[flagged]
In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships
21–30 of 229 posts
Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships
#22Thanks a lot for posting this, I really needed it today. Sometimes it’s hard to see the forest for the trees.
Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, this is the most toxic thing about job interviews for me - "hey can we do the thing where you pretend you didn't have a string of shitty jobs for 5 years? because obviously you were at fault if they were shitty." Most jobs are pretty shitty, the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity about how shitty it was is just so inauthentic.
As an interviewer it's too hard to tell if a candidate was indeed a victim of circumstance, like an acquisition that turned into a shitty job, or if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge. An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the…
> if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge.
Honestly, I get much better along with malcontents than with these "annoyingly positive" people. So, tastes differ.
> An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the positive aspects of their job history.
Many highly qualified candidates are bad actors and/or bad self-promoters.
Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, this is the most toxic thing about job interviews for me - "hey can we do the thing where you pretend you didn't have a string of shitty jobs for 5 years? because obviously you were at fault if they were shitty." Most jobs are pretty shitty, the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity about how shitty it was is just so inauthentic.
Another way to think about it, are you able to tolerate the less than perfect aspect of a job while still being pleasant to coworkers. A lot of people can’t, and a lot of companies try to avoid those people.
> are you able to tolerate the less than perfect aspect of a job while still being pleasant to coworkers.
I honestly tend to get much better along with cynic people (and find them much more pleasant). In other words: tastes differ.
Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships
#25Similarly, once you’re looking for a new job, assuming you’re looking for roles with the same job title you had before, do everything you can to paint your previous job in a positive light even if it was miserable. If you don’t, interviewers are left wondering how to interpret your dissatisfaction at your previous job.
Honestly, this is the most toxic thing about job interviews for me - "hey can we do the thing where you pretend you didn't have a string of shitty jobs for 5 years? because obviously you were at fault if they were shitty." Most jobs are pretty shitty, the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity about how shitty it was is just so inauthentic.
"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."
Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an interviewer it's too hard to tell if a candidate was indeed a victim of circumstance, like an acquisition that turned into a shitty job, or if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge. An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the…
> if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge. Honestly, I get much better along with malcontents than with these "annoyingly positive" people. So, tastes differ. > An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the positive aspects of their…
I don't know if you and GP are using 'malcontent' to refer to the same kind of person.
Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships
#27Relationships are always the most important thing in every line of work, and are often valued more than how good you are at your job. - Want a promotion? I hope your manager likes you - Need collaboration from colleagues? Better not be a dick to them - Want to look for new opportunities? Better have a network We are social beasts at the end of the day.
Unfortunately this also seems to pave the way for cronyism, and people climbing up the ladder without merit to back it up. What should be considered is a balance between soft and hard skills.
Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships
#28Similarly, once you’re looking for a new job, assuming you’re looking for roles with the same job title you had before, do everything you can to paint your previous job in a positive light even if it was miserable. If you don’t, interviewers are left wondering how to interpret your dissatisfaction at your previous job.
Honestly, this is the most toxic thing about job interviews for me - "hey can we do the thing where you pretend you didn't have a string of shitty jobs for 5 years? because obviously you were at fault if they were shitty." Most jobs are pretty shitty, the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity about how shitty it was is just so inauthentic.
> most jobs are pretty shitty.
If everywhere smells like shit, it’s time to check under your own shoe. I’ve had shitty jobs, snd while nowhere is perfect it’s definitely a stretch to say most jobs are shitty.
> the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity
Nobody is asking you to do that. When I’m interviewing a candidate I’m assuming that this is a situation that they’re trying to impress/show themselves and if you’re shit talking your previous jobs then what are you going to be like if we disagree, or when you are interviewing for your next job? All I’m asking for is don’t shit talk your previous jobs and managers. If you can’t do that for 45 minutes I’m not going to hire you.
Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships
#29Similarly, once you’re looking for a new job, assuming you’re looking for roles with the same job title you had before, do everything you can to paint your previous job in a positive light even if it was miserable. If you don’t, interviewers are left wondering how to interpret your dissatisfaction at your previous job.
Honestly, this is the most toxic thing about job interviews for me - "hey can we do the thing where you pretend you didn't have a string of shitty jobs for 5 years? because obviously you were at fault if they were shitty." Most jobs are pretty shitty, the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity about how shitty it was is just so inauthentic.
Call it "inauthentic" if you want but the reality is that the people who are interviewing you know they are going to have to work with you, and 99% of people prefer working alongside those who might boost their morale by demonstrating positivity and optimism (even if somewhat manufactured) instead of dwelling insufferably on all the negatives.
Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, this is the most toxic thing about job interviews for me - "hey can we do the thing where you pretend you didn't have a string of shitty jobs for 5 years? because obviously you were at fault if they were shitty." Most jobs are pretty shitty, the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity about how shitty it was is just so inauthentic.
As an interviewer it's too hard to tell if a candidate was indeed a victim of circumstance, like an acquisition that turned into a shitty job, or if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge. An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the…
So you are saying it is better if the candidate lies.
Otherwise you will be forced to reject him because there might be a possibility that the problem was him.
Seems like you are hiring the best liars. Or at least the best at playing an arbitrary game of saying and not saying the correct things that won't trigger a rejection.
At this point, are you even needed? Maybe we could replace the interview process with a lottery system. Same result, less expensive.