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

The new hire who showed up is not the same person we interviewed

askamanager.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 623 posts

Re: The new hire who showed up is not the same person we interviewed

#101

Post by wildzzz »

simmanian wrote: post #5

Practices like this are hilariously common in the industry. Right out of college I accepted a job offer at a small consulting company on the east coast. They promised they would give me free housing at their luxury apartment for the first few months and give me all the training I need to excel in areas of my interest. I flew across the country and found out the whole thing is not as advertised. Their luxury apartment…

An offer like that would seem incredibly suspicious to me. You want to pay all of this money to train me right out of school? Why not just hire someone with the right experience? Maybe it's my imposter syndrome speaking but it all feels off. I'm passively looking for new jobs but I always keep my eye out for things that sound too good to be true. If I'm not paying for training or education, then someone else is footing the bill and it's important to consider why. Is this new training making me more productive or is it just to solely make the company more money because they can now claim I'm an expert? I wouldn't want to be oversold to customers as an expert on something I just learned about just as much as I wouldn't want to be placed in a junior role for something I'm really good at.

Re: The new hire who showed up is not the same person we interviewed

#102

Post by intpx »

linsomniac wrote: post #46

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, uncorr…

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.

Re: The new hire who showed up is not the same person we interviewed

#103

Post by giantg2 »

ct0 wrote: post #69
giantg2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My (professional) written communication is a strong point for me. What kind of job has mostly sending emails as the work?

HR

Interesting, but I guess they don't get paid well.

Re: The new hire who showed up is not the same person we interviewed

#104

Post by rootusrootus »

giantg2 wrote: post #55

"John is talking extensively about working in a garage because his three children and wife are home. In the interview, he made references to being single and was visibly in an indoor desk area." If John is reading, you now have documentation that marital status has played a part in the decision process (even if not the sole issue) should they decide to let you go.

> marital status

... is not a protected class.

Re: The new hire who showed up is not the same person we interviewed

#105

Post by simmanian »

Mc91 wrote: post #81
simmanian wrote: post #5

Practices like this are hilariously common in the industry. Right out of college I accepted a job offer at a small consulting company on the east coast. They promised they would give me free housing at their luxury apartment for the first few months and give me all the training I need to excel in areas of my interest. I flew across the country and found out the whole thing is not as advertised. Their luxury apartment…

I work for a F100 company. We have some consulting companies working for us, who themselves sometimes subcontract contracts, to subcontracting companies who sometimes themselves subcontract contracts. One consultant (US citizen) checked the boxes of your situation. Young, graduated college recently, a sub-contracting company presents him as senior even though he had little or negligible experience before. They had hi…

I also had to sign a document saying I would end up owing the company money if I left without completing their "training" and/or basically trying my best to get placed. FWIW, I told them it would be difficult as a fresh grad to cough up that much money, and that the arrangements were not exactly as advertised. They tried to add me on linkedin, but I did not accept the request for obvious reasons. They did not pursue.

Re: The new hire who showed up is not the same person we interviewed

#106

Post by ZoomerCretin »

nikcub wrote: post #75

Reminds me of the lip syncing interview candidate that went viral a little while ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47mfohGyeBg This is why remote exams have all of those strict requirements like "show us your room" and "don't leave sight of the webcam"

This is why that ML/AI realtime deepfake software is so scary. Imagine if the person speaking is just mapping their facial expressions onto the face of the person you're actually getting.

>This is why remote exams have all of those strict requirements like "show us your room" and "don't leave sight of the webcam"

I'd imagine this could be defeated with a prerecorded video of the "interviewee" showing their room.

Re: The new hire who showed up is not the same person we interviewed

#107

Post by giantg2 »

ds_store2387 wrote: post #94
giantg2 wrote: post #55

"John is talking extensively about working in a garage because his three children and wife are home. In the interview, he made references to being single and was visibly in an indoor desk area." If John is reading, you now have documentation that marital status has played a part in the decision process (even if not the sole issue) should they decide to let you go.

No… they have documented evidence that the company noted discrepancies between his interview and subsequent comments. Nothing there states that this was a problem; it’s a diff. Besides, he quit.

Missed the quiting part.

It doesn't really matter if it's a diff. It matters that it was a diff that the husband apparently thought pertinent enough to mention. If it plays any part in the decision, or can show that they preferred single people in the interview, then it could be basis for a law suit (whether it would win or go to settlement is a different issue).

Re: The new hire who showed up is not the same person we interviewed

#110

Post by giantg2 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #104
giantg2 wrote: post #55

"John is talking extensively about working in a garage because his three children and wife are home. In the interview, he made references to being single and was visibly in an indoor desk area." If John is reading, you now have documentation that marital status has played a part in the decision process (even if not the sole issue) should they decide to let you go.

> marital status ... is not a protected class.

https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-marital-st...
Post reply on HN