|
Sab669 posted:I'd be pretty disappointed if I learned one or my references was like, "Yea Sab is a pretty decent programmer but he's very disorganized and often loses sight of low priority tasks and is forgetful". The company I work for has a codified career ladder, where there are specific understandings of how engineers at each level are supposed to perform. As you would expect, the compensation gets higher as the level gets higher. We have a 360-degree review process at least annually to assess the people in the company and calibrate them against their level. It is in my interest as a manager to see people performing consistently, but I really want to see strong or exceptional performers. This puts people on a fast-track to promotion and typically increases their bonus payout for the year. If someone is borderline between two levels, I'd like to take an educated position on where to put them. I want people to come on board at the highest level they can perform at, but I don't want to set them up for failure. When I do reference checks, I'm prodding for things I should look out for when they start, so I can coach them more effectively instead of waiting a few months to figure out what's a one-off behavior and what's a habit. If I'm confident that I have the information on day 1 to do that, I can coach them better, push them to the top of their game, up their bonus, up my own bonus, and maybe hire them at a higher starting salary than somebody I know nothing about. It ultimately helps them. So I understand not wanting to talk poo poo about your references. Don't go on the phone and say, "I wouldn't hire this person because they don't deliver on any of their commitments, which wouldn't be a problem if they were really good coders, but they're not" because that is not useful for anyone in the situation at all. But being honest, if indirect, about stuff like "sometimes they're inclined to multitask too aggressively when they have to choose between ambiguous priorities, and they do best with active support from their coworkers and management in this area" does a lot to help people level up if the person conducting the call is actually empowered in some way by this information. But if you get an HR drone or a background check company on the phone: smile and nod.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:I'm gonna give a perspective off the mainstream goon-approved angle again. This is highly situational, and probably very atypical: like in a lot of forward-thinking organizations, I am the person's future manager conducting a reference check, not an HR drone. Ignore this. This is the approach management takes when they want any reason to pay someone less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:By not saying anything at all and letting them make their own mistakes? It's not your responsibility to police your friend. Part of being a good friend is letting them know when you think they're making a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:Ignore this. This is the approach management takes when they want any reason to pay someone less. For my part, I have no idea what any of my directs make. I'm out of the loop at the point of hire and I'm out of the loop years down the line unless one of them decides to share that information with me. I acknowledge, again, that this isn't the case everywhere, but it's par for the course for organizations patterned off of FAANG people management structures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Part of being a good friend is also letting them make their own mistakes and being there to help when they need it. It's one thing if they ask your opinion. It's another, completely, if it's unsolicited advice. E: Vulture Culture posted:Toxic, self-defeating cynicism and an adversarial relationship with your management is one way to go through your career, and if it gets you results, I'm in no place to tell you that you're wrong. You can have a great relationship with management and still recognize that there are certain things management will do to your detriment without being concerned about your needs one iota.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:You can have a great relationship with management and still recognize that there are certain things management will do to your detriment without being concerned about your needs one iota.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
If I’m giving the reference, there is no way for me to know if the stranger I’m talking to is a model aw shucks manager trying to set my friend up for success, or a money-grubbing dick who gets a bonus for every dollar they shave off a new hire. Better to assume the worst.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
One of my friends blamed themself for me not getting a certain job and requested that I never ask them to be a reference again. They're probably right, too. The hiring manager had called me with "concerns" after they'd called my references anx I couldn't talk my way out of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:I just want to make sure I understand your implication correctly. You're suggesting that a good candidate, who did well in the interview, who the company wants to hire, and who probably has multiple competing offers, is going to be lowballed because of a reference check. And the reason this reference check is necessary to even do instead of just lowballing is so the person making the offer can neg the candidate, someone they want to come work at the company, about the reference check being why they aren't worth more. Is that accurate, or do you have a different play-by-play in your head of how this situation goes down? Don't be so obtuse. management's job is to optimize productivity while keeping costs as low as possible. If a hiring manager can bring someone in at a slightly lower level, even if the pay is the same, and justify it by pointing to a sub-par reference, that can have knock on effects when it comes to raises, promotions, non-cash comp, or bonuses. Your experience at your top-tier company is the outlier. For every scenario like the one you've come up with, there are easily hundreds where a candidate might be spiked completely or their comp reduced because of a less-than-perfect reference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 19:02
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:Toxic, self-defeating cynicism and an adversarial relationship with your management is one way to go through your career, and if it gets you results, I'm in no place to tell you that you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:I'm gonna give a perspective off the mainstream goon-approved angle again. This is highly situational, and probably very atypical: like in a lot of forward-thinking organizations, I am the person's future manager conducting a reference check, not an HR drone. None of this jives with multiple places that were holding up an offer until I could find N glowing references. (E: as opposed to “yes progressive jpeg worked here but anything more might be interpreted as poaching”) Don’t narc on your friends. At the reference stage, you’re the one that is deciding whether they get the job, and they will not get it unless you can say that they walk on water. If your friend has any issues professionally then you should bring it up with your friend and not the company that’s still mulling over whether to give them an offer. The reference stage of an interview process absolutely isn’t the time for a frank discussion of shortcomings. Progressive JPEG fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
In my experience I can safely say that the primary concern is finding someone capable and non-toxic. $$$ only figure into the decision if the candidate is asking for way too much. Quibbling over salary isn't useful when those differences are <1% of our team's operating costs, but maybe that's just us. And managers do not get any bonus for saving money on their reports' salaries. If they did, there'd be no incentive for them to give positive performance reviews and would create a horrible and combative work environment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
minato posted:And managers do not get any bonus for saving money on their reports' salaries. If they did, there'd be no incentive for them to give positive performance reviews and would create a horrible and combative work environment. To be fair I’ve had managers totally willing to do this part of it for free kitten smoothie fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Nov 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:I'm gonna give a perspective off the mainstream goon-approved angle again. This is highly situational, and probably very atypical: like in a lot of forward-thinking organizations, I am the person's future manager conducting a reference check, not an HR drone. VC normally I agree with you on most things, but nah, not here. Also, I'm speaking as a ~~**hiring manager**~~ for whatever that means (nothing). If your *friend* asks for a reference "they kick rear end and are incredible you'd be an idiot to pass on them". If someone you don't know asks for a reference "I worked with them, they are a person who does work, I would/wouldn't work with them again". That's it. You're not helping anyone by trying to figure out how to best match them to a career ladder at a company you don't know a thing about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
if you’re not willing to give a stellar reference to someone that asks, you shouldn’t be a reference for them imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:if you’re not willing to give a stellar reference to someone that asks, you shouldn’t be a reference for them imo. ^^
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:Toxic, self-defeating cynicism and an adversarial relationship with your management is one way to go through your career, and if it gets you results, I'm in no place to tell you that you're wrong. Salary negotiation is 100% adversarial and that's what is happening during the reference check period HTH.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:I just want to make sure I understand your implication correctly. You're suggesting that a good candidate, who did well in the interview, who the company wants to hire, and who probably has multiple competing offers, is going to be lowballed because of a reference check. And the reason this reference check is necessary to even do instead of just lowballing is so the person making the offer can neg the candidate, someone they want to come work at the company, about the reference check being why they aren't worth more. Is that accurate, or do you have a different play-by-play in your head of how this situation goes down? The company doesn't want that person - they want what that person can do for them and they want it as cheap as they can get it. None of us get hired because we're great people (though getting passed up on the basis of being a jackass happens) - we get hired because we can do things and if someone else came along and did those things at half the salary, we would have even more airliners falling out of the skies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 07:37
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:I just want to make sure I understand your implication correctly. You're suggesting that a good candidate, who did well in the interview, who the company wants to hire, and who probably has multiple competing offers, is going to be lowballed because of a reference check. And the reason this reference check is necessary to even do instead of just lowballing is so the person making the offer can neg the candidate, someone they want to come work at the company, about the reference check being why they aren't worth more. Is that accurate, or do you have a different play-by-play in your head of how this situation goes down? You are so out of touch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 10:23
|
|
|
a hot gujju bhabhi posted:You are so out of touch. Y'all are right, though - I'm not respecting the asymmetry of information correctly in these situations, probably ignoring the privilege of the folks we're reference-checking for, and I need to better refine my understanding of who this advice applies to and why. I'm sitting here like "let's make this relationship better" when people are pointing at war wounds and saying "can you please stop pretending these aren't real, dumbass"
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
It's not just an issue of information asymmetry. There are also power imbalances due to the fact that most team can go without filling a role longer than many applicants can stay in their current situations. A lot of companies recognize that fact and base their hiring strategies around people being at least slightly desparate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
VC the fact is that management and labor are always on opposite sides of the table. the only exception is if the workers actually control the company, and I presume you don’t work in a co-op
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
Well I've been at my employer for around 5 months now and it's been a string of broken promises and horrible work. Starting to poke around again because I don't think having a short stint at an employer is that bad if it's not a trend, but I'm mad as hell. I've gotten some apologies about how horrible things have been from VPs but I need actual proof that they have a plan and that I'm not going to continually be hung out to dry if I stick around. You can't create a schedule without engineering input, give that to a client, and then keep having new work fall out of your pockets to force long days when you promised me that work-life balance was a thing here and that I'd actually be working on a completely different project anyway. And you can't do that around the goddamn holidays when people have actual travel plans (luckily they didn't cancel my PTO but this also left some other folks out to dry, which you can imagine building resentment!). If you can't tell I'm mad. EDIT: I can quit and not be financially hosed but I'd totally rather not be. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Nov 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Sounds like great work life balance for the managers
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:Sounds like great work life balance for the managers There is also a lot of micromanagement from non-engineers, which is no good at all. I'm gonna have to figure out how to spin all this into a "just a bad fit" narrative but this place isn't a good fit for anyone, really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Pro-tip: Always talk to the actual engineers who work there before accepting a job. If management refuses to let you do so, do not, under any circumstances take that job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
Also the actual eng may lie. This sounds like madness, but I had good mileage just hanging around at like 6pm or whenever in a cafe across the street doin crossword puzzles after on-sites and seeing when peeps come out. Real solid data point
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Pro-tip: Always talk to the actual engineers who work there before accepting a job. If management refuses to let you do so, do not, under any circumstances take that job. I got a lot of red flags in the first few weeks though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Other thing you can do is show up on Saturday at the parking lot and count cars. Only works if they have their own parking lot. Only works for small places
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:Other thing you can do is show up on Saturday at the parking lot and count cars. Only works if they have their own parking lot. Only works for small places
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
I remember like 15 loving years ago or something interviewing at a place that struck a lot of good notes and as I was finishing up I was pretty confident I'd accept an offer; it was around 5PM and as I was walking out one of the managers started walking around collecting the dinner orders from the developers since it was gonna be "another long night". I did not pursue their offer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:New York City lol. Lit windows in office
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
I had a conversation with my boss about context switching a few weeks ago and this gave me serious pause: he didn't understand how I was getting context switched all the time because I work on one product, what context is there to switch out of? Why am I complaining about it? Like that right there is a huge red flag and if he'd said that during the interview I'd probably have just declined any offer. But anyway the goal now is to get either specific promises and watch them follow through (lol) or really, just bolt and spin why I'm leaving as something that's not explicitly "this place was so loving awful you got someone who suffered through eight years of graduate school to leave in six months."
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 19:08
|
|
|
ultrafilter posted:It's not just an issue of information asymmetry. There are also power imbalances due to the fact that most team can go without filling a role longer than many applicants can stay in their current situations. A lot of companies recognize that fact and base their hiring strategies around people being at least slightly desparate. This is an intuitively reasonable thing to believe, but I'm not sure the data bears this out, at least for professions with strong talent markets. Most companies accelerate the offer process and try to sweeten the deal when an engineer they like has another offer, rather than dropping them out of the pipeline and starting over with a candidate in a more vulnerable position. Companies I've been with, even in the nonprofit space, are more likely to hire a candidate that is currently employed than someone who's been searching for a job for eight months. These things suggest to me that they value talent, and paying more for good people. Do you interpret it differently? ratbert90 posted:Pro-tip: Always talk to the actual engineers who work there before accepting a job. If management refuses to let you do so, do not, under any circumstances take that job. Vulture Culture fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Nov 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
No context switching for management, if they're working on one product! (Lol  )
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:These power imbalances do exist (though probably a bit less for the population of these forums—people who post online about their work because they're continuously learning—than the population at large). I'm curious about your conclusion, though. There's a lot of variation in how hiring processes work across companies and even across groups within a company. The power imbalance that I'm describing is only one factor contributing to that variation, and while it pulls in a direction, it doesn't move everything that way. But it's definitely a factor, particularly among smaller employers with less enlightened management.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
ultrafilter posted:There's a lot of variation in how hiring processes work across companies and even across groups within a company. The power imbalance that I'm describing is only one factor contributing to that variation, and while it pulls in a direction, it doesn't move everything that way. But it's definitely a factor, particularly among smaller employers with less enlightened management. I would say it is like this for every company that is not specificially a tech company as well. Hiring for software etc in those is a cost not a benefit in their eyes and their hiring practices reflect that. Their managers are not rational and their practices are not at all for the benefit of the employee. So many here are posting from a perspective of the programming oasis when the rest of the world is a scorched hellscape. It's bad out there everybody. Vote Bernie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Or, they will bump up the offer then screw you on raises. This feels msotly like a thing HR people and recruiters made up to talk you out of negotiating your salary
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS posted:This feels msotly like a thing HR people and recruiters made up to talk you out of negotiating your salary Not necessarily, I had a job that only did raises per calendar year and they told me that my salary negotiation counted as my raise for the first year. Later I found out that they told this to all hires, even those that didn't negotiate. That company doesn't exist anymore for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Later I found out that they told this to all hires, even those that didn't negotiate. So... fake after all then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2019 20:51
|
|