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

Exercises to craft an employer brand that makes engineers want to work for you

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Exercises to craft an employer brand that makes engineers want to work for you

#51

Post by neogodless »

granshaw wrote: post #27

Seeing a pattern here on Engineers just calling it as it is, and wanting employers to do so too. It ain't gonna happen - its the same thing as in PR-speak where a company will deny wrongdoing, speak in platitudes, etc, even when everyone and their dog knows what the real story is. Engineers will just need to do their own due dilligence and find out through other avenues what the culture and working conditions are rea…

From an employer's perspective:

We already understand our own value. We probably overlook our faults. We don't trust potential employees to be as good as we want. We'll make it hard for you to work for us, and try not to pay you more than the value you provide. You need a job - try to prove your worth to us, and we'll consider letting you work for us.

From an employee's perspective:

We know we're one of the worthwhile employees. (We probably overlook our faults.) We don't trust potential employers to be a place we'll actually enjoy working. We don't want to work hard to prove ourselves - we expect you to win us over. We expect you to pay us a little above market value (since we're above average.) You need employees to exist and get work done - try to prove we'll enjoy working for you, and we'll consider giving you our expertise and time.

Both parties will withhold information in an attempt to appear better than the other so that initial negotiations go in their favor. The interview process will fail to disclose all relevant and interesting information about how well the two parties are suited to each other.

Beyond the general negotiation/trust problem, what are problems unique to engineers and their prospective employers, and how do we improve upon them in mutually beneficial ways?

Re: Exercises to craft an employer brand that makes engineers want to work for you

#52

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #49
toomuchtodo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at an enterprise less than 40 hours a week. I hear from recruiters 3-4 times a week. I don't care about your mission or your culture, just pay me, I do the work, and then go home. If someone is of the opinion these sorts of orgs don't exist, I put forth that they might not have looked hard enough, and would encourage further exploration to better understand the employment landscape. If you're a startup and exp…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Exercises to craft an employer brand that makes engineers want to work for you

#53

Post by JohnFen »

sgift wrote: post #50
JohnFen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never been paid by the hour. I get paid for producing acceptable code by the deadline.

So, when you produce the acceptable code faster you can go home earlier? No more work in a week? If not, you are paid by the hour, you just wish you would be paid for producing acceptable code by the deadline (me too btw).

Yes, technically I could. But in reality, I have more than one task on my plate and a well-managed company will have figured out how to set the deadlines to maximize the amount of work they get for their money.

However, this is one of the things I ask about when I'm interviewing for a position -- if the company keeps track of hours rather than paying for work product, then it's not likely to be a good fit for me. So, my experience is not random chance and may not be representative of the industry as a whole.

Re: Exercises to craft an employer brand that makes engineers want to work for you

#54

Post by pnathan »

Aline says good things here - as always - but I want to note that an overly groomed company or one where many of the employees are pushing the company's job openings starts to feel really bogus.

In other words, if you take this too far, it becomes obviously painted on and, to use an old word, the recruiters become "posers".

But if you earnestly take her advice, I think that it's a good write up. Honestly talk about your unique point as a company. Who you are. Why you are. What you uniquely do. No BS. I maximize my corporate BS sensor when I'm job hunting.

Re: Exercises to craft an employer brand that makes engineers want to work for you

#56

Post by JohnFen »

neogodless wrote: post #51
granshaw wrote: post #27

Seeing a pattern here on Engineers just calling it as it is, and wanting employers to do so too. It ain't gonna happen - its the same thing as in PR-speak where a company will deny wrongdoing, speak in platitudes, etc, even when everyone and their dog knows what the real story is. Engineers will just need to do their own due dilligence and find out through other avenues what the culture and working conditions are rea…

From an employer's perspective: We already understand our own value. We probably overlook our faults. We don't trust potential employees to be as good as we want. We'll make it hard for you to work for us, and try not to pay you more than the value you provide. You need a job - try to prove your worth to us, and we'll consider letting you work for us. From an employee's perspective: We know we're one of the worthwhil…

> Both parties will withhold information in an attempt to appear better than the other so that initial negotiations go in their favor.

I try very hard not to do this. When I'm interviewing for a position, I'm trying to determine honestly whether or not I'm a good fit for that employer, and that employer's assessment of how good a fit I may be is an important part of that.

Fit is important to me because when I'm on board, I'm on board 100%. It's a large commitment for me, and I want to minimize error.

So I try to be honest about my weaknesses as well as my strengths, to allow the employer to make a better assessment about fit. That greatly benefits me in the end.

No employee (or employer) is perfect, and a large part of what makes a good fit is if the imperfections are things that are tolerable by the other.

Re: Exercises to craft an employer brand that makes engineers want to work for you

#57

Post by dbcurtis »

Phlarp wrote: post #26
dbcurtis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does F still have resume prestige? I predicted more than 10 years ago that someday having worked at Facebook would be the resume stain that you wear for life. Has it not yet come to pass that having worked at Facebook is a red flag? Sure, you are probably smart. But anybody that lists Facebook on their resume is going to find a lot of their interview time with me going to probing their ethics.

I would agree the resume prestige has diminished from what it once was, but I think it's a little far to suggest that any rank and file ENGINEER would have compromised ethics just from choosing to work there. Facebook uses cutting edge tech and pays really well, I would never hold it against an engineer young or old for accepting a position that very likely offered more compensation than they've ever had before. If y…

> I think it's a little far to suggest that any rank and file ENGINEER would have compromised ethics

They should have the ability to think about the ethical impact of their work, or have awoken to the necessity.

“never thought about it” is a worse answer than “I’m OK with it.” I may not hire someone who answers the later, but I can respect them for having a thoughtful answer.

Re: Exercises to craft an employer brand that makes engineers want to work for you

#58

Post by JohnFen »

newfangle wrote: post #16
toomuchtodo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work at an enterprise less than 40 hours a week. I hear from recruiters 3-4 times a week. I don't care about your mission or your culture, just pay me, I do the work, and then go home. If someone is of the opinion these sorts of orgs don't exist, I put forth that they might not have looked hard enough, and would encourage further exploration to better understand the employment landscape. If you're a startup and exp…

No not under market rate, if your goal is to work 30 to 35 hours a week under market rate all power to you but if you expect to be getting paid $400k total compensation or more you better be giving me at least 40 hours of work that i expect from a senior engineer. 5 to 10 hours is a full day of work.

> if you expect to be getting paid $400k total compensation or more

I may be weird, but getting that level of compensation is honestly not something that would be that compelling to me. I mean, all else being equal, more money is better -- but all else is rarely equal.

What I want from a job is to engage in fulfilling work at a company I can be proud to be a part of, while making enough money that I don't have to worry about money very often. For me, where I live, that amount is around $80k (although I currently make a good deal more than that).

If I don't wake up in the morning happy to be going to work, then I'm in the wrong job, regardless of what it pays.

Re: Exercises to craft an employer brand that makes engineers want to work for you

#59

Post by yeahitslikethat »

burntoutcase wrote: post #7

I don't give a shit about your brand. I'm selling my labor to survive. I'll give you your money's worth for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week (with overtime if I fuck up and need to work late to make it right), but while my time and effort are for sale, my emotions aren't. You can't possibly pay me enough to actually give a damn about you or your bullshit brand or your bullshit product. You can only pay me enough to work…

I won't work for a company I don't care about. If it's not doing something good and especially if it is doing something bad, I just cannot work there. I feel ill. Psychologically overwhelmed by cognitive dissonance. That can only go on for a week or two before I just stop working for them.

Re: Exercises to craft an employer brand that makes engineers want to work for you

#60

Post by pmiller2 »

linuxftw wrote: post #39
neilv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest that the "coding test" Bonus Round has a few secret side purposes, especially when used on experienced candidates: * The candidate focuses on hoop-jumping for the frat hazing, rather than on how skilled the people giving the one-way interviewing are, and what they'd be like to work with. (In any other context, this one-way behavior would be an oblivious and kinda jerky move, and also suggest a dysfunctional…

I often feel the interviewee role is backwards for senior level positions. It should be more like a college recruiting a star athlete. My body of work is on the public internet, it's all about what you can offer me, not the other way around.

I agree, but for actually senior people, not people who’ve survived the SF tech scene for 3-5 years.
Post reply on HN