" in the middle of the week. I simply snapped at them. Was it wrong? Maybe, but anyway the CTO messaged me latter with different job offer.
Friend: Normally it is done in a way that the candidate should be out of their comfort zone. However, if a backend developer would receive purely frontend work, then I would say that something went wrong.
That sounds like it's just an excuse-generator so they can pluck out their desired hire without respect for any other factors.
The CTO's answer was that they understood, they wanted to check if I was "a good fit for their culture" (of hiring backend engineers and assigning them unrelated frontend work)
This fish sucks at climbing our trees! (And of course, the "culture fit".)
Until the workers are in control of hiring and firing, at least for their own teams, expect these shenanigans to continue.
I had a fairly interesting experience lately: I was approached by Company Recruiter asking if I'd be interested in talking with them and as I actually use their product daily I said yes. The call comes and the recruiter opens up with "so what are you looking for?" ... Hm, well, nothing: I was approached, I thought you'd try to sell me on you, not the other way around.
But no worries, this is just a normal phrase in the end, and we chat about what they're doing and so on for about an hour. At the end they ask if I'd be willing to continue the process, which would involve three technical interviews culminating in a possible offer. At this point I'm sufficiently positive that I say yes: it'll at least be interesting since I'm talking from a position of relative strength, having a stable job wherein recent dark clouds haven't really arrived at. The recruiter says they'll send an email after the call, and we say our goodbyes.
Then nearly a week passes without any email forthcoming. Eventually I send an email myself asking if they'd perhaps forgotten. After a few more days they respond to me saying that this time they decided to not proceed with the process. Huh, okay! That actually kind of stings: I didn't even apply yet I got rejected!
But that's not the end! A few weeks later I'm participating in a bigger programming conference and the recruiter emails me: they're there as well and ask me if I'd like to have dinner with them and perhaps restart the interview process! Since they were paying I did indeed go to that dinner and had a fun time talking with a few of the engineers at the company, but... It's not like I paused the process so how come it's an option (or on me) to restart it? Bizarre.
This happened to me when I interviewed at Rackspace a decade ago. They flew me to San Francisco, where their Python team had recommended me to management on the basis that I was good with Python and had experience with Twisted. The interview consisted of trying to convince me to know Lua, a language not on my CV, so that they could put me in their brand-new Lua team.
I feel like there's a need for a popular "guide to corporate IT environment" page that gets people prepared for interactions like that. I'm not trying to defend what happens there, but people aren't aware.
There will be delays, whether you're internal or external - losing a day to the process of getting some access is normal/expected. Things will be delayed. You're a tiny cog in a process that cares about aggregate metrics, not your individual success/failure. Many places will have a blanket policy on no feedback: potential loss - lawsuit, potential gain - nothing. Communication will be bad sometimes and things like job tests will get swapped and missed. Etc. etc.
This would both set expectations and filter out people who don't want to deal with this day to day.
There will be delays, whether you're internal or external - losing a day to the process of getting some access is normal/expected. Things will be delayed.
Yeah, but I had fixed time to finish this task. And to be able to do so, I needed to resort to 3rd party communication channels with people outside of the process, to get these. Delays are normal/expected in regular work, where I am capable of waiting, not during recruitment process, which should not affect my day to day operations. That is huge difference.
Many places will have a blanket policy on no feedback: potential loss - lawsuit, potential gain - nothing.
Actually, because I am in the EU and I am covered by GDPR laws, I can request them to provide me with all details and internal notes about myself. So the only thing they are gaining is the fact, that they sound unprofessional and make me feel that the whole process was consultations about their process instead of legitimate recruitment process.
This would both set expectations and filter out people who don't want to deal with this day to day.
I would not have much of a problem with that, if only I would have a time to spare. Would that also apply to them, if I would tell them, that I need more time to finish the task that they gave me? I highly doubt. So that gives them unfair advantage.
In the retrospective I probably should do exactly nothing, do not push anyone to give me accesses or anything, just wait till the end of the week only waiting for their machine to turn, and then just take the pay check. It would save me some nerves.
Here’s some friendly advice. In the working world, what marks you as a professional is how you handle situations that are broken. Anyone can remain in control of themselves when things go as expected. But pros stay cool regardless.
Remember: When things are broken, that’s when you get to decide whether you want to be a professional. It’s an opportunity.
Please understand that being a professional doesn’t mean you have to eat crap. It means that if you’re served a plate of crap, you know how to set it aside without drama.
It means that if you’re served a plate of crap, you know how to set it aside without drama.
If you set it aside without drama, then there is high probability that they will serve the same shit, or even more of it, to the next person. To the point where there is just shit.
If you force them to eat it themselves, then maybe there will be some afterthought.
There are ways of telling someone that their behaviour is unacceptable that will make them reconsider it. There are other ways of telling someone that their behaviour is unacceptable that will make them double down on it and disregard your opinion. Part of professionalism is being able to communicate dissatisfaction in the former way. No one can do it all of the time (especially not if they're subject to the same behaviour repeatedly).
There are ways of telling someone that their behaviour is unacceptable that will make them reconsider it. There are other ways of telling someone that their behaviour is unacceptable that will make them double down on it and disregard your opinion. Part of professionalism is being able to communicate dissatisfaction in the former way.
And of course, what "the former way" is exactly highly depends on who you’re talking to. And that’s if they can be made to reconsider at all. How many of us have been taught how to manage their managers like that?
If you set it aside without drama, then there is high probability that they will serve the same shit, or even more of it, to the next person.
No, you're missing something important: In a professional context, drama only makes your message easier to dismiss. Think about the people responsible for a broken hiring process. They don't want to hear that they screwed up. That's a message they will try to set aside. So, if you deliver that message within a bright, blinding opportunity to classify your message as a childish outburst that should be dismissed, rather than an unignorable reality check that must be taken seriously, they'll take the opportunity you have given them.
Which is exactly why it is a waste of time and energy to even try to tell them. Real change requires real consequences for those people. Often, the best way to deliver such consequences when you have no actual power over them, is to tell everyone else.
Often, the best way to deliver such consequences when you have no actual power over them, is to tell everyone else.
Sure, but when you tell everyone else, why wouldn't you rather do it like a professional would? How does it serve the cause to tell everyone in a rant that comes off as childish?
As I said in a sibling comment, that rant didn’t sound childish to me. And to be honest I don’t like the tone policing: most of the time, the most effective tone is not the most polite. It’s something more personal, more direct. Not some corporate friendly writing that sounds like it’s been written by an LLM.
most of the time, the most effective tone is not the most polite.
Nobody said it was. What I said was—let me try to say it in yet another way—that your words are more likely to be taken seriously if you come off as a level-headed professional and less likely to be taken seriously if you come off as a disgruntled candidate ranting with raw frustration. Do you find this claim controversial?
TBH I do not care whether they will change their approach to that. I am describing the pathology of the process. It is up to them whether they will do anything about it.
Again - they did not pay me to review their process. I have no regard about their feelings if they discarded my messages, that it is not what I agreed to. They find it childish - I cannot do anything about it, nor I really care. My own mental health is much more important than what some corporate "thinks" of me, and seeing their behaviour - they didn't value my expertise.
Please understand that I'm trying to help you. I assume you want to land a good job, yes? I assume you want to be taken seriously, yes?
Look, you're obviously smart. If you want to rationalize your behavior, you clearly can come up with all sorts of justifications, but I'd ask you to consider whether there's some truth in what I'm trying to tell you.
I'm going to try one more time.
Again - they did not pay me to review their process.
Doesn't matter. What does matter is how your behavior—during the interview, when you wrote about it on your blog, and when you doubled down on it here—shapes the world's perception of you and how that perception helps or hinders your pursuit of your goals and dreams.
I think you want to be perceived as a serious person, a professional that any top company would be delighted to add to their team. If so, the questions you ought to consider are: Does your behavior, your very visible behavior, argue that you are a professional and that hiring you would be a great idea? Or does it argue that you have questionable judgement and that even interviewing you is a risk that could blow up on them?
I have no regard about their feelings if they discarded my messages, that it is not what I agreed to.
Your duty to be a professional is not conditioned on their behavior. It's a promise you make to yourself and to society. Again: It's not conditional on their behavior. If they disrespect you, that's not license to disrepect them. You always treat other people with respect because that's what a professional does.
They find it childish - I cannot do anything about it, nor I really care.
Do you seriously believe that your behavior has nothing to do with how others perceive your behavior? It's not just that the people involved in this broken hiring process find it childish. I'd estimate that approximately 100% of people in a position to hire you would find it childish. Do you care about landing a good job? Then you ought to care about how your behavior reflects upon you.
My own mental health is much more important than what some corporate "thinks" of me, and seeing their behaviour - they didn't value my expertise.
Of course your mental health is important! But there are other ways of opting out of a broken hiring process than behaving in a way that makes it harder for other companies to hire you. Being a professional doesn't mean you have to be a pushover. It just means that when you opt out, you do it like a professional. And doing it like a professional means firmly but politely withdrawing your candidacy, not writing a rant about it on your blog, and not doubling down on your rant when people try to helpfully point out how your behavior is likely to reflect upon you and affect your career prospects.
We aren't lawyers. Our professionalism is rooted in the quality of our advice, not our workplace conduct or adherence to some bogus creed. The reason to keep a cool head is to avoid offending management. The reason to keep language polite and neutral is to avoid hostile-workplace lawsuits. We aren't suits or squares.
(I'm going to reply in earnest and assume you aren't trolling.)
Our professionalism is rooted in the quality of our advice, not our workplace conduct or adherence to some bogus creed.
This claim defies what the public and members of most computing-related professional societies expect of professionals. In short, your professionalism should carry through to everything you do: not only the quality of your advice but also your conduct. Consider, for examples, the IEEE Code of Ethics, which states that, "We ... do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct..." and the ACM Code of Ethics, which requires members to "Maintain high standards of professional competence, conduct, and ethical practice." (Emphasis mine)
The reason to keep a cool head is to avoid offending management. The reason to keep language polite and neutral is to avoid hostile-workplace lawsuits.
I'd say that the reason to keep a cool head and to keep language polite and neutral is that that is what is expected by the public of professionals. The reason it is expected is that to be hot-headed, impolite, or biased in professional communications increases the chances for mistakes and misunderstandings, and in engineering contexts mistakes and misunderstandings can have serious consequences.
LinkedIn is a complete waste of time. It's full of totally unqualified people. You'll get 10x the number of CVs from LinkedIn than from any other source, but you will get maybe half as many that meet your shortlist. Oh, and, if you post a job on LinkedIn, they will add their own submission system, which doesn't ask for the information that the job ad asked for. They also do some 'AI' prefiltering, which is worse than keyword matching.
LinkedIn aside, there are a lot of competent people on the job market at the moment, with the exception of a handful of areas where 'AI' startups are hiring in enormous quantities with enormous salaries. Big tech companies shedding 10-20% of their workforce over a few years means that there are a lot of good people looking for jobs. That means companies can be a lot more selective than normal (from this post: if they want an Elixir developer who is also proficient in TypeScript then they probably have several in their hiring pipeline).
Oh, and if you don't require people to use AI, you get a much better talent pool to select from.
This is less true for companies requiring people to be in the office, unless they're close to one of the big layoff areas.
they had quite an "interesting" hiring process, where they ordered you to work for a week on the take-home project (fortunately they paid for that time). I hoped it changed a little since then, and it did - now they hire you for one week, where you work on the project.
Am I missing a joke? These seem identical from a practical perspective (well, modulo benefits like health insurance, I guess - which are not-inconsequential, but it's hard to imagine them making a big different on the scale of a week).
Ah. It wasn't clear to me that "the take-home project" was not in fact part of a real codebase - I thought that "the project" was referring back to it.
While reading this, the author didn't come across to me as sympathetic.
In the corporate world, it's not that shocking that it takes a day to get access to things or to talk to somebody in a different timezone. How somebody reacts to these events is great signal for cultural fit. Somebody who is effective in corporate life will use that time well, because it will happen on an ongoing basis.
It's not that shocking that the work most in need of completion is outside of some predefined box. A candidate willing to step out of their box is more valuable to the business than somebody who limits themselves to a particular scope. Of course, asking somebody to work outside of their area of expertise ought to result in slower progress and a worse result - which ought to be expected to everyone in this story - but a business is going to prefer that over outright refusal.
It's not surprising that it takes weeks for recruiters to schedule interviews (given the volume they're dealing with), or that reaching out to a VP on LinkedIn makes the process faster. Again, in corporate life, knowing when to reach out to a VP is part of the job.
If recruiters ask for feedback despite declining to provide it to candidates, where that is the most memorable part of the experience, that seems like great feedback to provide.
Perhaps most jarring to me was the crossed out "bitch" line at the top. It is never acceptable to refer to a colleague or prospective colleague in this way. Disagreements are fine, gendered ad hominems are not.
I do not have any sympathy for the people who disrespect me.
If only anywhere in the process there would be anything about TypeScript or any kind of frontend work. The job description was describing purely backend work. I said that I have been doing almost exclusively backend and sysops. So if someone is offering me purely backend work, and then out of blue give me a task I know nothing about, and expects that in 32h (at most) I will be able to provide working solution with "designs matching rest of the system", then I see this as pure disrespect to my experience and knowledge. I spent over 10 years as backend developer and about 7 years of it was spent on observability and performance. My only heavier frontend experience was 8 years ago when I was adding some functionality to existing Vua application.
If you are trying to evaluate my experience and knowledge via such task, then I simply assume that you do not want me there. But instead being cultured and say that directly, you want to disrespect and insult me by forcing me to do pointless stuff that will make me suffer.
For me it is surprising, because one of their senior/principal/staff engineer (I do not know his exact position description) vouched for me with said VP two weeks earlier and I know that he acknowledged that.
Yeah, I provided that as a feedback, as well I have written to recruiter for details for invoice, so I can charge them for my consultations about their hiring process.
Fortunately I have other ways to get that feedback, private ways as well as legal ways to do so (as I am in the EU, I am allowed to request all their notes and details about my process thanks to GDPR).
Me neither, and never any less than now.
To the extent that "professional" means "getting shafted", maybe a little unprofessionalism is necessary for sanity if not for progress. It'll be professional when your job is outsourced to an underpaid prompt engineer in Hyderabad. Will you professionally thank the consultancy scraping your API for it?
It is not me, who is paid for this. I tried to be professional there. When I am not treated as professional then why I am supposed to keep smile on?
I have just recovered from burnout due to poor management, and I do not want to end in that situation again. If people will not publicly call out bad behaviours, then these will continue to happen to others.
Presumably because you cannot reliability tell the difference between people “disrespecting” you and you misinterpreting the situation. A professional maintains poise regardless to inject calm into storms and, over time, establish a reputation for being reliable and level-headed under all conditions.
Also known as a pushover to some managers. Someone who:
I’ve met at least 7 such managers. They’re not the majority, but still a good number. And honestly, fuck those assholes. Sure I’d rather not burn too many bridges, but at this point I’d rather not even cross some of them.
No, a professional is the opposite of a pushover. It's someone who is seen as a serious person and has earned the power to push back because, when they push back, they do so with poise and forceful reason that cannot be ignored.
In contrast to your claims, I'd expect the opposite from a professional:
The problem is the gap, the gulf, between a perceived professional, and an actual one.
How does a new or (prospective) hire is seen? Realistically? Truth is, it’s not something the new hire can do anything about, because they new. They had no time to prove themselves, all they have is their prior reputation. And that’s if they have any at all: much of the time the folks at the new workplace simply have no idea where the new one comes from, and if they’re any good.
In my 20 years of being paid to program experience, my reputation in a workplace depends much more on the people around me than what I do myself. I mean I have a big résumé now, and that helps a ton, but when there’s an asshole in charge and I do my professional duty to politely push back on his bullshit, I’m fired all the same.
Here’s a telling example of how I once failed to land a contract: the subject matter (cryptography) both interests me and falls squarely on my expertise. The interview goes very well. Then I got rejected. Why? "Sorry, the guy is better than our lead dev, it won’t work out".
The answer is straightforward: by being a professional. That way, every shred of information that the company gleans from its limited interactions with you will argue that you are a professional. What's the first impression you want to make? That you're a professional. The second impression? That you're a professional. The third? That you're a professional.
Yes, it's hard to lean on your past reputation when the company knows nothing about you. But in that information vacuum, the signals you send are especially powerful. So it pays to make sure that every signal points to you being a professional. Likewise, sending just one signal that you have poor judgement or behave childishly is enough to sink you.
Again, the best way to establish yourself as a professional is to be professional. Always.
You’re gonna have to define "professional" with a bit more detail than that, else that’s just circular reasoning. Sure, you gave me a glimpse with your bullet points above, but those bullet points are precisely what got me fired a couple times.
Here’s what I think: the good companies (or teams) will appreciate actual professionals. I’ve seen it happen. The bad ones however tend to want sycophants instead, and will reject or fire the professionals. Of course they will call the sycophants "professionals" and the actual professionals "divas" or similar, and some aren’t above ruining reputations. Still, calling them out is professional in my opinion. Even using strong language.
I'd suggest starting with the IEEE Code of Ethics and the (much wordier and thus less actionable) ACM Code of Ethics. But I expect that the duty to "to treat all persons fairly and with respect" is probably the most actionable requirement in this context.
I tend to agree. That's why it's best to always be professional. That way, you'll self-select away from the bad companies and end up working with other professionals at good companies.
Calling out brokeness is one of the responsibilities of a professional. But so is doing it in a way that must be taken seriously. Using strong, snarky, and/or childish language (e.g., "I prefer to take a bath with a toaster") only gets in the way and marks the speaker as unreliable, making the message easier to ignore.
Speaking for myself, I did take it seriously.
Even just strong counts? Sorry, no.
Speaking for myself, it didn’t.
Speaking for myself, it made the message more memorable. The company itself may ignore it more easily, but they’re not the target anyway.
I interpreted "strong language" to mean cursing/swearing. If you interepret it to mean "forceful language," then I agree with you.
I include cursing and swearing. I mean, not on the actual job to your boss’ face, but in a blog post relating the events, that’s still well within the bounds of what I call "professional". For instance, "this joke that passes for a hiring process is fucking ridiculous" (not an actual quote).
One has to be careful how such wording is used however: directly insulting someone in a publication is straight up illegal in many legislations.
I agree that, on a personal blog, cursing and swearing aren't likely to make you seem unprofessional (unless it's excessive or all you have to offer, substance wise). But I do think that if you have to resort to it, your writing is likely to be weaker for it. For example, the pretend quote you offered above is a weak argument. It's all emotion and personal opinion; neither suggests that the author is to be taken seriously or has a point that rests on reason and evidence. If the author did have a clear and compelling thesis, wouldn't they have led with it?
Correct. Even without the swear words (say, "this hiring process does not work at all"), I’d need to justify it. It’s the kind of sentence I’d use as a conclusion, after laying out the actual arguments.
Nicely said, just I was not in a position to do anything from your list, simply because I was not an employee. They wanted to test how well I can perform as an employee from what I understand. In that case they totally failed to do so, because they were trying to check how well this fish can climb the tree.
So when I say, that I applied for position of Senior Backend Developer where the job description do not contained anything about TypeScript or any frontend work, and they are giving me a purely frontend task, with no actually backend work, it is me misinterpreting the situation? How so? It is not that I haven't pointed it out to them. I did, quite vocally. They just said that this is the task that they prepared for me and there is nothing that can be changed there.
If it is not plain disrespect to the candidate and their expertise, then what it is exactly? Test how much of a pushover you are?
Then why not leave immediately? You're coming across at the pushover in this situation trying to figure out a work assignment you didn't sign up for.
I don't buy your reasoning of staying out of respect for your friends' referral, because one of them said they would leave if they were in your place. Also, if you cared for them, you probably wouldn't post this publicly and put their reputation at risk.
It may sound unreasonable now, but that was my train of thought. Was it sensible or healthy? No, but that is what it was.
Abut second part - I gave them heads up and they didn't have anything against it.
This self-reflection is what is missing for me in your post IMO, and also in the other comments of yours I've read here. Your takeaway from this situation sounds very one-sided, so acknowledging and reflecting on where you might have gone wrong too may help shift your perspective about the situation and maybe handle situations better in the future.
Look, I agree that their hiring process was dumb. But that's irrelevant. Nothing, not even a dumb hiring process, waives a professional's responsibilities. It's not just me saying this. Take a quick look at the IEEE Code of Ethics. It doesn't say, "If you are confident that some person or company is disrespecting you and/or your expertise, then you are released from your professional duties." Every single one of those duties is unconditional.
That's what it means to be a professional. Nobody else's behavior can be an excuse to be unprofessional. If you are a professional, you keep your promises to yourself and to society regardless.
Do you have any sympathy for people whom you believe disrespected you but, perhaps, you have judged mistakenly? Is it possible that, given what they know and you do not, that your interpretation could be wrong?
That's why it's generally considered the mark of a professional to bear the working life's slings and arrows—intended or not—with equanimity.
And, for the sake of trying to help you, consider the following question: What percentage of working professionals would agree that it's good for your reputation and future career prospects to write things like "I prefer to take a bath with a toaster rather than work another minute on this" in a professional setting? Would you be better served to remain calm and level-headed in all circumstances?
If you think a working relationship sucks, you have the option to end the relationship professionally: "I appreciate your investment in interviewing me, but this exercise has helped me to realize that I'm not a good fit for this position. I hereby withdraw my candidacy. Thanks for having considered me." How do you benefit by burning bridges instead?
It may be the only way to cut through corporate speak to speak truth to power. I'm reminded of this joke:
Is it? Or is the reality that it does the opposite of speaking truth to power by (1) making the candidate's criticisms easy to dismiss as a childish outburst, not to be taken seriously and (2) reinforcing the perceived value of their current hiring process because it allowed them to "dodge a bad hire"?
The only thing that power respects is their own time and money. And when a candidate sends strong signals that they are a first-rate professional, one that every company would want, and then declines to proceed with the interview process, that's a message that is more likely to be heard. It says to the leadership team, "we are wasting our time and money and paying a large opportunity cost on a hiring process that makes the engineers we want to hire go to our competitors instead."
Which message speaks truth to power more powerfully? The one that is easy to dismiss or the one that threatens the bottom line?
What signal? How? Nail the interview? But what if they still want you to work for a week on their assignment? If it’s just a stupid process thing you may get away with refusing, but more often than not they really want to test you, because they haven’t yet received a signal strong enough — interviews are notoriously unreliable. And in that second case, declining, however politely, is a sure way to look like a lazy ass who would have been a bad hire anyway.
When you're dealing with a broken company, there's often no good way to cut through the brokenness. That's just reality. But you stand better chances when everything you do is clearly professional and well reasoned. Do you seriously believe that behaving childishly is likely to be more effective?
Yes! That’s where it is perfectly appropriate to slam the figurative door, and tell everyone about it. It’s not childish to tell other people who got the same that they’re not alone.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. Drama undermines credibility. And if you want people to take your warnings seriously, you need credibility.
It's a spiritual benefit. Some people will never understand.
Okay, you've identified a benefit in your cost/benefit analysis. Now, what about the costs? And, for most people seeking a job, is this benefit worth the costs?
The cost is that they will potentially will not want to hire me in the future. Which is good, because I do not want to work for them in the future.
If they are checking how well a fish can climb a tree, then let's them do so, but without my involvement in the process.
It's not just this one company with its broken hiring process that will want to avoid hiring you. You published a very public rant about what you did on your blog. And then doubled down on what you did in discussions here. I'd wager that appoximately 100% of hiring decision-makers would find your conduct childish and unprofessional. How does this behavior help you get hired at another company?
Not that I think it's a good idea, but some companies ask fish to climb trees to check how well they can decline the request. And if that is what this company was checking, how does telling them that you'd rather "take a bath with a toaster" make you look? How does writing a public blog post about it make you look to other companies? How does submitting that post here and then doubling down on your decisions make you look to other companies?
I'm not writing these things to be mean. I'm writing them to help you, to help you to confront the possibility that you are not helping yourself.
Purposefully demean the candidate to see if they "have what it takes", whatever "it" is? Here’s the thing though: many many companies do that kind of stuff not to see how well the candidate declines the bullshit, but how well they put up with it. And then only hire the pushovers.
Speaking about bad stuff publicly is how people organise, or at least are warned that this is a thing before it’s too late (that is, happens to themselves. Encouraging someone not to speak up may help them in the short term, but in the long term it hurts everyone.
You’re not helping, is what I’m saying.
Sure, that happens. But what does that have to do with whether a candidate behaves like a professional when they decline to put up with it? How is it better for the candidate, how it it better for "how people organize," to decline with a childish rant?
If you believe I am encouraging the OP not to speak up, you haven't really read what I've written. A professional isn't a pushover. A professional actually has a duty to push back on brokenness. But, when a professional pushes back, they don't do it with a childish rant, they do it with poise and unignorable reason. That's what makes the pushback effective. That's what draws other people to the cause.
What I encouraged the OP to do was consider whether their behavior looked like a professional pushing back or something else. And, if their behavior looked like something else, consider whether shining a spotlight on it was good for their goals.
I dunno, OP’s rant didn’t sound childish to me, and I’m 44.
What unignorable reason? What makes you think there is any?
Well, you just wrote that, "speaking about bad stuff publicly is how people organise, or at least are warned that this is a thing before it’s too late." Presumably, you believe that there is some "bad stuff that is a thing" that we all need to be aware of and should be organizing against. So, I'm just accepting your premise and arguing that you'll be more effective at these goals if you seem like serious people who are warning us about a real problem and not just disgruntled candidates ranting about a bad experience and how you got in some snarky shots on the way out.
Ah, but we’re addressing different audiences there. I’m pretty sure the most effective language for addressing corporate power, is likely quite different from the most effective language for addressing your peers.
And yes, corporate power want people to neuter their language, and constantly threaten them with not hiring them again. Not in so many words on course, but there’s a reason you’re warning that such blog posts may burn bridges: because sadly, you’re right. This background blackmail makes it more difficult for people for talking about their problems at work, and organise themselves. This is by design. And those who speak up, if they want to do it effectively, kinda have to take one for the team.
Note: whistleblowers have it worst. Because their speech have the most impact, even if all they do is politely lay out the facts they can prove in clinical language, they’re often sued, harassed, blacklisted, perhaps even murdered in some cases.
I don't know. When I think about the most influential technical writers, people like Richard Feynman, Donald Knuth, and Edsger Dijkstra, I note that they almost always use language that I think you would classify as "neutered". No swearing, no personal drama, no scoring points for emotional self gratification. Their writing is simple, vivid, direct, and persuasive by the force and clarity of their arguments. I think that this kind of writing is hard to beat for persuading both corporate leaders and technical peers. A compelling argument presented clearly and plainly hits almost every audience forcefully.
I agree that when communicating with close peers and colleagues, it's fine to be less formal and more familiar with language. It takes work not do use those shortcuts. But, at least in my experience, the strongest arguments do not rely on swearing, memes, personal attacks, snark, and so on; they are strong because they rest on irrefutable logic that shines brightly because nothing stands in the way.
But that's just my experience. Yours could be different.
Not always. I recall Dijkstra being fairly scathing in a number of his notes. Remember the quote about BASIC inflicting irrecoverable brain damage or something? Sure, no swear words. But he doesn’t pull his punches either.
Well, I can only speak for how I perceive swearing in writing. I do use the occasional swear word in forum comments, but almost never in my blog. In part because it would make my sentences longer, and I like my essays short.
Disagreements are expected, but never namecalling of any kind. Corporate speak exists to make it possible to have two people, on the opposite side of every big question in life, and still be able to make wonderful progress together on a corporate objective.
My read was the same as yours. I know this is a rant among friends. If any of it leaked to me in an interview stage, I'd likely turn down the interview.
You seem to have forgotten to put quotations around "progress". As the majority of corporate speak seems to be aimed at dancing around a subject rather than tackle it head on. I should also note that this seems to be predominantly US corporate speak as well. In my experience even working with cultures known to do this they don't elevate it to this practice.
I should also note that there is no direct name calling involved. The title of the blog is a play on a popular internet meme and to me reads as a general remark towards the audacity of companies in their recruitment process.
If you read the article, I can't blame the author given both examples. Specifically the first thing is borderline ridiculous. How would you classify these examples? As reasonable, streamlined recruitment processes? Or as something else?
It is. Especially that all people described in negative light there were male. The only female person mentioned there is the one that I am praising.
The frustration is clear in this post, and I'm sympathetic because the experiences described are not great. It's common for companies to spend a lot of time on the interview process and not necessarily respect the candidate's time: if this is your company and you see it, you should call it out. It's losing you hires.
I personally would sit on my hands for a bit and edit before posting an article like this. I think it stands a better chance of landing with a more constructive tone.
The part that I like least about this is that I personally would hesitate to hire OP if I read this post. I don't say that easily - I have a positive impression of @hauleth from other posts, I am sympathetic to the experience and overall I don't think less of them for writing this. I am also not, generally speaking, a person who will audit your GitHub profile or social media history before considering working with you.
However, in the absence of other strong signals around somebody that I essentially don't know, this kind of post would make me worry that if a potential hire perceived something as unfair or wrong at work they would struggle to communicate it effectively, and that can lead to avoidable problems.
Thing is? I do think this post could be reworked only slightly to give a positive signal instead of a negative one. Tone down the frustration (a little - don't lose it, it's justified) and maybe better express the cost to the company that's hiring - you're wasting time and money, and putting off good candidates.
Now if I read it? I know what you like and don't like in a hiring process. I can talk to you about it. And I can see a senior engineer who can make a constructive argument for change.
Maybe OP doesn't want to work with me, and they've just screened me out with the article as is - in which case, we're fine, no hard feelings. But I think there's better in here.
($WORK is not an Elixir shop, nor am I hiring - so you're safe from me. But either way, @hauleth, best of luck and I hope you land somewhere great)
They were editing an existing meme in a humorously lazy fashion. Google the unedited phrase to see more.
Given that multiple people in the comments haven't recognized it at all... it doesn't seem like an effective use of a meme even if you set aside the potential to offend with the language.
How can one know that in advance of actually using the meme?
Also come on, the most I’ve seen of Narnia was discussions of it in LessWrong, it’s my first time seeing that meme, and even I could understand it. To be honest I’m genuinely surprised at the interpretations I’ve seen here.
Maybe you can't know... but you can reasonably surmise that if you use a meme that depends on off-color language and people don't recognize it that it might lead to misunderstandings. Doubly so when you're publishing something to a broad audience likely to have varying levels of English and terminally onlineness.
I have to agree with you here: while the bait-and-switch the company did is not okay, this blog post tells more about the OP than those companies do. I would not hire them based on this post; it comes across as childish and unprofessional.
When it’s my first day when I have no assignment, no work environment to speak of, and no way to move things forward without harassing my prospective (or new) employer, the only way I’m going to use my time is by doing absolutely nothing — or do personal stuff. If that makes me a bad culture fit, fine.
At least the author looked at the code and issued a PR. That’s kinda useful, right? I did something similar once. Code review at the explicit behest of the client. They didn’t like my feedback, and it contributed big time for my contract to end at the end of the second week. Had I known, I would have politely declined to review anything.
I had a similar response when reading, and I agree with the points you made about the realities of a corporate environment. I also think that a willingness to work outside of the immediate bounds of your expertise, in addition to being valued by your employer, can open up interesting career and learning opportunities that you might not even know about if you insist on staying within your domain. The important thing is to communicate where those bounds are so that expectations and timelines can be set appropriately. Whether or not you can is a strong signal in an interview.
All things in balance, though. I also sympathize with the author; if you already have a crystal clear idea of where you want your career to go, and the projects you're being asked to work on aren't moving you in that direction, then your time may be better spent elsewhere. But I wouldn't take personal offense just because my and my employer's goals are conflicting, nor would I risk burning bridges over it.
Sure, but not in the first fucking week after being hired for something entirely different. OP is absolutely right in leaving that place behind.
This is kinda hard though. In any job you would probably be asked to work on something not immediately in (or even way outside of) your expertise or interest. Arguing too hard about not wanting to do anything like different would be a major red flag. Sometimes unfortunate things just need to get done and an overly rigid stick-in-the-mud mindset would be unproductive. It's different if you'd be doing this a substantial amount of time. And, like I said, it should definitely not be the first thing you're asked.
This entire "putting you out of your comfort zone" bullshit is offputting as hell. The point of the first month or so is as a trial period for both the company and the employee. They should be focused on trying to gauge whether the employee can do what he was hired for, and trying as well as they can to make the onboarding comfortable and efficient. And the employee should be focused on whether they would enjoy working for that company, and in this case he rightly quit.
I would be a bit more hesitant as well to post such things in public. However, if I did, I would probably use the company's real name to warn others. I see no point in posting it under a pseudonym, because the involved companies would know (especially since they have friends working there) and nobody else would. That's exactly the opposite if what I would want from posting something like this.
Yeah the “oh this is a one off frontend task” is a very dangerous game to play when it’s the first thing at a new job. I’ve done plenty of work that I wasn’t well suited for at previous jobs, but it was after I had already done what was described in my resume.
Before joining one company I made it explicitly clear I wanted to design and build systems, I did not want to just sling around yaml or do frontend. I reiterated this throughout the process, and the recruiter and hiring manager acknowledged this. Then once I start, all I’m doing is integrating telemetry into the frontend code, making dashboards, and helping a team do migrations. I told my manager continually that this wasn’t what I wanted to do and trudged through, until my performance suffered due to lack of motivation. I also wasn’t allowed to switch teams due to poor perf, so basically my options were quit or get PIPed. This was an absolute low point in my career.
So yeah a bait and switch right from the beginning would be a huge red flag for me. In the OP’s situation I probably would’ve stopped right there and then if they made me continue with this frontend task after explaining I’m a backend engineer.
I stayed a little longer, but I do not know why. I need a job, but I do not think that I need it that badly to sacrifice my mental health.
I agree on all of this. But I also think that there was an opportunity for the author to communicate with more tact. If he decides it's not a direction he's interested in, end it with something more professional than a wall of text saying that they'd rather kill themselves than continue working on it. Reading the article I saw red flags from both sides.
I like your point about if you're going to burn bridges, at least do some damage haha
I wanted to end it on more professional footing, but then there come some random guy, who was writing there for the first time, and he said that "we are extending the definition of success" in the middle of the week. I simply snapped at them. Was it wrong? Maybe, but anyway the CTO messaged me latter with different job offer.
It’s definitely different experiencing it in the moment. Plus, my communication style doesn’t have to be your communication style :)
Good luck on your job search!
That sounds like it's just an excuse-generator so they can pluck out their desired hire without respect for any other factors.
This fish sucks at climbing our trees! (And of course, the "culture fit".)
Until the workers are in control of hiring and firing, at least for their own teams, expect these shenanigans to continue.
I had a fairly interesting experience lately: I was approached by Company Recruiter asking if I'd be interested in talking with them and as I actually use their product daily I said yes. The call comes and the recruiter opens up with "so what are you looking for?" ... Hm, well, nothing: I was approached, I thought you'd try to sell me on you, not the other way around.
But no worries, this is just a normal phrase in the end, and we chat about what they're doing and so on for about an hour. At the end they ask if I'd be willing to continue the process, which would involve three technical interviews culminating in a possible offer. At this point I'm sufficiently positive that I say yes: it'll at least be interesting since I'm talking from a position of relative strength, having a stable job wherein recent dark clouds haven't really arrived at. The recruiter says they'll send an email after the call, and we say our goodbyes.
Then nearly a week passes without any email forthcoming. Eventually I send an email myself asking if they'd perhaps forgotten. After a few more days they respond to me saying that this time they decided to not proceed with the process. Huh, okay! That actually kind of stings: I didn't even apply yet I got rejected!
But that's not the end! A few weeks later I'm participating in a bigger programming conference and the recruiter emails me: they're there as well and ask me if I'd like to have dinner with them and perhaps restart the interview process! Since they were paying I did indeed go to that dinner and had a fun time talking with a few of the engineers at the company, but... It's not like I paused the process so how come it's an option (or on me) to restart it? Bizarre.
This happened to me when I interviewed at Rackspace a decade ago. They flew me to San Francisco, where their Python team had recommended me to management on the basis that I was good with Python and had experience with Twisted. The interview consisted of trying to convince me to know Lua, a language not on my CV, so that they could put me in their brand-new Lua team.
At least they were up front about it. In OP's case (IIUC) they didn't even mention working on frontend stuff during the interview.
I feel like there's a need for a popular "guide to corporate IT environment" page that gets people prepared for interactions like that. I'm not trying to defend what happens there, but people aren't aware.
There will be delays, whether you're internal or external - losing a day to the process of getting some access is normal/expected. Things will be delayed. You're a tiny cog in a process that cares about aggregate metrics, not your individual success/failure. Many places will have a blanket policy on no feedback: potential loss - lawsuit, potential gain - nothing. Communication will be bad sometimes and things like job tests will get swapped and missed. Etc. etc.
This would both set expectations and filter out people who don't want to deal with this day to day.
Yeah, but I had fixed time to finish this task. And to be able to do so, I needed to resort to 3rd party communication channels with people outside of the process, to get these. Delays are normal/expected in regular work, where I am capable of waiting, not during recruitment process, which should not affect my day to day operations. That is huge difference.
Actually, because I am in the EU and I am covered by GDPR laws, I can request them to provide me with all details and internal notes about myself. So the only thing they are gaining is the fact, that they sound unprofessional and make me feel that the whole process was consultations about their process instead of legitimate recruitment process.
I would not have much of a problem with that, if only I would have a time to spare. Would that also apply to them, if I would tell them, that I need more time to finish the task that they gave me? I highly doubt. So that gives them unfair advantage.
In the retrospective I probably should do exactly nothing, do not push anyone to give me accesses or anything, just wait till the end of the week only waiting for their machine to turn, and then just take the pay check. It would save me some nerves.
Here’s some friendly advice. In the working world, what marks you as a professional is how you handle situations that are broken. Anyone can remain in control of themselves when things go as expected. But pros stay cool regardless.
Remember: When things are broken, that’s when you get to decide whether you want to be a professional. It’s an opportunity.
Please understand that being a professional doesn’t mean you have to eat crap. It means that if you’re served a plate of crap, you know how to set it aside without drama.
If you set it aside without drama, then there is high probability that they will serve the same shit, or even more of it, to the next person. To the point where there is just shit.
If you force them to eat it themselves, then maybe there will be some afterthought.
There are ways of telling someone that their behaviour is unacceptable that will make them reconsider it. There are other ways of telling someone that their behaviour is unacceptable that will make them double down on it and disregard your opinion. Part of professionalism is being able to communicate dissatisfaction in the former way. No one can do it all of the time (especially not if they're subject to the same behaviour repeatedly).
And of course, what "the former way" is exactly highly depends on who you’re talking to. And that’s if they can be made to reconsider at all. How many of us have been taught how to manage their managers like that?
No, you're missing something important: In a professional context, drama only makes your message easier to dismiss. Think about the people responsible for a broken hiring process. They don't want to hear that they screwed up. That's a message they will try to set aside. So, if you deliver that message within a bright, blinding opportunity to classify your message as a childish outburst that should be dismissed, rather than an unignorable reality check that must be taken seriously, they'll take the opportunity you have given them.
Which is exactly why it is a waste of time and energy to even try to tell them. Real change requires real consequences for those people. Often, the best way to deliver such consequences when you have no actual power over them, is to tell everyone else.
Sure, but when you tell everyone else, why wouldn't you rather do it like a professional would? How does it serve the cause to tell everyone in a rant that comes off as childish?
As I said in a sibling comment, that rant didn’t sound childish to me. And to be honest I don’t like the tone policing: most of the time, the most effective tone is not the most polite. It’s something more personal, more direct. Not some corporate friendly writing that sounds like it’s been written by an LLM.
Nobody said it was. What I said was—let me try to say it in yet another way—that your words are more likely to be taken seriously if you come off as a level-headed professional and less likely to be taken seriously if you come off as a disgruntled candidate ranting with raw frustration. Do you find this claim controversial?
TBH I do not care whether they will change their approach to that. I am describing the pathology of the process. It is up to them whether they will do anything about it.
Again - they did not pay me to review their process. I have no regard about their feelings if they discarded my messages, that it is not what I agreed to. They find it childish - I cannot do anything about it, nor I really care. My own mental health is much more important than what some corporate "thinks" of me, and seeing their behaviour - they didn't value my expertise.
Please understand that I'm trying to help you. I assume you want to land a good job, yes? I assume you want to be taken seriously, yes?
Look, you're obviously smart. If you want to rationalize your behavior, you clearly can come up with all sorts of justifications, but I'd ask you to consider whether there's some truth in what I'm trying to tell you.
I'm going to try one more time.
Doesn't matter. What does matter is how your behavior—during the interview, when you wrote about it on your blog, and when you doubled down on it here—shapes the world's perception of you and how that perception helps or hinders your pursuit of your goals and dreams.
I think you want to be perceived as a serious person, a professional that any top company would be delighted to add to their team. If so, the questions you ought to consider are: Does your behavior, your very visible behavior, argue that you are a professional and that hiring you would be a great idea? Or does it argue that you have questionable judgement and that even interviewing you is a risk that could blow up on them?
Your duty to be a professional is not conditioned on their behavior. It's a promise you make to yourself and to society. Again: It's not conditional on their behavior. If they disrespect you, that's not license to disrepect them. You always treat other people with respect because that's what a professional does.
Do you seriously believe that your behavior has nothing to do with how others perceive your behavior? It's not just that the people involved in this broken hiring process find it childish. I'd estimate that approximately 100% of people in a position to hire you would find it childish. Do you care about landing a good job? Then you ought to care about how your behavior reflects upon you.
Of course your mental health is important! But there are other ways of opting out of a broken hiring process than behaving in a way that makes it harder for other companies to hire you. Being a professional doesn't mean you have to be a pushover. It just means that when you opt out, you do it like a professional. And doing it like a professional means firmly but politely withdrawing your candidacy, not writing a rant about it on your blog, and not doubling down on your rant when people try to helpfully point out how your behavior is likely to reflect upon you and affect your career prospects.
We aren't lawyers. Our professionalism is rooted in the quality of our advice, not our workplace conduct or adherence to some bogus creed. The reason to keep a cool head is to avoid offending management. The reason to keep language polite and neutral is to avoid hostile-workplace lawsuits. We aren't suits or squares.
(I'm going to reply in earnest and assume you aren't trolling.)
This claim defies what the public and members of most computing-related professional societies expect of professionals. In short, your professionalism should carry through to everything you do: not only the quality of your advice but also your conduct. Consider, for examples, the IEEE Code of Ethics, which states that, "We ... do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct..." and the ACM Code of Ethics, which requires members to "Maintain high standards of professional competence, conduct, and ethical practice." (Emphasis mine)
I'd say that the reason to keep a cool head and to keep language polite and neutral is that that is what is expected by the public of professionals. The reason it is expected is that to be hot-headed, impolite, or biased in professional communications increases the chances for mistakes and misunderstandings, and in engineering contexts mistakes and misunderstandings can have serious consequences.
You’re not doing yourself any favors with this. If you really want to publish this when you have a job then that’s a less bad idea.
The first interview experience seems ideal. You got a sense of the job. You got paid for it. You even got offered the job.
I was not offered a job, it was only trial week.
And if by "ideal" you mean that I could see that management likes to waste resources and team knowledge, then yeah, you can call it so.
From the other side of this recently:
LinkedIn is a complete waste of time. It's full of totally unqualified people. You'll get 10x the number of CVs from LinkedIn than from any other source, but you will get maybe half as many that meet your shortlist. Oh, and, if you post a job on LinkedIn, they will add their own submission system, which doesn't ask for the information that the job ad asked for. They also do some 'AI' prefiltering, which is worse than keyword matching.
LinkedIn aside, there are a lot of competent people on the job market at the moment, with the exception of a handful of areas where 'AI' startups are hiring in enormous quantities with enormous salaries. Big tech companies shedding 10-20% of their workforce over a few years means that there are a lot of good people looking for jobs. That means companies can be a lot more selective than normal (from this post: if they want an Elixir developer who is also proficient in TypeScript then they probably have several in their hiring pipeline).
Oh, and if you don't require people to use AI, you get a much better talent pool to select from.
This is less true for companies requiring people to be in the office, unless they're close to one of the big layoff areas.
This doesn't belong on Lobsters. Has nothing to do with technology at all. Other stories have been removed for much less.
Am I missing a joke? These seem identical from a practical perspective (well, modulo benefits like health insurance, I guess - which are not-inconsequential, but it's hard to imagine them making a big different on the scale of a week).
There is no joke. The only difference I see is that now you work on real codebase instead of something purely abstract.
Ah. It wasn't clear to me that "the take-home project" was not in fact part of a real codebase - I thought that "the project" was referring back to it.