I once hired a guy who had no experience, but seemed like a good culture fit for our company and seemed very interested in learning.
We interviewed him and made e-mail communication a large part of the interview, because it is a critical part of our business. And his communication was great!
After hiring, a recurring problem we had was his e-mail to us and to customers were terrible. Bad grammar, bad spelling, uncorrected typos... It got so bad that we had to have someone review all e-mails he sent to customers.
We had regular "improvement plan" meetings with him, but after a year of paying him, we had to let him go. As part of the exit interview we went back and looked at his interview e-mails, and compared them with his current e-mails. So we asked him:
"During the interview, all your e-mails were great! Why was that?"
I recently went through a round of interviews for a job where strong communication skills are vital. One interview was just me responding to simulated emails in a shared google doc so the interviewer could see me work through the responses. In addition to witnessing my real time edits, I guess they also had the benefit of a higher level of confidence that the product was my actual work effort.
Dear lord, that sounds horrible. I understand the reasoning, but corresponding with people — especially in formal settings — makes me anxious, and I end up composing and re-composing (and sometimes re-re-composing) a lot of my messages. The end result isn't bad, but if I were being watched and graded in real time I'm pretty sure I'd fail.
This is commonly referred to as Yerkes-Dodson Law [1]. This is typically where one's performance, whilst performing a task and being watched while doing said task, will result in decreased output compared to if the individual was not being watched at all.
Crafting a message well is important but more often, fast writing and decision making skills are more important. Why do you think so many professors and managers write extremely short, almost informal sounding replies. If you're an excellent writer who takes 20 minutes typing up a single email and then need another 20 minutes to destress because emails in formal settings make you anxious then you probably aren't a good fit for that type of job.
> Why do you think so many professors and managers write extremely short, almost informal sounding replies.
Because they're positioned with higher status in a hierarchy?
If a student makes a mistake, the professor merely points out the mistake.
If a professor makes a mistake, a student will at least be uncertain whether a mistake was made, and will have to go to much greater length to point out the mistake.
Exactly. I have a friend who was a directional drill operator, and then moved to white collar work, and was super slow with writing letters. I think it was a him problem more than a blue collar work problem though.
It might be the fact that people are monitoring how the sausage is made with the explicit purpose of judging that process.
But when working with people in the normal job, nobody is watching them type they just eat the sausage.
I can relate. I don’t have anxiety generally with work and have been praised on my interactions with customers. But I feel anxious during interviews because they are actively trying to judge me.
It's my opinion that interview anxiety is almost entirely unrelated to: how well someone works with a team; how well someone handles an emergency; and how well someone can related to and work with clients. Source: I've been repeatedly told, over decades, that I'm good or great at all those things—and I enjoy all of those things, for the most part, even when they're tough—but interviews make me anxious as fuck and I hate them (though I'm actually good at the talking parts—I just tend to lock up when someone is watching me work and judging me). It's a totally different thing.
I don't know about the GP, but if I interviewed you I would see that as a strong point in favour of you. It sounds like you proof read your emails and edit the things that aren't well composed. It's hard to find people who do that.
Then again, maybe I'm biased because I write the same sentence multiple times in quick succession. And I go back and re-write previous sentences if they don't flow well with what's coming next. But when people have watched me do it, they have only expressed wonder and admiration over it, never negative feelings.
What doesn't work is when someone starts verbally editing my first draft the instant I've typed it out. Yes, I know it's bad -- it's the first draft. I just needed to get something on the page to see where I should go next.
Or to find a position in which such performance is not required.
Adaptation only goes so far. More training won't turn a dwarf into a basketball centre, or a heavyweight bodybuilder into a champion marathoner. Sometimes you've got to work with what you have, both in terms of abilities and limitations.
Intellectual and psychological limitations may be less manifestly visible but are no less real.
Performance anxiety goes away with repetition. I have plenty of personal experience with that and so do many others I know. This is not a special skill. You don't have to be a champion. You just get used to doing the performance and the anxiety goes away.
Just like if you're nervous about driving on the freeway, or flying in an airplane.
Heck, I remember buying my first phone answering machine. I froze up repeatedly trying to record the message. After a while, that problem went away.
If you're in your 20s and experiencing this, perhaps.
If you're in your 50s and it's still a constant problem, quite possibly not.
Again, people aren't infinitely malleable, and don't all fit in standard packages.
Even seasoned stage performers often face crippling anxiety before performances late in their careers. Others take their own lives, often at a young age. Dick Cavett is among those who've suffered crippling depression and taken extended leaves due to it.
Only if your anxiety is reasonable in the first place and your emotional regulation is normal.
I've been driving more than 20 years and almost none of the anxiety I experience because of it ever went away. If I know the roads already it's a little better, but every single day I have to power through the anxiety to get to where I need to be going. It doesn't get better.
Hotels give me anxiety even though I actually lived in a hotel for six months.
My husband developed anxiety later in life doing things he has done for years.
What you're talking about is just normal human emotions, when people refer to "performance anxiety" they are usually referring to an anxiety disorder. Crippling anxiety that doesn't spontaneously resolve.
I would take the coding on a white board instead of answering fake mails to be honest. But the job doesn't sound too attractive if correspondence is mostly with customers. Internal mails are way more informal and quicker to write.
Yeah, it's a super relevant skill and something that doesn't go away (for me) in the interviewing environment (the way technical skills sometimes can).
Depends on how they’re grading. If they’re just grading on final output plus looking at the work process for authenticity you’d be fine. But a lot of people would probably needlessly grade on process.
My guess is that they're looking to see if you complete it in a reasonable time period, your initial draft is at least in the right ballpark (anyone experienced in tech support, team supervisorship, project management, etc can answer common emails almost by reflex) and it appears to be you, and not someone helping you.
I would imagine that, if anything, seeing you pause after an initial draft, adjust some grammar and tone, pause...even re-write a sentence or paragraph - and then say "done"...would impress, not detract.
Reminds me of my gripe with interviews and tests, they neglect the reality of rapid corrective and evolutionary iteration towards the desired outcome by each employee.
Do we really have no way of evaluating candidates more holistically for an accurate signal?
they neglect the reality of rapid corrective and
evolutionary iteration towards the desired outcome
by each employee
I've been in the industry for 20+ years and have done my fair share of live coding interviews.
Some of them were horrible. There was one where I had to code on a literal whiteboard while a pair of, uh, let's just call them "people with distinctly non-wonderful personalities" critiqued everything. I did horribly.
I've also had many that went well. There was a live coding environment, and they allowed for exactly what you said - correction and iteration. They also collaborated with me to an extent. I felt these sorts of interviews were excellent and I did well. They also gave me a great feeling of what it would be like to work with these folks.
It's perhaps also worth noting that I began a lot of these by saying, "These sorts of interviews make me nervous, but I'll give it my best!" or something similar. And you know what, a good interviewer knows and understands that. They know these kinds of interviews make 99% of the population nervous. So acknowledging that fact helped me to feel at ease.
> I've also had many that went well. There was a live coding environment, and they allowed for exactly what you said - correction and iteration. They also collaborated with me to an extent. I felt these sorts of interviews were excellent and I did well. They also gave me a great feeling of what it would be like to work with these folks.
My best interview experiences were like this. I thought I did well and left those interviews feeling great, positive reinforcement, great performance of code, plenty of time left over! Just for a faceless and ambiguous rejection letter :) I started getting an aggregate view that people just didn't want to pay me that much, or that there's some external factor on a search engine or within the industry about me that I'll never be aware of, but I landed on my feet on the entrepreneurial side.
Did all of your positive interviews result in rejections?
Some of mine did. That always hurt. But, I mean...
1. A lot of companies follow the "it's better to turn away 10 qualified hires than to make one bad hire" adage
2. Even when I know I'm 100% qualified and would be a good fit, that might be true for 10 other candidates as well so I expect a 90% rejection rate even when things go well.
3. Even when I know I'm 100% qualified and would be a good fit, some other candidate might have some specific domain knowledge (maybe it's fintech, and they've worked in fintech before and I haven't) and it might be a tiebreaker in their favor
4. Even when I know I'm 100% qualified and would be a good fit, some other candidate might have some specific tool/framework/language I don't. If I have experience with 50 tech buzzwords, and so does the other candidate, but 27 of mine overlap with the company's requirements and 29 of theirs do, then that might be a tiebreaker in their favor.
Anyway, being an entrepreneur is better anyway. I'm glad you found success. I miss running my own show. Every day.
Right I’m aware there were potentially other reasons like what the very first chapter in all the tech career handbooks say, as you wrote, and they all concluded that I was wasting my time on a broken process, while surrounded by people bragging about the multiple offers they are able to line up in the same time frame somehow. Well good for them.
I was getting the short straw so I unsubscribed, good for me that was an option at all.
I feel like the process is broken in a looooooooooot of ways, but I can't feel that a low % of job offers relative to the # of interviews is necessarily a sign of brokenness?
For most software development jobs, I feel that collaboration is important and those sorts of interviews, when done well, are probably one of the least-terrible ways to get a feel for it.
Of course, there are also plenty of cases when this sort of interview is not ideal. Not all development jobs require collaboration. And there are brilliant developers who just don't interview well. Etc.
In the end, though, you won. Entrepreneurship is tough but ultimately I love it more than working for others. It's your life, why work for others if you can help it?
Apparently my coworkers interviewed someone a while back who got pretty far into the onsite interview panel before they realized the candidate was not the same person typing out the code they were seeing on CodeBunk...
As far as I know, someone noticed something fishy and told the final interviewer their suspicion to be sure. Like the way the candidate would only explain stuff after it was written. If you're on a video call and observant, I think you could tell if the typing didn't sync up with what you saw. I imagine it might be hard to notice at first, but if someone suspects it I would think a skilled interviewer could throw a few wrenches in their plan to see how the respond.
This is why we can't have nice things. Or in other words, why we must usually do a coding test per company we apply for, and not just 'point them at the Github'.
The actual best developers mostly have little or nothing to point to on GitHub. You might find this shocking but many of them don't even know how to use Git at all.
This is ridiculous. It might be true that there are many great developers that have nothing on github but it is certinaly not true that "actual best developers have little or nothing to point to on github".
There are plenty of "actual best developers" who have prolific amounts of stuff on github, directly or indirectly.
>> The actual best developers mostly have little or nothing to point to on GitHub. You might find this shocking but many of them don't even know how to use Git at all.
It all goes in circles. As soon as Github (GIT in general) becomes adopted by the majority of enterprise (already happened probably) we are gonna see something else which is "cool". Something else, smaller, simpler, cooler gonna attract the next wave of programmers. I am sure there is a great space for innovation.
Game industry would be one source. At least for many teams and projects, Git isn't very useful (horrible for large binary files common in AAA games). So many companies still use Perforce or sometimes you'll see SVN still. That means a whole bunch of really qualified engineers who have never or rarely used git.
I'm sure there are other industries for which that is true too.
It's a good reminder how small a section of the tech industry comments on Hacker News.
I've encountered this myself as someone who maintains small open source games. Engineers with vastly more experience than I do have approached me with contributions, but needed me to walk them through installing and using git. You could tell they were good engineers because they were so eager and happy to learn it. I can't speak for how big of a demographic these types of engineers are but they certainly exist.
I started at the end of this era, working on a monitoring team that supported mainframes, network and data center systems. My second week on the job, my delivery of books arrived. About 30 linear feet of documentation. Iirc, it was part of our ELA.
I kept a couple of the references that I spent a lot of time in, along with my Perl books. Good times.
I am willing to wager in a broad sense, that the best COBOL, Fortran, and RPG, that "Old people who manage legacy systems" is probably a fair estimate, and there is probably narrow overlap between developers for those languages and git experience.
There are lots of younger folks who fall into supporting these platforms through experience, but I would also wager that the number of fresh, doe eyed engineers graduating from uni/college thinking "I am going to be the best COBOL programmer!" can probably be counted on one hand :P
I encountered such a person. Her parents were both mainframe nerds and she was a true believer. I think the shock of working as a 23 year old in a group of geezers that had been fighting each other since 1975 was traumatic.
We stole her and she was a pretty awesome DBA last I knew.
These "best developers" should really start learning to use Git (and these other newfangled technologies) or else in 10 years they'll be blaming age discrimination when they can't land their next job.
I can believe they don't have an extensive GitHub... but if they can't use Git they must have either only had a few jobs that all used something else(That's fine, just uncommon), or be in a specialist industry that doesn't use Git(Also not common), or they don't know VCS at all.
Plenty of companies use source control other than git. AAA gaming studios are famous for not using git due to git's poor handling of large binary assets w/o workarounds.
I've used other source control systems and they do have benefits over Git to be sure. Access control is a huge one, you can have a large repository and have fine grained access control over who can access what paths in the repository. Heck with some source control systems this access control may even integrate with Active Directory, so there is only 1 account to maintain!
The way to do that with git is to have a lot of tiny repos, with all the advantages and disadvantages that brings.
Don't get me wrong, git's ability to easily branch is huge. I am totally over working in source control systems that required an admin to approve creating a branch, or where merging branches was a huge deal that could take a very long time to do, but git isn't the end all be all of source control systems, and there are certainly features from other systems that I miss when using git.
Game dev always seemed like a highly specialized thing to me. Performance critical, uses real math, lots of local instead of just server work, art assets...
I'm not saying everyone uses git, but it seems like there's probably not many people who have never had to learn it.
Especially when "knowing git" often means memorizing about 8 commands total if you're not on really big team.
When I pushed for a transition from no VCS at all to git, we couldn't use branches at first for fear that someone would need to access something and not be able to, if someone who actually knew git wasn't around.
Maybe their idea of "Can't use git" means "Can't use it well?"
I mean, a lot (most?) of the largest companies in software don't use it primarily. That being said, I agree that "knowing" git enough to for daily use is picked up very quickly. Your day to day usage of git is I'd say, medium complexity for source control. I've used tools where even cloning the repo could be a hassle, and there were nearly as many footguns as git, without reflog to recover.
Regarding large binary assets, I literally Googled "git large binary assets" and had many hits with various solutions. GitHub started offering Git LFS (Large File Storage) in 2015 -- more than 6 years ago. That said, many places still use Perforce.
It's newish (yes, 6 years is newish for projects that don't have a lot more hours, direction, and dedicated drive behind them than git-lfs seems to) and janky or unintuitive in some cases and adds another obtuse nerdy thing for e.g. artists to figure out (or be supported through) and requires extra software and server config to self-host (most of which is, uh, not as complete as one might hope) and makes backups less dead-simple than plain git and has nothing like an official server-side implementation (last I checked GH's "don't use this for production" implementation was the closest thing) and can make any kind of automation or extra tooling used with git a real pain since much of it's not lfs-aware, including some built-in git commands in certain situations (git-archive against a bare repo, for instance, which can be a super handy command in many situations).
Overall, I like it and have promoted its use and stand by that, but not every place has the time or inclination to screw around with it when they can just pay for something that solves the problem (likely Perforce).
While we're at it, git in general would be one fuck of a lot easier to support for cross-platform users and in tooling for complex projects if libgit2 caught up and took over as the official implementation. The pile-of-binaries-and-shell-and-god-knows-what-else (all living on top of a hacky, huge bundle of junk, on Windows) official Git itself is a huge impediment to doing anything with git other than just executing "git [command]" in Unixy environments. It'd also make "build my own GitHub" type projects far more tractable, cutting out some of GitHub's (and GitLab, et c.) server-side moat.
LFS is a pain, right now, even 6 years in, if you don't tie yourself to a major commercial Git host or put in a lot more effort than traditional self-hosting git requires. To reiterate: I still like and advocate it, circumstances allowing, but it definitely is not a mature solution.
I also think a lot of people in this thread don't understand that large companies don't want everyone having even read access to the entire repo.
Using a system like perforce, artists can drop files in the assets part of the repo, translators can have access to script files, and coders can have access to the parts of the code that they are working on.
Source code licenses are still a thing, where after buying a license only a certain # of people in a company are even allowed to view the licensed source code.
The way this is worked around is a build server exists where some pre-built libraries are pulled from during a developer's local machine build.
While I'm happy to no longer be working in that environment, it is unfortunate that many of the commenters cannot imagine an ecosystem different than their day to day. :/
I have a relative who is severely dyslexic, whose spouse will revise/rewrite/advise on written communication extensively. But they know better than to take a job where written communication is a large, critical part of the work!
I do the same for my husband for tricky communications/yearly reviews/etc. He's perfectly capable of communicating acceptably, but it takes him half an hour to draft something that takes me under 5 minutes and he dreads it so much he'll procrastinate until it HAS to be done.
I'm in the process of studying to transition from engineering into infosec because I have had so much insight into the job by way of helping my husband with tricky communications and I decided that it was something I'd enjoy.
Unfortunately in the past I've been pressured/pushed into sales and/or client side positions because of my communication skills, though. Frankly, its a bit insulting since it means that I've gotten less technical opportunities and mentoring because managers keep trying to point me in the less technical direction.
I just want a job where I can be good at it and not have to be the one responsible for dealing with dramatic clients and extricating the company from sticky situations. Just because I'm good at breaking bad news to clients and dealing with the fallout doesn't mean I enjoy it (does anybody?), and too much of it definitely hits my mental health (anxiety, depression, burnout).
We were a Linux System Administration consultancy. The product wasn't the e-mails, but nearly everything we did for our clients was designed/planned, scheduled, organized, and documented in e-mail. Yes, sometimes we would work on things with the client on the phone, those were usually followed up with an e-mail about what was done.
These e-mails were copied to our internal mailing lists so that they could be peer reviewed and someone else could be cross-trained on it in case the primary wasn't available. Also, every task we did had a one sentence description written up that would be shared with the team, again as a kind of peer review.
Product/Software support. Above the Tier 1 level, at the stage where you're talking with the Dev team directly.
Developers don't want to talk to customers. So you need someone who can understand either the code or the developer's comments, but can then put it in layman's terms.
I didn’t, but I suspect people were hoping for something more substantive. What about it don’t you like? Is there something specific to this thread that relates to your role and reminds you why you hate it?
Your comment did nothing to further the conversation or take it in an interesting direction.
I asked for examples. I replied to that response stating that I'm already DevSecOps. Not sure what else they would be looking for. If they had additional info, maybe they should chime in.
In my team, Duty Managers / Service Delivery Managers / Operations Managers. Communication in every which direction is #1 skillset I look for in the team (as well as being organized, disciplined, eager to learn, sense of ownership).
A lot of the job is talking to technical teams, talking to functional teams, talking to business teams, talking to management and executives; translate, summarize, liaison, co-ordinate, plan and inform. Customize medium, format, length, message for each group to enhance understanding. Develop spidey sense of paranoia against assumptions, misunderstandings.
Well, that disqualifies me. The way most organizations tie your hands means one is given all the responsibility without real authority. I'm completely unmotivated because of that.
Downvoting on HN is fickle; sometimes it's the point that's being made, sometimes it's how it's being made. I think asking "have I meaningfully contributed to conversation" is part of it... but a lot of downvotes comes as emotional response or simple disagreement. You can choose whether to take it seriously and grow/change to satisfy it, or be yourself and take votes in passing.
That being said - sad to hear you are not eager to learn and don't have sense of ownership; you are correct that disqualifies you from some roles (most, in a way, but recruitment process is all sort of obscure and counter-logical).
For what little it may be worth: it mostly comes back to the old proverb of "courage to change things you can, accept things you cannot, wisdom to know the difference, and zen to make peace with it". I try to coach my team members very early on "these are things that are part of organizational machine; satisfy them so you are done with them. These are the things where you can make a difference and where most of your value will be concentrated. Focus on those once you've fed the machine".
I think part of disillusionment, at least it was mine, is the feeling that somebody somewhere, and ideally ourselves, should have all the necessary power. In reality, we all operate within constraints, more or less visible or scrutable.
Ultimately, life is imperfect, professional life included; it's a life's pursuit for most of us on how to grow our own acceptance and peace with it. Sometimes we make that change within ourselves, sometimes we are able to make an external change that aligns more with our priorities.
To add to your point of treating company's money as your own -- "Tracking Money" will help understand a lot of corporate priorities and explain a lot of decisions. --I-- may want to update something because "it's the right thing to do / makes for cleaner code / etc". But the management probably has a reason (good bad or ugly) for their own priorities. Advice I read mid-way through my career is "understand your manager's goals and reasons", and it was so simple and yet so... shocking to so many of us techies. We always expected manager to understand our recommendations and priorities. Hubris! :)
(in Public Sector, "Tracking Money", interestingly, did not work as well; but "Tracking Personal Status/Blame/Credit" worked well. The two should be equivalent but in my limited experience there's differences)
I once was a team lead for an team of outsourced software developers. It was the worst part of my career. The whole outsourced team was awful. Wholly incompetent.
I had the responsibility of delivering a product, but I didn't have the authority to fire these folks who were a net negative on the project. I would have been happier with implementing the whole project myself, which I mostly did.
I too was unmotivated, but the stress of being responsible was unbearable.
Perhaps some people disagree that "most organizations" give responsibility without authority, but I've seen it happen a several times in my career.
Another strain of this is forcing some COTS application to work via a million hacks and integrations (usually via consulting resources) when a fundamental architecture or application change is needed. Responsibility coupled with the resource and authority to execute is stressful in its own way but it at least allows one to more easily own their failures.
That's been my experience. I believe That's a universal truth when it comes to working in groups. You can't do what you think is best. You have to do what the group decides, or what the person in the leadership structure above you says. I'd be very curious to hear about company structures that don't have a top-down leadership/authority scheme.
Edit: Thanks! Looking at internal data analyst roles in my HR dept (weird that they aren't under a technical job code, so I wasn't seeing them before). Maybe I'll apply to one.
I guess this is like when companies try to use correctness and formatting of a resume for proof of attention to detail or communication skills or something like that—but people just pay for professional proofreading and formatting instead.
(it's proof for a certain kind of social and professional awareness, rather, I'd say, which is true for quite a few hiring norms, really, but doesn't mean you can expect a new hire to compose really good documents on the job...)
I do the same for my husband for tricky communications/yearly reviews/etc. He's perfectly capable of communicating acceptably, but it takes him half an hour to draft something that takes me under 5 minutes and he dreads it so much he'll procrastinate until it HAS to be done.
I'm in the process of studying to transition from engineering into infosec because I have had so much insight into the job by way of helping my husband with tricky communications and I decided that it was something I'd enjoy.
Unfortunately in the past I've been pressured/pushed into sales and/or client side positions because of my communication skills, though. Frankly, its a bit insulting since it means that I've gotten less technical opportunities and mentoring because managers keep trying to point me in the less technical direction.
I just want a job where I can be good at it and not have to be the one responsible for dealing with dramatic clients and extricating the company from sticky situations. Just because I'm good at breaking bad news to clients and dealing with the fallout doesn't mean I enjoy it (does anybody?), and too much of it definitely hits my mental health (anxiety, depression, burnout).
There was a place that hired a consultant for a project a friend worked on, and she was... I don't think she could write code at all. Like, had trouble manually inserting fragments into an XML file despite fragments with the same structure already being in the file.
Her productivity skyrocketed at night however, and she generally had working code in the morning, which lead to rumors that her husband or someone in her home country was doing the work (would have been daytime over there). Nobody really complained. She wore a hijab and the company had just hired it’s first “diversity officer” so maybe that’s why. Thankfully they stopped using that vendor not long after.
It sounds like, if that timely manner is at least a day long then she'd get it done reliably. I think the only issue you could possibly see here is one of labour exploitation if she was sending the work off to someone else - it might be that she specifically shouldn't be paid but you as a company would really like to get in touch with whoever is on the other side.
Or it might just be that some people are introverted and crack under pressure whenever the spotlight is on them but, once they have quiet time to themselves, they can really power through problems.
The description of the scenario isn't nearly enough for us to get any grip on what was going on without making some huge assumptions, but the facts that we have are that she tended to really struggle when coordinating with coworkers and that she completed the work expected of her - there could be numerous explanations and the observations from the poster might even be inaccurate.
> and the observations from the poster might even be inaccurate.
It's a story a friend told me a long time ago. I didn’t and couldn’t fact-check it. The husband’s theory came from the fact she apparently mentioned her husband was also a software consultant.
Oddly enough, once a friend of mine was hired to work on a project which one of the selling points was that it was designed and implemented by women.
He was a male and had to sign an NDA to work in the project. Very shady stuff. Maybe the reason your place didn't care about the odd behaviors from the female engineer was because they were well aware about what's happening?
Honestly, I'm mixed. On one hand that's basically false advertising. On the other, I despise external incentives that aim at gender, so anything that hacks this sounds good to me. I'll probably slant to the former though.
I had a friend who's wife worked in tech and even had a patent but she could barely code and could barely make her way through real world, on the job, tech problems. Her husband (my friend who worked in a major tech company) every night helped her do her work and she happily told us about it.
>She wore a hijab and the company had just hired its first “diversity officer” so maybe that’s why
At what point does forced diversity hiring become a perverse incentive, with regards to needing to run a company with qualified individuals regardless of affiliation? (This may be a cynical question, but I'm not trolling. I'm aware that there are tangible benefits to more diversity. What I'm wondering if there's some calculus here at work, such as "try to be diverse unless the diversity results in more than 10% loss of <some metric> because at that point it costs more than the 5% (or whatever) benefit in <some other metric> that diversity provides us")
People say that a lot, and even say it's been researched, but outside of product focus groups, I've never seen the actually research that supports that claim.
I don't believe there is any actual research about it. It doesn't even pass the smell test; why would a company of people who have a hard time relating to one another and socially meshing perform better? If homogeneity in a country increases social trust and other positive factors (it does), why are we trying to create the opposite situation in a company?
My guess is that is it possible to have great diversity of thought and experience while still having high social cohesion.
During the height of immigration in the US, there was high social cohesion within communities of people who came from the same country while still having great diversity of ideas across the nation as a whole.
My personal take on this is that it's the dark side of multiculturalism. The loss of the melting pot as a cultural meme was probably a sign of this. Social cohesion depends on a set of shared values. The "melting pot", for it's issues, provided the shared national myth to align and unify the disparate cultures.
Take that away, and you get the natural result of multiple cultures with drastically different moral codes, and no core to form around.
Interesting point on drastically different moral codes. I'm curious if, during the height of immigration to the US, the "melting pot" tended to consist of people immigrating from areas with mostly similar moral codes.
It appears that many immigrants retained much of their culture while still integrating in ways that let different cultures work together, but maybe that is because the moral foundation was similar enough to allow cohesion as a whole while retaining some sense of cultural identity.
Why would a company choose to do anything that didn't directly make money or cut cost? Companies often have to be compelled to do things where the ROI is measured in decades no?
There are real world examples that support that claim. Aflac always said "We hire everyone because we sell to everyone." Having internal people from different demographic groups helped with things like cultural sensitivity.
But I imagine that is only true if it's done right and probably just setting some kind of quota to hire more of X type demographic is not it.
Yeah sure, but that's the "product focus group" example. I've never seen any research that supports this claim for engineering groups, or accounting groups, or even HR itself.
I've seen various "innovation" studies that show more diverse teams come up with more ideas and are more productive, but less diverse teams think they are more productive. A quick internet search turns up https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2019/09/09... for example.
For software, for example, there are plenty of characteristics that some engineers may think are constant that are definitely not. For example, the number of systems I've encountered that have baked in the idea that first/last name can not be changed (even though names are changed by not only trans people, but also any married woman in many cultures), or assumed people only had 2-3 names (some cultures as many as 4 last names are common), is long. When the name is used as part of a permanent key for all other data about an individual, fixing the issue can be a huge hassle.
Sure, a product focus group might eventually point these issues out, but no one's changing their name in a short-term focus group study.
Well the other example that came to mind is a criminal one so I opted to skip it. One of the most successful criminal organizations was willing to work with everyone instead of sticking to the historical "The Irish criminals stick together and don't work with anyone else, the Jewish criminals stick together and don't work with anyone else, the Italian criminals stick together...etc"
If you optimize for hiring the best rather than the best of X demographic you should see a higher bar being met. And this is where excluding other demographics potentially harm's outcomes but it's also the same reason just setting a quota probably doesn't improve performance.
How would you measure it for software engineering? Number of bugs? Number of features requested after initial project launch? Time to completion? All of those things have too many variables involved for any given organization. We already have a hard time measuring ability/quality of software engineers as it is.
> Profitability is, of course, necessary to keep any business alive, and studies show that racial, ethnic, and gender diversity contribute to business success. A McKinsey & Company study of 366 companies revealed a statistically significant connection between diversity and financial performance. The companies in the top quartile for gender diversity were 15% more likely to have financial returns that were above their national industry median, and the companies in the top quartile for racial/ethnic diversity were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their national industry median.
Are there any studies demonstrating causality? I can think of plenty of reasons diversity would correlate with success. For example, being based in a large city will have a lot of advantages for many businesses, along with having a more diverse hiring pool available that will naturally lead to a more diverse staff. But this doesn't suggest to me that adding a diversity quota or similar policy, all else being equal, will help a company succeed.
Confounded by the fact that succesful companies are located in growing areas (or move there), which is where immigrants also want to go. E.g. San Francisco.
I want to see this with some serious attempt to reduce the confounding.
Also it doesn't demonstrate cause and effect as stated in the quote. It's perfectly possible in this data that diversity makes companies less successful - but being successful in the first place is what creates the 'slack' that leads to a company pursuing diversity policies. They only go diversity when they can afford the cost incurred.
I can say this as someone with ADHD, neurodiversity specifically allows me to approach problems in radically different manners than my coworkers which sometimes makes things an absolute cake walk for me and sometimes makes them nearly insurmountable. This is a result of my approach to problem solving which has been trained on the problems I've experienced in the past and my natural disposition. I think an entirely homogeneous company would have issues with tunnel vision - they might be excellent at dealing with some issues and absolutely flabbergasted with others... having a more diverse team ensures that you've got more varied experiences to draw on when approaching problems.
Aside from all that, I think that diversity makes teams more healthy to work within - if everyone looks the same (straight white male) you're likely going to have cliquish social assumptions form in your team that will prevent you from hiring an excellent candidate that doesn't happen to fit the mold and might force out people who aren't what they appear: trans men, gay men and asians that appear white. As a company it's important to keep your workplace friendly to all potential employees and having a homogeneous company makes it more likely that a closed off social culture will form that makes life difficult for new employees.
I have never seen any studies to support this but thought I'd add at least a well reasoned opinion.
Anecdotally speaking, it doesn’t seem like it would be hard to find examples of companies doing stupid things that could have been avoided with a more diverse decision-making team.
Apple famously took forever to add a menstrual cycle tracking feature to their Health app, e.g.
Or Google Photo that tagged Black people as gorilla. Clearly, developers must have tested with their own photos (on top of generic datasets) and if they had had more diversity within their dev team, they would have caught that sooner.
I don't know, but it must be horrible not knowing whether you got the job on your own merit, or if you were just hired to tick a box, if a company has some cynical hiring policy.
Mindy Kaling (Kelly Kapoor from The Office) is a famous diversity hire. It's not a theory; their show used a diversity hiring program through NBC, where if you hire a white person, it comes out of your show's budget; but if you hire a minority member, then NBC pays for their salary. So The Office had her on the writing staff basically for free. The catch was the program only paid for one year, so she knew from the first day that she had exactly one year to prove that she was worth the same salary as the other staff. Obviously she did, and was quickly elevated to on-screen talent, and her star just kept climbing.
But knowing she was a diversity hire made her try harder; that sort of thing can be very motivating to a certain type of person.
Well they got a bargain. She's immensely talented. She hates my politics but damn can she write. Her first memoir is one of the funniest things I've ever read
It's interesting because she's asian and yet was was considered "diverse".
There has been this trend of diversity reporting to list Whites and Asians together in stats. Google has been notorious for this [0] and others are following the trend when it seems convenient [1].
> It's interesting because she's asian and yet was was considered "diverse".
Asians are current and historic targets of discrimination. This sometimes gets masked in outcome stats because lots of Asians in the US are themselves or first generation descendants of immigrants through programs which filter for the top end of the socioeconomic, and more particularly recently technical skills, spectrum.
Whatever problems the current system has, it isn't as if the system being replaced ever hired people primarily on "merit."
The beneficiaries of the older system rarely wondered if they were the best candidates for the job, so why should anyone today give it a second thought?
This conversation is referring to a specific phenomenon that has become strongly noticeable in the last 5 years or so.
That problems of nepotism, or cronyism have already existed to some extent, is another conversation.
I also don't know why "merit" is in quotes. Hiring based on merit is going to be the main goal for companies that are not corrupt.
Corruption should also be discouraged e.g. by stopping companies becoming "too big to fail", or by being anti-competitive, or by actually creating legislation that actually protects against discrimination, rather than by perpetuating it.
That corruption exists, is not an argument to ignore corruption in another form.
I know what the conversation is referring to, and my response is in regards to the naiveté demonstrated by responses like yours. The problems of today are different only in particular application, not in motivation or nature.
"Merit" as I understand it—who can best perform the job—has almost never been the primary hiring characteristic. Companies are comprised of people and those people are almost always the ones making the ultimate decisions. In hiring, this means that "merit" almost always means something different or is a secondary consideration behind more personal factors. "Is diverse" doesn't really strike me as inherently more corrupt a trait than "went to the same school I did" or "is a member of the same country club I am," though why it gets a lot more attention is certainly not a mystery.
I don't think the majority of hires at large companies in the past were corrupt. Certainly that hasn't been my experience hiring people at large tech orgs in the present, and the process hasn't changed terribly much really. Given the scarcity of technical ability, we simply can't afford the corruption.
You seem to be discounting the meritocratic process by which people end up graduating from high-ranking schools. Prestigious law firms for instance will only consider graduates from specific institutions, specifically because they act as a filter for talent and ability.
You also seem to be conflating the hiring of people who are culturally similar to corruption. In fact there are many benefits in collaborating in a culturally homogenous environment. Maintaining such an environment in order to reap those benefits has merit too.
I guess it depends on your definition of "corrupt" and where you draw the line between corrupt and not corrupt. Would it be the tech recruiter's fault if there were, for instance, a pipeline problem that sharply limited the diversity of their candidate pool? I don't think so, but that wouldn't change the reality that the pool itself is a reflection of corruption elsewhere in the system. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise when black people and women were effectively excluded from many industries until relatively recently.
The "meritocratic process" is laughable. Legacy admissions have always been a critical component of those systems, especially once wealth was no longer an adequate filter; allowing a few newbies through the sieve in order to conceal the real purpose of the ivies—perpetuation of an elite caste—has been the game for a long time. As universities are pressured from the left (getting rid of standardized testing) and right (getting rid of any sort of racial consideration in admissions), legacy will only become more important as an attribute. That a few people beat the odds doesn't at all imply that the system is fair or that that solution is scalable.
"Culture fit" is realistically both important and historically has been a really problematic thing to conflate with or consider alongside "merit." It is a tough problem and I don't have a great answer to it.
I would define "corrupt" as hindering the profitability or stated objectives of the organization[1]. If a team hired to get the job done happens not to be diverse, that doesn't mean the hiring is corrupt. For instance, winning NBA teams don't tend to be very diverse, but I don't see anyone seriously suggesting the NBA draft is corrupt.
By that token, if your company tends to hire a certain sort of person, that is by no means an indication of corruption. I certainly don't see what's inherently corrupt about submitting a job application, going through interviews, and ultimately being hired, mostly by strangers.
When you say you want the solution to be "fair", what do you mean exactly? If a Chinese restaurant staffed entirely by Chinese people hires only additional Chinese people, with the intent of maintaining the efficiency of a culturally homogenous environment, is it fair? Does it matter? It certainly isn't corrupt. Doesn't this apply to every business and any culturally discriminatory hiring criteria?
Even granting that the current admissions truly are need-blind (which I think it is reasonable to dispute), the smallest Ivy endowment is still over $4 billion. We’re not talking about a state university using full freight foreign students to subsidize in-state students because they have no other choice.
There’s no reason sticker price tuition at Brown needs to be almost $60k a year, and it is scandalous that Harvard, Princeton, and Yale charge tuition at all.
> I know what the conversation is referring to, and my response is in regards to the naiveté demonstrated by responses like yours
Please read some autobiographies of people from diverse backgrounds trying to break into atypical careers, the topic of imposter syndrome and anxieties about wanting to be taken on one's own merits regularly features.
I don't disagree, but my point was that they shouldn't. Clarence Thomas famously wrote about believing that his own success was tainted by affirmative action, and later he was indeed appointed to the Supreme Court primarily because he was a black conservative. That doesn't mean he was unqualified or less fit for the court than previous appointees, no matter what his own insecurities were, and it also doesn't mean that he or our society would have somehow been better served by Clarence Thomas not being given any of the opportunities affirmative action programs may have afforded him.
The deeper problem is that there isn't really a solution here. The old system wasn't neutral and instead actively discriminated against huge swathes of the population. That the beneficiaries of that system never doubted their worthiness doesn't make the old system better, and any change that impacts them will suffer from the same aspersions about a lack of "merit" that we are seeing now.
This mostly tongue-in-cheek carve out was for the fortunately stalled initiatives for outsourcing these decisions to AI tools, but to me it also applies to filters that are blindly applied and never reviewed.
If 100 applicants are rejected for byzantine/opaque reasons without ever being reviewed by a person, I think it is not unreasonable to characterize those exclusions as decisions not being made by the people in the company. Of course, someone in the company did decide to implement and use the filter, so I wouldn't argue the point very strongly.
What's interesting is that in average, Black people (and many other group) get paid less than their counterpart for the same job. Same for men vs women.
Isn't that nice to be paid above your ability? But somehow, that isn't a problem for you?
> What's interesting is that in average, Black people (and many other group) get paid less than their counterpart for the same job. Same for men vs women. Isn't that nice to be paid above your ability?
Is it actually same ability though? IIRC the men vs women difference disappears once you control for hours worked, for example.
The only tangible benefit I've ever heard of was qualifying for contracts with diversity quotas.
Similar for setting up 49% subsidiaries where the wife (wives) of the owners collectively own 51%, to qualify for minority ownership for fed govt contracts.
> First that person needs to have basic competencies for their job, before involving someone else.
This is 100% wrong. Fake it till you make it.
You need a mentor I'd say. Or watch some Youtube on career advice.
For instance, you don't know if you have the basic competencies. You will both underestimate yourself and overestimate the job.
OP's person lasted a whole year with pay. They got vital experience and left on ok terms. They were however let go, not perfect, they should have moved on first, but that's a lesson learned. It was a win in their life.
Everyone is faking it. This is an important life lesson. It's called Imposter Syndrome. Almost everyone is an Imposter, very few people are competent at their jobs.
This why I've had to deal with very regressive HR on-boarding processes. I'm sick of companies treating new employees like their data doesn't matter and they can be required to sign up to any service no matter what the ToS is like.
That sounds to me like it would meet the legal definition of fraud. A lawsuit to recuperate the wages and damage to the business might even be worth looking into.
> A lawsuit to recuperate the wages and damage to the business might even be worth looking into.
No, probably not. Speak to any business owner who has been in a lawsuit and they'll likely tell you it's not worth the headache. A close relative told me that even if a customer straight up won't pay for a done job, he'd rather forgo the payment then deal with a lawsuit.
Lawsuits usually have:
1) monetary costs - those lawyers are very expensive
2) emotional costs - take a big mental toll to deal with
3) reputational costs - it goes in the public record. Next time a potential candidate googles your company, it might show up that you sued a former employee. Hopefully they read further to see if you were justified in doing so....
4) opportunity costs - you (hopefully) have better things to do with your time
If you are big enough, maybe you have a legal team to deal with this stuff. But even then, you have to choose your battles. A hired lawyer is still expensive and it's not worth going after small battles, even the ones you know you will win.
Also, as others have mentioned, it's not unreasonable to have a friend or relative look over your email communications during your interview process unless you were explicitly asked not to do so. In fact, it's a smart idea!
I had a client once who refused to pay for one particular day of working. They paid everything else, but not that particular day, which was odd. (It may have been a day I worked from home and didn't push any commits, so maybe that was the reason.)
I think it was about € 600. I spoke to a lawyer, may have written a letter threatening a lawsuit even, but the lawyer explained that it just wasn't enough to actually start a lawsuit over. Even if you win, lawsuits take a lot of time and energy. I just dropped it. And them, obviously.
A different case from the opposite side:
I'm currently looking at a disagreement with my previous phone provider. They charged me too much over the past year. I called them about it, and they wanted me to prove we agreed on the monthly fees I claimed, and not the ones they claim. But they can't claim we agreed on their fees, so I just stopped paying and switched to a different (better and cheaper) phone provider (which I should have done a long time ago anyway). They're threatening to cut my phone which already isn't with them. They want money from me, but yesterday I wrote them a letter explaining they actually owe me money.
I expect this will go away. They may register me somewhere as a bad-payer, but there's an appeal process that I expect will side with me, because the phone company can't prove a thing.
The Ford dealership quoted me wrong on a trade-in payoff and later tried to get me to pay it ($1000). Letter in the trash. Next one came on a law firm's letterhead quoting a bunch of stuff about a contract. In the trash.
More extreme one -- my auto loan provider accidentally double-charged my bank account for the amount of my car loan payoff (it didn't bounce, either). They instructed me to go through my bank to get the second charge refunded as fraudulent (which I was able to do and I was refunded and happy within 4 days), but then on their end they also sent me a refund check for some reason. When I received the check I gave my auto loan provider a call and they told me they were sorry there is nothing they could do and I would have to cash it, so I gladly got the remaining $6k of my car paid off for free by their own human error. I already had the certificate from them showing the car was paid off and the account was fully closed at this point. One year later and it's still fully paid off on my credit report. They gave me free money. The error on their part was their system had no way of handling "what if our charges are reported as fraud and get yanked back". Well, that and sending out a check after the fact.
It makes me wonder at what $ amount they would have begun to care about their error and tried to correct it.
There are laws against employer retaliation. If that employer never asked him prior and he never lied, what crime was committed? The employer failed to do their due diligence. As others have said, it's VERY common to request assistance in drafting resumes/emails/letters when pursuing employment.
Several kinds and several counts of felonious fraud, all prosecutable, just for starters. If they signed their employment contract, which they most certainly did, that's perjury. If it was mailed back to the employer, that's mail fraud, a felony; if emailed, that's wire fraud. Position was remote, but if they ever entered the office, then as many counts of trespassing, at least, unless they took lunch and returned, which would double the number of counts. If they logged into anything, such as VPN, or Office 365, etc., each instance a separate count of computer fraud. The felonies here stack up high and rapidly. I'm not sure why you'd believe any mistakes made by the employer could possibly have any affect on the prosecutability of this and other similar criminals committing similar crimes.
Writing your own emails or resume isn't required or expected. Some people have assistants that do a lot of work by proxy of you. Its just very awkward that it becomes noticeable in a negative manner in the workplace.
Resume preparation services are common and easy to find, and though I've never used such services I am sure many people do and I would not view it as unethical as long as the resume accurately summarized experience and qualifications.
I've been a hiring manager for remote positions for a long time. If your recruiting channels are good, most of your candidates are going to be honest and good intentioned.
But interview enough people, and you'll start encountering people trying to abuse remote work. They're not interested in contributing to your company. They're only interested in collecting paychecks while they do as little work as possible for as long as possible. They might already have a full-time job or other remote jobs, or maybe they're just trying to travel the world and do a "four hour workweek" thing where they answer e-mails once a day and phone in a couple hours of work at key times during the week.
The common theme is that they aren't really interested in fighting too hard for the position. As soon as the interview or job turns out to be something they can't just talk and smile their way through, they're out, just like this:
> I think my last update for a while: as soon as HR got on the call with him, before they could get through their first question, John said the words “I quit” and hung up the calls. He has since been unreachable!!
Always makes me wonder how many dysfunctional companies are out there letting deadbeat remote employees collect paychecks and do as little work as possible because nobody cares enough to press the issue.
> Always makes me wonder how many dysfunctional companies are out there letting deadbeat remote employees collect paychecks and do as little work as possible because nobody cares enough to press the issue.
I'll take a stab at it, and predict... all of them. Or nearly so. There seems to be an ever-present fraction of employees at any large corporation that are essentially worthless. Just along for the ride, raking in a paycheck while someone else does the meaningful work.
We've had stories here on HN about people exploiting it. There's a moment, I think, in many developers' careers where it occurs to them that there is almost never any reward for hard work. And when you're a wage slave for a large corporation, it's easy to blur the morality until it feels okay to take advantage of the situation.
When I find myself starting to think such thoughts, I know that it's time for me to move on to another opportunity. And a smaller company, even though it pays less, because it's better for your soul.
From my experience once you have ~1,000 employees AND a complicated org chart/raci/etc then it’s fairly easy for people to do little work and hide. In smaller orgs too many people see you, and in orgs that are running efficiently if you don’t do your job it causes issues.
Tons of people hiding at oracle from my experience :)
I used to work for a government organisation and it was the same. Once I got disillusioned with what I was doing I would put in bare minimum effort which was, show up for standup every day, filibuster a bit then checkout. I was still one of the highest out-putters in the department.
I just quit a vaguely similar kind of environment because there's always a few internal wars and suddenly people invent shit about who is the reason nothing happens and spread lies to save their ass.
And then there's turnover. People might just never get to know those people. Some may proactively avoid contacts through various means so nobody steps into their office only to realize nothing happens.
I'll do you one better. My friends from a team I used to be in had a guy who simply didn't know how to code. My friend would at times act as a ghostwriter(for free) so that the poor bastard wouldn't get fired.
Management often spends so little time with you that the difference between them perceiving lots of work and little work comes down to what you say in your daily standup.
To me it’s about 4 hours a day. There’s no deceit in this. What I tell them I’m working on is what I’m working on, what I’ve declared as ‘finished’ is factually ‘finished’.
To the company, I’m still contributing the things I agreed to, responsive to the people who come to me for help (as a senior) and on track with the projects assigned to me.
When the wall comes and I just cannot will myself to stare at the same problem anymore, that’s it for the day. Sometimes that takes longer than others, sometimes it’s 5 hours instead of four. Sometimes it’s a whole 8 hour day.
So..matter of perspective, I guess. The agency and autonomy are nice, though. Some people want a shorter work day given. I’ve just decided to take it.
> To me it’s about 4 hours a day. There’s no deceit in this. What I tell them I’m working on is what I’m working on, what I’ve declared as ‘finished’ is factually ‘finished’.
I've come to realize this isn't always a mistake on management's part. I work at a company where developers use the full day to get tasks done because there is so much on our road map. There is absolutely no slack, when something new comes up, something else needs to drop.
We are hiring, but now I spend some of my time training them. I've seen friends work for companies that keep some % of their experienced developers time idle so those devs tackle issues that might pop up.
The fundamental problem is that the bar for "get hired" is higher than the bar for "get fired." Invariably, this means some people will sink to the minimum just shy of the latter.
People bitch about stack ranking, and it is terrible for moral and politics, but it solves exactly this problem.
Because there isn't enough manager gumption & attention time to address this systematically, manually.
It's as if the Robin Hood mentality met with Jack Sparrow: take what you can and give nothing back. However, they aren't interested in the well-being of the company because they have more important places to put their effort and dime, such as hobbies or their family. It's an aversion to doing 50% more work for a 15% raise.
Or sometime you gave up on the organization being able to provide a meaningful workflow.. that’s usually when I switch job because it depress me to fake it too much and fuck around all day on a computer while not being actually free to do whatever I want.
It’s fine for few months while looking for something else and trying to let management know that you have no backlog.
As long as it pays more to half-ass your current job and take on a second, then people will prefer doing that. 100% effort is rewarded correctly almost nowhere.
In the software industry it should be pretty easy to track tickets someone is working on and compare that to how long similar tickets are completed by coworkers.
With low level coding cogs that might be somewhat feasible, if you have enough of them. But there are a few things that I've seen which get in the way of that kind of metric.
1. Story pointing is not granular enough, i.e. one 2-point story is not necessarily the same as the next one. Freeloaders pick off the easy ones and pace themselves to keep their 'productivity' in the acceptable range.
2. I've seen a lot of teams, especially smaller ones, evolve into a situation where each member has an area they specialize in. Then stories start getting preassigned to them. Hard to compare two coders not pulling from the same pool of work.
3. As an IC becomes more senior, a larger fraction of their work happens outside of stories, and becomes more difficult to quantify. Some of the most effective freeloaders I've witnessed were mid/senior devs who could crank out a typical story very fast and craft plausible explanations for where the rest of their time went.
I'll present an alternate case, mine. I'm in a senior IC role sitting in India making almost 1/4th of what my US Counterpart makes. I work as much as them if not more. We as Indians are always taught to be sincere and obedient and I try to show that in my work trying to stay up finish the work so that my sincerity is never questioned. I'm always on the side to prove my quality - even though I'm highly underpaid for the same work.
Overall, I'm someone who needs to prove everytime that I'm sincere and I'm intellectual while I'm known only for being a cheap resource.
Your criticism is fair. However "obedient" isn't always what an engineering organization needs. Many times, I wish that our Indian contract workers, would speak out when they see something wrong, about process, quality, or business requests. I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing or what, but it seems they are more hesitant to speak out. It has been my anecdotal observation that our US-born hires are way quicker to say something to management if they feel something is wrong.
Absolutely. There's some cultural aspect that doesn't always work well in an engineering environment. Almost 3 years ago I had to hire 4 new team members, and two had to be from TCS. At some point in the process, I was happy to just find someone who was able to say "I don't know" to a question. Several tried to bullshit their way through by answering a completely different question than what I asked.
Eventually I found two. One of them was a really solid hire. Backbone of the team. Still not as vocal as any of the non-TCS devs (one of whom was also Indian, but very vocal about his opinion), but he got stuff done and did it well.
I've seen when an Indian team (doesn't matter though, could be from any other country) was hired with one reason - to shift the blame as the project was going to shits. Also if you are on a sponsored visa, you gonna stay quiet no matter what's happening - your interest is somewhat to stay afloat, not to seek truth or revenge.
Read "Speaking of India" by Storti. It really helped me understand a lot of the strangeness I also observed working with India-born coworkers and contractors.
> Apparently the obvious and easy solution here is to only get US-born hires. So why don't you?
This seems to be an unnecessarily aggressive take on it.
If I (an American) were working for an Indian company, I would plan to learn and understand what the culture is like in Indian companies, and then do my best to conform to that. If I didn't believe I'd feel comfortable in that environment, then I wouldn't take the job. I would expect an Indian working at an American company to do the same.
I get that it can be difficult, and that some of these cultural things aren't just company culture, but are deeply ingrained, real cultural differences between people of different backgrounds.
Having said all that, I do think a US manager who hires reports from India (or from any other country with a different culture than the US) should be aware of what cultural differences exist, and try to meet their employees in the middle as much as they can.
I do agree with the grandparent, though, that I don't want to work with people who are "obedient", at least in the way I'm guessing the great-grandparent meant (perhaps I'm inferring the meaning incorrectly, though). I agree that I want people who won't just do what management says, and will instead apply critical thinking to the work they get assigned, and question things that don't make sense.
I remember reading about a team (I think in Japan) which had a "brash foreigner." If someone noticed something, they'd mention it to the foreigner, who would bring it up with higher ups. Everybody won. Problems got fixed, the foreigner was safe because they "didn't know better," and their coworkers felt safe.
FYI, if you want that job and don't happen to be in Japan, this is exactly what consultants are hired for in many cases: To be a blunt voice of reason in an environment which isn't able to listen to itself.
I've many times been hired in companies to say things employees didn't have the political clout to say out loud. If anything goes wrong, or someone isn't happy, I'm the fall guy.
A large part of the justification of using outsourced workers is that they live in an area with a lower cost of living than the company's headquarters, so they can be paid less while still having a good quality of life.
So comparing your salary to American workers doesn't really say anything about whether or not you're "underpaid", but it's how your salary compares to others in your area. If you just want to earn more money, you could move to the USA, but there's a cost associated with that (even ignoring the difficulty in getting a work visa) and you may find that your "1/4 salary" is worth more at home that it is in the USA.|
There are certainly a lot of employees that have moved away from the SF Bay Area to take a job in an area with a lower cost of living and even though they make significiantly less money, they still have a better quality of life (in particular, they can afford a house)
I learned exactly thanks to this that the concept of "fairness" doesn't exist when discussing salaries, and it's all up to the market which is moral-less:
If two people are doing the same job and giving the company $X profit, it's only fair that they are being paid the same regardless of where they live. Think optimizing a marketing campaign that changes monthly revenue from $10M to $30M, both people should be compensated similarly since they are bringing the same profit to the company.
But also if two people are doing the same job, it's fair they are compensated the same amount of $, regardless of whether one produces $X and another $Y depending on the company situation or their cost of living. Think optimizing the same program to run in 0.1s instead of 1s, assuming everything is the same, for Google that's worth millions but for your neighbor it's worth hundreds of $, but both are gonna pay you 10h * your hourly rate.
Those two examples are vastly incompatible; companies will of course insist that they pay you based on your expenses, while workers based on how they help the company, but in the end there's a contradiction, and since they cannot both be right they must both be wrong. The "right" solution is that they'll pay you based on the market, how much they think you are worth, your experience, your negotiating abilities, etc.
> A large part of the justification of using outsourced workers is that they live in an area with a lower cost of living than the company's headquarters, so they can be paid less while still having a good quality of life.
Maybe a good quality of life compared to other people from the same area... but nowhere even close to that of an American worker.
No idea where you got that "1/4 salary is worth more at home" from, when in my experience I used to be able to feed myself with 10 GBP/week on average in UK, now I'm spending close to 15 GBP/week in Moldova. Tech/computers/phones are about twice as expensive here, used cars ~10 times more expensive at the lower-end, mid/high-end about the same (at least you don't have to spend crazy amounts of money on parts since getting the MOT equiv here is much easier, so you can fix your car with whatever hammer and lattice from your neighbor's garage..)
Utilites about the same. Rent is cheaper, since most people live with their families overcrowded in tiny appartments...
The cost of "living" is higher, most people just don't know how poor people live. Most people can't even imagine eating ten pounds a week...
Maybe a good quality of life compared to other people from the same area... but nowhere even close to that of an American worker.
If you want the same quality of life as an American worker, the best way to achieve it is to be an American worker since you can always pick and choose things that are objectively "worse" in any arbitrary country. For example, you cite the high cost of cars as an example of why a country has a worse quality of life, but others may point to American car dependence as worse for their quality of life.
No idea where you got that "1/4 salary is worth more at home" from
Probably because that's not what I said. I said "you may find that your "1/4 salary" is worth more at home that it is in the USA.", Obviously I didn't mean that to mean in all situations. I wouldn't expect that someone living on £10/week in the UK would be able to live comfortably on £2.50/week in any arbitrary country
I have a friend that took advantage of COVID work from home to move to Indonesia (where his wife is from) - he said they pay less for all costs of living than he did just on their apartment in the SF Bay Area. He's still drawing his Bay Area salary, but is not going back to the office, when return to office becomes mandatory, he'll just quit and retire where he is. He feels that he has a far superior quality of life there. It's not the same as Bay Area life, but far more relaxing.
> A large part of the justification of using outsourced workers is that they live in an area with a lower cost of living than the company's headquarters, so they can be paid less while still having a good quality of life.
It has nothing to do with CoL and everything to do with a company paying what they think is competitive with the other options you have.
I live somewhere with a higher CoL than the states. American companies open branches here, and pay much lower, local salaries.
Thinking it has anything to do with CoL is pure "Just World" fallacy.
This is a contentious point especially for software engineering jobs as the salary is supposed to be based on performance as there is no obvious benefit to being in the same geographic location.
This is happening now too, as many high paying jobs are coming on India and other parts of the world through remote work. Eventually I believe your cost of living will have no impact on the salary you get.
> A large part of the justification of using outsourced workers is that they live in an area with a lower cost of living than the company's headquarters, so they can be paid less while still having a good quality of life
Nope, the justification is just “they can be paid less”. The rest is irrelevant.
Maybe it is time to get a new job. These days there is a big shortage of tech talent and deserving candidates can get very good pay in India. The typical trick is to apply for and interview to as many companies as you can. Get a good offer and put in your papers. Given that most companies have a 2-3 month notice period, once you are on notice, you can continue applying for jobs and shop around.
The funded startups in India are paying very good money to their staff. Even somewhat junior resources with 4-5 years of experience can get in excess of 50l inr per anum, which is roughly 65k usd in cities like Hyderabad, Bangalore & Gurgaon.
To add - The 'notice' is a nicety. AFAIK, most employer-employee contracts in the US are at-will where either party can cancel the contract and part ways at any time for any reason.
In Germany, most contracts (and any regular job has a contract) say something like 1 month notice for the first six months on both the employer and employee’s side, and 3 months for the employee after that trial period, and possibly longer for the employer after you’ve been around for several years.
My colleagues were shocked when I confirmed that offering more than two weeks’ notice in the US is super nice to your employer, and two weeks is not considered unprofessional.
Typically 3 months these days in India. Used to be 1 month in past, but over the years, all the IT outsourcing firms have started using 3 months notice.
These days, equavalent salaries in india are between 1/4th to 1/2 of equavalent american or uk salary for the same job. Adjusting for cost of living is a bit tricky as there are many things which are cheaper in India, but many things that a sw developer may want to buy are not so. In general electronic items are a bit more expensive in India, but things like rent, cost of food, clothing, cost of a basic car are lesser here in India. OTOH, mostly it is not apples to apples comparison. e.g. you can get cars for 5-8000 usd here in India, but those cars would most likely be illegal to sell in the US. When the manufacturers sell the same exact model here in India, the prices are a lot higher.
So if OP says that they get 1/4th of the salary that people from US get for same role, then I feel that he is most likely underpaid.
Mostly will not pass safety or minimum equipment standards. Renault was known to sell cars in India with airbags that were inferior to what they supplied elsewhere. Indian emission laws are fairly strict but based on euro standards, so most cars should pass non ca emissions test.
30k usd maps to 2.2million inr. Which is the kind of pay a quality junior employee with 3-4 years of experience can get in a quality firm. There has been an explosion in tech salaries in the last 4-5 years and these days most companies are finding it tough to fill up their positions. Quality resources can easily get 50% of what a equavalent role would get them in the US.
I got paid 15% less to transfer from one city to another 100 miles away. You get paid based on where you live, unfortunately.
Although 1/4th sounds a bit extreme for India. My understanding is that FAANG is paying more than half - and considering the cost of living - I know a lot of people that willingly took gigantic pay cuts to transfer back to India.
I mean - for one - ~45% of your income goes straight to tax in CA - in India IIUC it's 20%.
If you are trying to prove anything to your managers - it's a waste of time. If your peers are happy with you - it's all that matters. Looks like it got professional work ethics and it's something to be proud of. Having worked onshore, offshore, remotely - I don't think there is any difference really.
There is a whole community about this called Overemployed [0]. Their reddit posts are quite entertaining, like this guy who works 5 jobs and is making 1.2 million a year [1].
I'm in their Discord and people actually do have multiple jobs, they're usually just not as high paying such that two jobs at random companies will equal big tech company compensation, so it's often not worth it when you can just join big tech.
Well, assuming you have the skills and time to grind Leetcode, the two jobs might also be easier than big tech jobs, and having multiple jobs gives some security if you're ever fired.
> I'll caution people to take this (and the rest of Reddit) with a huge grain of salt. Subreddits like this one are almost always just creative writing.
Time to get creative with our time and careers, as long as the skill is transferable, and health is manageable. That said, 5 jobs sound too much, but who knows...
Former coworkers did this. One guy have 2 full time jobs and a project based contract job that didn’t always have active work. A former intern of mine’s coworker has 3 “full time”jobs.
He thought he was pretty good at his job and took a second job. His coworkers (included me) felt like he was slimy and was not good at his job.
Everyone was suspicious of the dude and finally one day his boss’s boss called him for an emergency, and he said the company name while answering his phone… the other company he worked for.
Company fired him, told the other company, and threatened to sue him. He paid back a good chunk of his recent salary (they didn’t need the money I suspect wanted to make an example).
I thought your comment was familiar [0]. Yes, it seems there's always a risk involved. Better to simply be a contractor and work your own hours, and if a client gets mad, you can easily say you were working for another client during those hours.
Some companies will say no but it seems plausible someone could find a way to transition someone to a contract type situation if they really are valuable.
Man, I am kinda shocked not so much that this is a thing but seems to be a bona fide _movement_.
It's highly interesting but my one job keeps me more than busy enough, thankyouverymuch.
Edit: A few other thoughts I had since hitting submit:
1. It feels to me like the most challenging part of living a double working life is making sure your mandatory meetings at each job don't conflict. I wonder how people get around that?
2. Many (most?) employers already have a "no moonlighting" clause, I wonder how long before there will there be explicit legal language stating you cannot have this full time job plus another full time job?
3. I believe there are a few places in the tax code where there is a difference between having a full-time job and a part-time job, are there any areas where you would have to lie to the govt when you have multiple full-time jobs?
Gotta take the kid/spouse/mom to school/work/doctor? Schedule these essential appointments to best overlap with the other company's favorite meeting slot.
Additionally, I attend a number of meetings where I do not need to give any input. For many of those, who would know if I was simultaneously attending a similar meeting on a different laptop? You could even get fancy and have a pre-recorded version of yourself to play if you knew that you had to engage with company A but merely attend company B's meeting.
The only way I've seen this done in the real world requires the person to pick one primary job that always takes priority. The other job (or jobs) are targeted at companies that go out of their way to be super "nice" such that they won't question someone being constantly unavailable.
Without giving too many specifics away, the one case I discovered was with a person who claimed to be dealing with some personal/health related issues that required us to be flexible with their schedule. If I'm being honest, it worked on us for a while because we're sympathetic, but eventually the underperformance crosses the line into something that requires medical leave / short-term disability, at which point they gave up.
3. I believe there are a few places in the tax code where there is a difference between having a full-time job and a part-time job, are there any areas where you would have to lie to the govt when you have multiple full-time jobs?
Assuming US-centric. The one that comes to mind is your W-4 for each employer. If you fill it out correctly, it will be a big red flag to your employer. If you pretend like you only have the one job, it could potentially land you in trouble with the IRS as there will be nowhere near enough tax withheld. You might get away with it, anyway, as long as you paid taxes in full and on time, but you might have to pay taxes in installments. They don't like you to owe too much at the end of the year.
I don't think the W4 is really much of a red flag. Someone with two jobs won't look significantly different from someone who has a high-earning spouse. Both will need to add additional withholdings to avoid underpayment.
Yeah there is a lot of imaginary stories obviously. But at the same time as a contractor you could always work with multiple clients, not sure why it comes as a surprise in 2021. A full-time employee for 2 companies? Bullshit. Not a sustainable model.
“Always makes me wonder how many dysfunctional companies are out there letting deadbeat remote employees collect paychecks and do as little work as possible because nobody cares enough to press the issue.”
It’s not only remote people. I have seen multiple people at my company who are basically incompetent or lazy and produce nothing of value or even negative output. Some of them get let go after years and some of them get promoted into management.
Having a pleasant demeanor can get you very far without doing any work.
When I worked at an arcade, one the cleaning crew was well known to also be hired, for the same shift times, at the movie theater across the way. He would dash between the two (in the same all black uniform) just enough nobody noticed him missing.
My coworkers and I have a term for those that are providing no value, but seemingly impossible to remove. The "barnacles" are ever present and likely making more money than you. Such is life.
>Always makes me wonder how many dysfunctional companies are out there letting deadbeat remote employees collect paychecks and do as little work as possible because nobody cares enough to press the issue.
Probably the vast majority of companies! If you ever get an employee like this as a direct report and try to do something about it, the process is incredibly draining and shitty. Easily the worst I've felt about work in my career (so far!). I see why people try to ignore the issue, but it also feels pretty bad having your other team members constantly pick up the slack around a non-performing team member.
I know a guy who's actively interviewing to take on a second remote job while keeping his first. He has no plans to make either party aware that he has other employment.
His argument is that at his current job he can get all of his assigned work done in 10-20 hours a week (though he doesn't share with them that he's basically only working part time) so he has plenty of time to take on a second job where he also expects to get his daily work done in just a few hours a day.
I don't have an issue with it IF both parties are aware that he's only working a few hours a day but are happy with what he's getting done. It's the inevitable lies when there are conflicting meetings, etc. that bother me.
I agree that the conflicting meetings bit could be tricky, but I don't think he has a moral obligation to inform either company of what's going on, assuming one company's work doesn't interfere with the assigned work from the other. Also I would hope that the two companies he ends up working at aren't even remotely in competition with each other, because that would be unethical.
If both companies are happy with the guy's work output, then he is fulfilling the terms of his employment, at least in spirit and morally/ethically.
(I'm aware that some companies include in their employment papers a clause that states that employees won't take on other employment. I believe I've signed such a thing at my current job. But I personally consider such clauses to be unethical in the first place, and would feel no qualms violating that if I was in a position to want to do so. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure nearly all salaried jobs will stipulate something like that, so it's not like people can vote with their feet.)
I would personally find this sort of arrangement to be pretty stressful, and wouldn't do it, but if someone wants to give it a go, more power to them.
> but I don't think he has a moral obligation to inform either company of what's going on, assuming one company's work doesn't interfere with the assigned work from the other.
I strongly disagree. When you are hired as a full-time employee, the expectation is that you are giving your full 8 hours work day (or whatever) to the company in exchange for a paycheck. Otherwise, you are extracting full value from the company while they are getting half (or worse) value from you.
There are lots of people with a "screw everyone else, I got mine" attitude who don't see anything wrong with lying to your employer about how you are spending your time. I lump these people in with people who justify various forms of stealing with the rationale that it doesn't _really_ hurt the victim since some insurance comapany pays for the loss anyway. It demonstrates a severe lack of integrity. I would never want to work with or associate anyone like that.
I do however believe that "no moonlighting" clauses in employment contracts should be illegal. I ought to be able to use my skills to make extra money in my free time, as long is there is no apparent conflict of interest present (e.g. moonlighting for a competitor).
When an HR manager boasts to you about how they used a downturn to screw your colleagues' hourly rate down by 10% without reducing their charge-out rate, your ethical stance re: dealing with your employer may change...
Exactly. I admire and agree with the ethical stances being defended in this thread, but people should know that it is very rare for those feelings to be reciprocated. As long as you know that, work in a manner that lets you live with yourself, and don’t expect to be rewarded.
> When you are hired as a full-time employee, the expectation is that you are giving your full 8 hours work day (or whatever) to the company in exchange for a paycheck.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Another interpretation of being hired as a salaried employee might be "they get the work done that they were assigned, in a satisfactory manner, and are able to respond during regular work hours when needed". If someone can hold two jobs and fulfill that, then why is that a problem?
> There are lots of people with a "screw everyone else, I got mine" attitude
But if they're getting their assigned work done, doing a good job, and delivering on time, how are they screwing anyone else?
> ... who don't see anything wrong with lying to your employer about how you are spending your time.
Why are employers naturally entitled to a complete picture of how employees spend their time? Again, as long as the work gets done, and done well, and on time.
The thing that bothers me is that there's the implication here that the employee should voluntarily take on more and more work to fill those 40 hours a week. And in some orgs, where "work" isn't very well defined, that makes sense. You might just have a grab-bag of tickets that will take years to complete, and, sure, only working on those for 4 hours a day instead of 8 would be cheating. But in places where they say "here are the 10 work items we need you to complete, and they need to be done in 4 weeks"... if you can finish them in 2 weeks, why should you be obligated to say "hey, give me more work"?
Ultimately you should make sure the company is happy with your work product, and the pace at which it is delivered. A contracting arrangement may fit this whole situation better, but because we live in a stupid world, contractors (in the US) usually don't get basic things like health insurance. And it's usually a policy not to give contractors equity. At some places contractors don't even get invited to things like the company holiday party. It's weird to create these two different classes of workers like that. There's no reason to "punsish" workers for doing something different than the standard 9-to-5.
> It demonstrates a severe lack of integrity. I would never want to work with or associate anyone like that.
I'm sympathetic to this point of view, and mostly agree with it. But I think there's an inherent problem here: the employer-employee relationship will always have a huge power imbalance that favors the employer. I'm very torn. But I just don't think I see it as an issue of integrity to show loyalty to an entity that will not show you loyalty in return. Unfortunately, real people (manager, teammates, etc.) become extensions of that entity. You can't deal with them both as people (where I agree you should deal with integrity) and as extensions of the employer (where I think the obligation is weaker) at the same time. That is, you can't tell your manager "hey, I'm telling you the human being I respect that I'm violating my employment agreement and am taking a second full-time job, but I want you as an agent of our employer to pretend you didn't hear that".
> I do however believe that "no moonlighting" clauses in employment contracts should be illegal. I ought to be able to use my skills to make extra money in my free time, as long is there is no apparent conflict of interest present (e.g. moonlighting for a competitor).
Completely agreed here. Though this does make me question where the line is between "moonlighting" and "doing something bad". I think it's obvious to say that taking a contract job where hours aren't specified, and work is done outside of normal work hours, is moonlighting. But I'm not so sure that taking another full-time job and mixing work hours between the two companies is inherently different. It's not exactly the same thing, to be sure.
> I don't think that's necessarily true. Another interpretation of being hired as a salaried employee might be "they get the work done that they were assigned, in a satisfactory manner, and are able to respond during regular work hours when needed". If someone can hold two jobs and fulfill that, then why is that a problem?
If that's true, then there shouldn't be any concern about sharing with them that you're working another job at the same time.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with it if each employer is aware and is fine with the situation. IMO the ethical question is if you are lying to one or both parties.
From experience, if you can take on more work, you will do so until you can't anymore. 2 jobs was fine for me, 3 is too much and some clients felt the heat. I always prioritized the ones that were most burning, technically. Undeserved flak is easy to remove.
The irony of this is what does a business do. It tries to find a way to efficiently serve multiple customers, keeping them happy, giving them value etc. In order to make more money than you would make by serving a single customer. Look at is as more of a scrap on the blurred business/employee lines, as much as a moral outrage or failing. Often a job is "we want you to survive but not fly, .... so that we can".
> They might already have a full-time job or other remote jobs
Bingo. That was my first thought in this. Especially given how quickly they gave the job up.
They paid someone to interview for them, collected wages for the period they were employed, and then went on to the next opportunity.
Sadly, there is nothing in the story to discourage the person from doing it again. And at most companies, there would be enough egg on HR's face for letting this happen that I'd imagine everyone would quietly sweep it under the rug.
What you described can just as easily be done on-site. Remote work merely lets these people actually do something they might enjoy instead of sitting in a chair and pretending to work for 8 hours. I’ve met people likely this and they’d rather pretend to be busy than actually do something.
I think the point was that many on-site employees get their work done just fine, but spend half of their in-office hours goofing off on Facebook or reading HN or whatever. So in principle that "wasted" time (assuming it is indeed a waste) could be put to use for a different company, with double the compensation. Obviously there are severe logistical issues if you're on-site!
>> Always makes me wonder how many dysfunctional companies are out there letting deadbeat remote employees collect paychecks and do as little work as possible because nobody cares enough to press the issue.
Nearly all of them. And it's why managers who get burned just a single time hate the idea of remote work. It's not about office rent or anything else that gets bandied about here; it's the fact that a very small but significant number of remote workers are grifters and create a ton of negative emotion (out of sight out of mind) for co-workers and managers.
A ton of remote work is obviously the future, but every single negative case like this with legacy managers sets it back orders of magnitude more than the successes it generates. So it goes with everything new.
There is no company out there that stays in business long paying their employees the full amount of the value they would generate if they were really working full+ time, so why should those employees do that unless they happen to enjoy it or it advances their own goals? That's just whipping yourself so massa doesn't have to
Large corporations can have a lot of hysteresis. Once someone is hired, it can be quite difficult to fire them.
Even the "90-day probationary" periods are not really useful. I think the only thing that they do, is if the employee quits before the 90 days are up, then they have to pay the company back for all the expenses incurred by the company (I had this happen to someone we hired. They were not expecting that. Too bad. They were actually very good, and dumped us for a job in a location they preferred. I felt bad about that. I actually didn't hold any rancor towards them).
I suspect startups can be a lot more likely to be able to give someone the boot in an efficacious manner.
It's totally legal, in New York. I doubt that it covers interviewing expenses. I think it only covers stuff that happened after they signed the offer.
And I really don't appreciate being dinged for the actions of my corporation. I was not involved at all in that part of things, and only heard about it afterwards. I had many disagreements with our HR department, which could be rapacious. However, it was run by highly skilled and experienced lawyers, and everything they did was legal (if not always what I considered ethical; but I have high ethical standards).
Collecting paychecks: there is a story that I suspect is centuries old, but which I heard attached to John XXIII. Supposedly somebody asked him how many people worked at the Vatican, and he answered, Maybe one out of three.
So what should I do when I realize that a lot of my coworkers are HIGHLY inefficient? And I can do their work in a lower amount of time? And I have a ceiling on how much I can earn? I just go looking elsewhere in parallel.
OR - I build a startup. But I hate the buisiness ethos.
I expect the number of employees taking advantage of companies pales into insignificance when compared to the number of companies taking advantage of employees
> Always makes me wonder how many dysfunctional companies are out there letting deadbeat remote employees collect paychecks and do as little work as possible because nobody cares enough to press the issue.
I can't imagine it's much worse than it was in the before-times. Wally has always been able to skate along with a certain amount of meeting-attending.
I worked for a computer security company once, it was my first real programming job and I had no experience with the kind of crazy stuff that goes on with hiring, I was really naive and had no clue that certain kinds of people existed in the workforce.
So one day my boss (CTO) calls me up and says “Hey, we are hiring another Windows guy, can you do a quick interview and check him out?” (I was the only Windows dev at the time) So they send me the guy’s resume and he’s a PhD in Electrical Engineering. I feel really nervous about having to interview the guy because he had a PhD, but I figured other people had already checked him out so I meet with him and just have kind of a softball interview, not going into a technical deep dive or anything like that. He seems alright and has a ton of experience, so I figured what the hell.
Well about a month later my boss calls me again and he’s like “Hey, we’ve been having some concerns about John Doe, can you check in on him and see how he’s doing?”
So I go over to John Doe’s office and sit down with him and talk about what he’s been doing. He shows me that he’s having trouble with some things that are so basic that it’s almost like he’s never even seen a Windows machine, much less done any programming on one; and I’m not exaggerating, it was really that bad!
Long story short, they let him go. A few days after, I’m in the break room and one of the Unix guys walks in. He asks me how things are going and I’m like “Well, not so good, we’re back to just one Windows developer because they had to let the new guy go.” He says “Who was that?” So I tell him “this guy John Doe…” and before I can go any further he exclaims “Good God! Not THE John Doe?!?” Apparently this guy was a legend in the IT community in the city - he would fake resumes and get hired for as long as he could run the scam.
Yes, but remember in the scenario you're replying to, you cannot tell if they've done the work. So assigning to the specialist you mention might as well mean tossing the job requests into the bin.
> or maybe they're just trying to travel the world and do a "four hour workweek" thing where they answer e-mails once a day and phone in a couple hours of work at key times during the week.
I’ve seen it work exactly once.
The guy was absolutely brilliant, however. And a great communicator. But everything had to be done asynchronously for the most part, except a few slots where he was guaranteed to have good network and be able to hop on a conference call. He was also a performance advocate, since everything had to work great on his laptop with poor network and contributed several patches to make the dev experience better. He was a stellar communicator with emails and knew the codebase really well and since he responded in batch he gave a lot of context in his responses (because he wouldn’t often know what the response would be for another day or two).
I think the key thing here is that even though he was placing a burden on his employer and teammates, the arrangement was well understood by both parties, and the employer agreed to accept it.
If someone wants to do something non-traditional and not inform the company about it, then the onus is on the employee to make sure their "odd" work habits don't impact others negatively.
Worked at a place hired one of those. He scheduled meetings, then cancelled them at the last minute. Never accomplished a single task. Demanded a good reference and he would go get another job elsewhere - essentially extorted the reference.
I guess some folks are sociopaths, and do whatever it takes to live well.
> Always makes me wonder how many dysfunctional companies are out there letting deadbeat remote employees collect paychecks and do as little work as possible because nobody cares enough to press the issue.
There are corporations that over-hire and often provide no work at all for weeks or months, but they require that worker is always on stand-by in case there is a surge. I know full-time workers who throughout an entire year maybe done one or two small PR-s, but when suddenly there is an issue needing solving and product teams have full capacity, these people save the day. They are sometimes also utilised for pairing, when given product team members have no spare capacity.
From someone not knowing this, they indeed may seem like deadbeat employees, but the key is - they have to be always available during work hours even if no one contacts them for weeks.
Hmmmmm, it's sort of like renting an apartment with one more room than you actually need so you have a place to put extra stuff, or you can have a guest over. Personally, I would go absolutely crazy if I did nothing at my job, even if it was remote, for weeks on end.
We interviewed him and made e-mail communication a large part of the interview, because it is a critical part of our business. And his communication was great!
After hiring, a recurring problem we had was his e-mail to us and to customers were terrible. Bad grammar, bad spelling, uncorrected typos... It got so bad that we had to have someone review all e-mails he sent to customers.
We had regular "improvement plan" meetings with him, but after a year of paying him, we had to let him go. As part of the exit interview we went back and looked at his interview e-mails, and compared them with his current e-mails. So we asked him:
"During the interview, all your e-mails were great! Why was that?"
"My wife wrote all of those."
I guess we should have hired his wife!
reply