I think most of what is wrong with technical hiring is bias and expectations:
- There is always an age bias. Younger==cheaper in every single HR department in the world, but tech experience (and output) often increments faster than age.
- Someone who’s spent a couple of years not coding because they decided to try management or consulting will get passed over because interviewers don’t really expect them to want to code anymore. Never mind if they actually consulted for and designed systems that are currently running in the Fortune 500.
- Timezones and “meeting quorums” are very tightly aligned in some hiring manager’s minds. If someone can’t make half the meetings because they’re offset four hours, managers get antsy.
- US/non-US is still a massive chasm. The first question I got from every FAANG interviewer was “when do you think you can relocate?”. And the pay differential is atrocious.
Remote helps a bit, but the age bias will get to us all.
> Never mind if they actually designed systems that are currently running in the Fortune 500.
I see this kind of thinking often and it has certainly influenced my hiring decisions and my own career but there is a flaw.
There is a difference between someone who designed a system _at_ a F500 and someone who designed a system that got them _to be_ a F500. In a big company, there's lots of room to hide and bullshit.
Not saying that developers from those companies are bad, but they're not necessarily good either.
Not that many which is the point. It's weird to me that people see a successful company and then ascribe some of that merit to the potential candidate sitting front of them, ignoring the fact that they were one of thousands. I don't see working at a F500 as an accurate predictor of success.
I'm quite simple with this. I simply work less and lie about it. Unless I feel passionate, but then I don't view it as work. With that said, I do tell them upfront that I kind of work this way (I always say in interviews: pay me fairly and I'll treat you fairly, here's what I consider to be a fair wage. If they then lowball me and I accept because I happen to need the money, mayhem ensues. So far, 25% of the companies have met my salary requirements easily, all non-FAANG and local). Remote work helps with getting away with this.
You get what you pay for one way or another. If I happen to get fired, so be it. I might want to consider switching careers then.
This might work for you, but I wouldn't hire someone who said that. It translates to "I'll only be honest if you are honest." I like to think that peoples' honor is not contingent on their estimation of the honor of their colleagues.
My dad told me that the difference between men and animals is men have honor. We each get to choose which we are.
> It translates to "I'll only be honest if you are honest."
Stating upfront that if I feel underpaid is a very very bad thing for me and the company, because it undermines my motivation (yep, that's how I say it, I also give numbers and explanations behind those numbers) is an honest upfront thing to say if you ask me.
When people push through, then they push through because they don't seem to care about that. All they focus on is that they can get developers for (too) cheap. I just warned them. I'm not warning them again. Note: obviously this only happens if I need the job/money and I'm in a tough spot. Otherwise, I'd walk away.
FWIW: I don't know much about honor, ("eer" in Dutch, who uses that word even? I almost never hear people talk about "eer"). To me honor seems like pride and I've seen people defend very stupid things because of pride. I'd rather defend something because it helps humanity with the contingency that I can at least be moderately happy myself.
Because of this what I do care about is truth. For it is truth that will lift us (slowly) out of whatever miserable stuff we endure, and I can get behind that. Unfortunately, other people don't seem to care about it as much as I do and I have been burned in the past.
Edit:
FWIW I welcome this discussion as I feel people tend to think differently about these things based on all kinds of factors. I think these different views are interesting since it allows me to ask questions that are relevant to my personal life but I'd otherwise not think about.
What do you think of people who don't keep their promises to you? Do you congratulate them on their successful use of game theory?
If you saw a wallet with cash in it and an ID card lying on a park bench with no one else around, what do you do? Would you behave differently if it was $5, $100, $10000? Are you a man or an animal?
A few months back, there was an article in the newspaper about someone who found a very large sum of cash, in the 5 figures. He figured out who owned the money, and gave it to the owner. Then he became infuriated because the owner didn't give him a "reward" for being honest.
I see your point but isn't "eerlijk" simply "honesty"? I do get that there's a reputation when it comes to honesty and that it can be tarnished. But I don't think it maps 1 to 1 to honor.
I thought that honor could also be about that if one gets insulted that the insulted person would start a fight because his honor was insulted (apparently this happens in the south of the US a lot, according to psychological experiments [1]). I remember when this happened to me. Someone in SF said "fuck you" at point blank range with no reason. I simply ignored him, I didn't get all up in his face. But apparently, people from the south do that to defend their honor.
> I see your point but isn't "eerlijk" simply "honesty"?
I mean, in current usage, probably yes. In English the words do not seem related, but in Dutch it seems that lying is/was considered dishonorable. Dutch people certainly seem straightforward compared to other people I’ve met.
I guess different nationalities consider different things as affecting their honor.
> I like to think that peoples' honor is not contingent on their estimation of the honor of their colleagues.
You might want to rethink that assumption, because overwhelming evidence suggests that people's honour is contingent of their estimation of the honour of their peers. See the Golden Balls TV show, where the two remaining participants at the end are asked to "split or steal". Turned out people are more likely to steal if they think the other will steal as well. Also, people don't like to get swindled. If they expect swindling, its' only natural that they resist it however they can.
Don't get me wrong, we need honour, if only so we can share this Earth together. There are other ways to fight dishonour than to be dishonourable yourself, and there are advantages to honour (such as the reputation of being honourable). It's just that evidence is not as rainbows and unicorns as we'd like.
You had me worried for a moment with "I like to believe". I considered suggesting the litany of Tarsky, where you basically want to believe whatever is true, and not get too attached to beliefs you may not want. I now see it was just a figure of speech.
Now, would I trust people who would behave dishonourably around people they deem dishonourable? Well, probably less. I’d fear they might flag me as dishonourable, and one sidedly turn what could have been a tit-for-tat into an eye-for-an-eye. I’d be cautious for sure, but I’d most likely still give them the benefit of the doubt until they give me concrete cause to write them off.
Whether that’s a good strategy is another question, though. (For instance, Littlefinger did tell Ned Stark not to trust him, and Ned, being the bloody paragon that he is, trusted the sleazy bastard anyway, and lost is head for it.)
Be careful about getting life lessons from movie scripts :-/
But people do often unwittingly telegraph that they are untrustworthy. One of the obvious tells starts with "You can trust me!" In isolation, it doesn't mean the person is untrustworthy, but it is a warning beep.
Being around good people can inspire you to try to become better yourself.
Being around good people can give you the nudge you need to behave better when that's difficult.
Lastly, as much as I admire the ideally, I simply don't believe in turning the cheek at all times. It exposes other people to risk, not just yourself. (Perhaps that's not what you're arguing for though.)
(I think I understand the general point you're making, and agree with you partially.)
> I wouldn't hire someone who said that. It translates to "I'll only be honest if you are honest."
So you concede you are NOT going to be honest, then, but are expecting 100% honesty back because of the notion of honor, which is what exploitative, scummy people usually do. You also invoke honor to make the other guy not question your honesty.
No.
A job is a bargain we strike in good faith. I will stick to my end of the bargain to the exact extent of you sticking to yours. This is how people who actually have honor do business.
There's nothing dishonest about not hiring someone who says they're not going to keep their word.
> I will stick to my end of the bargain to the exact extent of you sticking to yours. This is how people who actually have honor do business.
No, it isn't. Contingent honor is not honor.
For example, people who steal items from work, and justify it to themselves because they believe they aren't paid enough, or the boss disrespected them, or whatever, are thieves.
For what it's worth: the following thoughts aren't amazingly well thought out, but for the sake of discussion. This is what I think.
I find it interesting to read about your perspective, I haven't seen such a strong one in a while. And it forces me to think about interesting things.
> are thieves
Being a thief is not always as bad as you're implying here. First and foremost, there are many cases where I'd see your point and agree.
But IMO it isn't that simple. While on vacation, I've met many people in Cuba that couldn't make ends meet and would starve for a week. They'd also be thieves if they'd still food. But if a government treats you that poorly, I see it as a necessity.
American soldiers that killed German soldiers between 1940 to 1945 were also murderers in the eyes of Germany. And while I am not happy that anyone got killed during that war. I am happy with the consequence it brought (my great grandparents their freedom).
Now let's go to a more nuanced point. Many people in The Netherlands could barely make ends meet, because they could barely pay rent + bills and not save a penny. Then corona hit. They got utterly fucked. The people that you'd describe as a thief didn't get as much fucked (not that I know any thief so I'm using my imagination here).
When a system fails you, move away. When you can't, mayhem ensues. When enough mayhem ensues by too many people then it might go down as a revolution in the history books and be the de facto winning story on how things should always have been.
Or people are simply criminals, rounded up, shamed and put in jail. In nuanced cases they also get therapy.
When it comes to these things I see 2 sides of a story that are in direct opposition with each other. IMO, you have a very strong opinion that one side of that story is true and the other should burn in hell. I disagree with that as the perspective is necessary to understand all sorts of things.
That is not the situation in the US. Stealing from your employer is not that situation. If you don't like the work arrangement, quit and get another job.
Wars brutalize people, and WW2 was a very, very brutal war. I have never been in combat, and so am not going to be too judgmental of people who were.
BTW, my father served in combat in WW2 an Korea. I asked him once if he felt bad about shooting at Me109s. He said no, because they were doing their damnedest to kill him. But also, the men he served with went out of their way to trust him with their lives. That's quite an honor.
This is fine as general life advice, but in a business context I've never seen this lead to anything other than exploitation of the more honourable party. I get where it's coming from and I try to do the same myself, but there's a fine line between being honourable and being self-destructive in the face of other options (strategies, if we want to keep to game theory terminology).
I didn't say you shouldn't protect yourself. For example, have written contracts. Put fraud protections in your accounting system. Half down, half on delivery. When I do a royalty deal, I include a right to have their books audited. I was cheated by a large company once (you'd recognize the name), and I sued and won.
But when you make a deal, deliver what you agreed on. When people like doing business with you, the word will get out that you are a good person to do business with, and you'll prosper.
For example, the guy who taught the accounting class I took used to be a used car salesman. I asked him how to tell if the car dealer was honorable or not. He said the ones in business more than 5 years were honorable, as they were getting repeat business. It takes five years to run out of suckers.
When I need some work done on my house, I'll ask the local real estate agent. They usually have a stable of contractors who'll get a house ready for sale, and they aren't using contractors that cheat their customers. When I ring them up, I make a point that Agent Bob recommended them to me, and so they know if they cheat me, I'll tell Agent Bob who isn't going to want his own reputation besmirched, and the cheating contractor will get cut off.
is this just not game theory in practice? If your opposition is not honest, by being honest yourself youre setting yourself up to be exploited, misled or abused in the long run.
As an aside, humans are animals, just smarter ones
> by being honest yourself youre setting yourself up to be exploited, misled or abused in the long run.
You might be surprised. Dishonest people miss out on a lot of opportunities, and they have no idea this is happening. When honorable people pick up cues (like your I'll be fair if you're fair) that a person is dishonest, they'll smile and nod and quietly put you on their "do not trust" list.
People on that list don't get offers that require trust, and those are the good offers.
Aside from that, being an honorable person is its own reward. Being honorable is what you do when nobody is looking.
Accepting a lowball offer, yet in your mind already deciding to renege on it, is dishonorable.
> As an aside, humans are animals, just smarter ones
Everyone gets to choose whether they are a man or an animal.
P.S. I have my failings. But I'm not going to pretend they are virtues.
P.P.S. You're not setting yourself up to be abused by being honorable. There's nothing dishonorable about not trusting people who haven't earned trust, or who have shown they aren't worthy of trust. For example, I wouldn't hire someone who told me their honor is contingent upon other people.
> Accepting a lowball offer, yet in your mind already deciding to renege on it, is dishonorable.
Note: they also know that I won't be working at my best. And if they'd reason through what I would say, then they'd understand what that entails.
I need to pay my bills, so if that's the best I can get then I'll have to take it. I've had this situation happening after applying to jobs for 18 months (as a fresh CS grad).
> Everyone gets to choose whether they are a man or an animal.
We've always been animals, we're not different enough to warrant a different classification. Chimpanzees can reason as well, so can Octopuses, crows and dolphins. They have abilities that we don't have and vice versa. There are many animals that have risen above simple instincts. There are enough experiments to show that old world monkeys have ethics and morality just like we do (including obvious altruistic behavior).
Also, I feel that the comparison is futile. Focus on developing yourself. Who cares if you think you're better than a macaque. Are you better than who you were 2 years ago? Do you feel your life is better? Are you happier because you invest in yourself and your community. IMO those are the things that matter. Comparing ourselves to animals and then implicitly claim that they have fucked up ethics (since they have no honor) is un-nuanced at best.
You have a brain that is capable of transcending your base animal instincts. I know I struggle with my base animal instincts and try to be a better man.
> I need to pay my bills, so if that's the best I can get then I'll have to take it.
Nothing wrong with that. But then reneging on the agreement is dishonorable. You're not starving.
> Comparing ourselves to animals and then implicitly claim that they have fucked up ethics (since they have no honor) is un-nuanced at best.
I don't fault animals for not having ethics, because they are incapable of having ethics. I don't fault children for not having behaviors that are beyond their abilities. I fault men who behave like animals, because men are capable of better.
BTW, people who work with monkeys have found, through bitter experience, that you cannot trust them. Statisticians have also determined that some apparently "altruistic" behavior in animals are statistically selfish, as in propagating their genes.
Dishonest people only miss out on opportunities when theyre identified as being dishonest. That's besides the point though, OP was talking about employing this approach only when the opposition is being dishonest. He may lead a completely honest life in the rest of his pursuits. I think thats a savvy way to live
I've had many people take advantage of my initial trust in their honor. It's been expensive.
But when they return my trust, it's been very good. For me, the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. My dad lived it, and he never ever broke a promise to me, or to anyone else I know of. It's the way I want to be. It's the way my friends are, too.
I sincerely don't understand the idea of people working more than what they are paid for. If my capabilities are worth 10k/month and you only pay me 5k/month (state of the economy, CoL adjustment, being a scrappy startup, whatever the reason), you will get half of my capabilities and I will spend the other 4 hours doing/thinking about something else or just online browsing HN.
Not trying to be snarky, but people that know that are underpaid and still give the companies 'their best', what is the rationale?
- There is always an age bias. Younger==cheaper in every single HR department in the world, but tech experience (and output) often increments faster than age.
- Someone who’s spent a couple of years not coding because they decided to try management or consulting will get passed over because interviewers don’t really expect them to want to code anymore. Never mind if they actually consulted for and designed systems that are currently running in the Fortune 500.
- Timezones and “meeting quorums” are very tightly aligned in some hiring manager’s minds. If someone can’t make half the meetings because they’re offset four hours, managers get antsy.
- US/non-US is still a massive chasm. The first question I got from every FAANG interviewer was “when do you think you can relocate?”. And the pay differential is atrocious.
Remote helps a bit, but the age bias will get to us all.