Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships

wqtz.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 229 posts

Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships

#31

Post by lucianbr »

cj wrote: post #9
hobs wrote: post #6

Earlier 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.

So a lot of companies try to avoid a lot of people? How does that work out?

In my experience most companies work with a wide distribution of people. This "we avoid hiring people who have defects" reads as disconnected from reality. Nobody is perfect, and most companies are average and have average people.

Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships

#32

Post by dogleash »

hobs wrote: post #6
cj wrote: post #3

Similarly, 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.

>is just so inauthentic

I agree and resent that work is just a place where I go to get lied to and lie right back. We've found that lying is a highly successful workplace strategy. But the point of the lying game is to never admit we're lying.

The pretzels people will twist themselves in to avoid the cognitive dissonance of lying all the time and not wanting to be a lair is maddening. I find facing it head on is a refreshing frame.

A bit of clarity taken from "The Complex Problem Of Lying For Jobs"

> But over the years, I have broadened my definition of a lie, and I have realized that most of my interlocutors (including my younger self) had actually narrowed our definition of lie into uselessness in an attempt to feel better about our behavior in the job market.

> If we set aside pedantic obsession over the technicalities of whether the exact words you said were a lie, as if we're all capricious djinn [...] If you have a good idea of what impression you are leaving your interlocutor with, and you are crafting statements such that the image in their head does not map to reality, then you are lying.

https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/the-complex-problem-of-lying...

Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships

#33

Post by blitzar »

achierius wrote: post #26
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

plural noun: malcontents :- a person who is dissatisfied and rebellious.

In Silicon Valley that is called a Founder.

Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships

#34

Post by nemomarx »

dogleash wrote: post #32
hobs wrote: post #6

Earlier 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.

>is just so inauthentic I agree and resent that work is just a place where I go to get lied to and lie right back. We've found that lying is a highly successful workplace strategy. But the point of the lying game is to never admit we're lying. The pretzels people will twist themselves in to avoid the cognitive dissonance of lying all the time and not wanting to be a lair is maddening. I find facing it head on is a re…

I feel like this is broad enough to make most social interactions lying - if someone asks how you're doing and you say "good" and don't immediately vent about issues, you're trying to create a different impression, and so on?

in many polite circumstances people don't want to hear a truth, they want things to go smoothly and easily.

Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships

#35

Post by corytheboyd »

datadrivenangel wrote: post #17
ramesh31 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fine, until it comes time for layoffs. Like it or not, software development is an intensly social enterprise. Of course there are lone geniuses out there doing their own thing, and if that's you great. But it isn't how enterprise teams work. Particularly as you reach L7, every single aspect of your job will become political in one way or another.

Except the layoffs come from someone's spreadsheet 3 levels up, so even if everyone likes you that may not be enough. It definitely helps, but not guaranteed.

The point isn’t about saving yourself from the layoff, it’s about having a network to help you find a new job, because yeah, the layoffs are disconnected, heartless, and clumsy. If you’re always building at least a couple relationships, some of those people inevitably quit on their own, branch out, and after years of this, you end up with a decently sized network to help you out (and you can help them too when the time comes)

Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships

#36

Post by kccqzy »

bityard wrote: post #19
mclau157 wrote: post #8

If a workplace is split into different functions, and your coworkers in your function are not great, it can be difficult or seem bothersome to try to bond with coworkers in a different function

In companies with highly compartmentalized roles, too much work to do, and annoying co-workers, it's easy to say, "that's not my problem, go away." (With a bit more diplomacy, I'd hope.) I have always prioritized trying to be the stereotypical helpful person who might not know the answer to your question, but usually knows who to ask. The more your name comes up in the context of "who knows how X works?", the better…

A lot of times that stereotypical helpful person is so helpful that junior people never learn to get rid of their dependence on that person. I know that because I've been that stereotypical helpful person. I realized something was amiss when a junior person who had been on the team for two years still came to me every other day to ask me questions. They spent minimal amount of effort thinking on their own, and then simply decided to ask me. And when I explained the solutions, they only remembered it for a short time and then one week later proceeded to ask me almost the same question again. I suppose this is the kind of proto-vibe-coder before the age of AI.

Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships

#37

Post by MichaelRo »

Unfortunately, in 20+ years and some 7 jobs in the meantime, I never ever got a job by means of an inside recommendation nor was I able to get someone I recommended to be hired.

And the reason is, I'm a lowly engineer and that's all. I have zero clout, HR and hiring managers couldn't give a shit of whom I recommend. So if you "prioritize relationships" with an ulterior purpose (get hired eventually by some "relation"), then make sure you relate to the right people :)

Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships

#38

Post by jon-wood »

cj wrote: post #3

Similarly, 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.

I think there's a degree to which this is true, I wouldn't walk into an interview and immediately start slagging off my old employer, but if you're interviewing me and get all worked up when I say bad things about them in answer to the question "why are you leaving your current job" that's on you and I won't regret not getting the job.

Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships

#39

Post by taormina »

blitzar wrote: post #33
achierius wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you and GP are using 'malcontent' to refer to the same kind of person.

plural noun: malcontents :- a person who is dissatisfied and rebellious. In Silicon Valley that is called a Founder.

And you don’t hire founders.

Re: In a high-stress work environment, prioritize relationships

#40

Post by Arainach »

kentrado wrote: post #30
eloisius wrote: post #18

Earlier 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…

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 lott…

Constant negativity kills team morale.

Even if the complaints are about things which are individually valid, the pattern is toxic.

Imagine a sports team. After running around for 45 minutes you're all probably tired. Would you rather work with someone who says "I'm tired, it's hot in here" or someone who focuses on encouraging those around them and talking about the team's accomplishments?

Part of the interview is proving you can avoid griping and focus on positives for at least 30-60 minutes, which is an essential skill anywhere.

Post reply on HN