41–50 of 70 posts
Figma? I'm curious if this type of behavior is a reflection on the organization's culture in the larger sense. If so, it would explain why the 20 billion dollar acquisition to Adobe fell through.
It fell through because the DoJ openly said they were going to look at the merger on anti trust grounds and the deal was pulled back not long after
I remember not too long ago when you'd do a quick phone screen, then sit for maybe a technical interview and maybe come into the office for a panel to talk to other devs. Most of the time, hiring managers would say, "If you're close with your technical skills, we can teach you, but we're more interested if you fit in with our culture " Months of interaction? Why did just a few years ago, managers could spot a phony a…
Amen. If an organization is taking months to come to a hiring decision that’s a red flag, unless it’s a C-suite level position, where a misstep could have irreversible damage. A tech position should be able to close within a few weeks, lest the candidate get a better offer from a less dysfunctional company.
My first hiring in a corporate world so I had to learn a bit.
Then we are expected to plan for diversity, not even looking at qualified candidates until we have met diversity benchmarks.
Then my group had a committee kind of setup where one person could veto a candidate. Being my first hiring, I had to go along with it for a while. At one point, we had a viable candidate, but there was one person who was sideways and my manager did not want to go ahead unless every single panelist said yes. We held on for another month trying to look for other better candidates. The candidate was nice enough to wait. BTW we had a viable candidate even before that, within the first 2-3 I think, and that candidate did not wait for us.
Then getting the offer approved and negotiated and signed takes time.
It has been a pain, and after hiring quite a few people in startups or consulting companies, I could have done it in less than a month, but we had our inertia.
> where a misstep could have irreversible damage.
However, when I see it help is that we have a person in our peer team who is not good and they are trying to let that person go. It is in Europe so laws a bit more stringent. It is quite a work to let someone go so the fear of a bad hire and then having months of work to let that person go is quite real. And this is for a run of the mill IC.
Appalling. You were lucky the candidate was available for months of interaction. You deliberated too much and you lost out on what sounded like an excellent fit. No one is going to be perfect. No one is going to be at their best during interviews. Yet not understanding that when someone shows strength and promise that you bring them in to the role where there's a probationary period to do further evaluation shows a c…
Months as in 2 months is pretty normal. FAANG processes often take 6+ weeks. And after that, this is a fully general critique. Hiring well means that there's a bar hires have to meet somewhere. You can argue that their bar is too high, but there's an identical story with a lower bar. It's disappointing to see someone interview and just barely not make the cut because we're human and can empathize. That doesn't make i…
What sort of barrel are you scraping that you can spend that long on a hire?
The people I've had to hire were on the market for two weeks every five years if I was lucky.
> I had been talking to the candidate for months..
and how appalling that is. But TFA says nothing about why the process took months, because that's not what the article is about. Maybe the author had been talking to the candidate for some time before the hiring process started? Maybe the process took unusually long for reasons on the candidate's side? We have no idea, so why even take issue with it?
Nearly every comment so far is reacting to this line: > I had been talking to the candidate for months.. and how appalling that is. But TFA says nothing about why the process took months, because that's not what the article is about. Maybe the author had been talking to the candidate for some time before the hiring process started? Maybe the process took unusually long for reasons on the candidate's side? We have no…
Nearly every comment so far is reacting to this line: > I had been talking to the candidate for months.. and how appalling that is. But TFA says nothing about why the process took months, because that's not what the article is about. Maybe the author had been talking to the candidate for some time before the hiring process started? Maybe the process took unusually long for reasons on the candidate's side? We have no…
Because it's insane? It makes the rest of the post uninteresting by comparison.
TFA gives no details either way - hence, the thing you're calling insane is something you've imagined, not something described in TFA. That's my point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can agree with that in principle, however it shouldn’t take months . If there are multiple levels of middle management here, issues that arise in a probationary/grace period should be addressed and course-corrected. You have that period post hiring, not in a drawn out review process.
There aren’t multiple levels of middle management though. This position reports directly to a very senior manager and will be expected to grow an “tree” of managers and employees under them.
MONTHS??? Do even elite athletes making millions and millions subject themselves to such foolishness?
This is the most puzzling thing I have read in a long time. In my current job, I manage offshore teams. I have hired a lot in the past couple years because we have grown a lot and turnover tends to be high for entry level positions. I don’t find hiring particularly emotional. You are basically looking for a skillset and a mindset compatible with the work environment. I agree that you are indeed trying to build a rela…
> In my current job, I manage offshore teams. This is not the same thing. At all. Of course you're not particularly emotional; these are low-stakes hires that aren't even in the same country. The process is likely a fraction of the time for a fraction of the money. Maybe it's gotten better in recent time, but you also get mediocre results with hiring fast and cheap + offshoring. > Turnover tends to be high :facepalm:
Managing multiple teams mean I also hire their managers and the people here in charge of the whole things. I don’t feel more emotional then than then. Hiring is a skill conducted in a professional environment with all that implies. That was the main point of my comment (I’m highlighting because you obviously missed it).
Why be so uncharitable in your reading? It doesn’t make you look smart.