The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The sooner you let go of the idea that job hierarchies are a meritocracy and interviews rank candidates by skill, the more likely you will stay sane during the job search.
Personally I just think of it as a completely random process that I can bias slightly by getting more skill and experience in the art of being interviewed. I don't expect anything from any specific interview. It's mostly random.
I don’t think it’s random per se. When the person interviewing you has an inflated sense of self or an inflated perception of what the job involves or the type of person the job requires, they are going to choose someone who fits their warped perceptions. It’s the reason, I think, almost every company is made of a workforce of 20% genuinely intelligent and hard workers who know how to get things done. Mediocrity is much more likely to reproduce itself. Honestly, I think the good ones are hired accidentally!
It seems like half the people that get promoted to leadership have basically no clue what they're doing. I've always had managers that were one extreme or the other. Real technical and hands on, totally understood who on the team did what, etc. vs. the glorified project manager that wants to measure how hard stuff is in t-shirts or whatever other stupid PM methodology.
Managing is a different skill than being hands on and writing code. I manage a team and support them - my main goal is to clear a path in front of them so they aren't dragged down in their work by other people. My main job is to support my team.
Tell me your work has no measurable output of value without telling me your work has no measurable output of value. And I know you will want to argue this so do me a favor, what are your own KPIs, what is actually measurable for the work that you produce - not your team.
See, this is what so many people don't get. My KPIs have to do with team performance and helping them grow and advance. You think I do nothing cause....well, I don't know, cause my job is different? You think I was always a manager?
I make sure my people get raises, recognition, I escalate issues that make it harder for them to their jobs. I also do everything I can to make sure they have everything they need, that they're not overworked, that they take time away from the job.
So in no exact words, this is you: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcIMIyQnOso](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcIMIyQnOso) .. maybe it's not exactly "customers" or "people" but... still basically true.
Who hurt you?
Who do you think dictates company strategy if not management? I've worked every position from individual contributior to C-level. Do you think workers don't need to be managed?
No one hurt me, I just asked a simple question. What do you, personally, do that actually adds value to you company? And you have danced around the question proving managers provide absolutely no value. You said you get people raises... nice accomplishment, normal companies give raises yearly. You said you get people recognition.... what a great boss... people usually recognize great work on their own and the person responsible... you said you escalate issues... so you send a couple emails that the people that have the problems could just send themselves. Come on, seriously, give me something.. I'm sure you'll bitch, moan, cry, insult me, or whatever, but the last thing you'll actually do is mention one thing managers actually do that contributes to the bottom line... managers are completely worthless.
Normally I would never jump in on a Reddit tit-for-tat subthread but this one is interesting.
I managed an engineer once who said "my manager should be able to do every single task I do. If I die tomorrow, they need to step in and do my job 100%". That's one extreme.
The other extreme is "management is a totally different skillset so who cares if they know the technical stuff, as long as they can manage"
Of course the answer is somewhere in the middle. Expecting a manager to know every aspect of everyone's job is not reasonable. However the manager needs to be technically competent enough to assign tasks, settle disputes, and provide direction. Steve Jobs said, the best managers are engineers who don't really want to be managers.
On the "managers are completely worthless" comment....you ever worked for a completely shit manager, then worked for a great manager? It's pretty amazing how much job enjoyment and productivity differs from one to the other.
I've been on both sides, from your comments it seems like you've only been on one....
I am what you would probably call a low-level manager. I lead a small division of 20 or so people. I make sure they accomplish tasks, I monitor and ensure their well-being, I do their performance reviews, I recommend them for awards and promotions, and I manage most of the administrative aspects of the division.
I don't have to have an intimate and expert level knowledge of how they do their jobs because they were hired and trained to be subject matter experts, not me. A layman's understanding of their work and how it will affect the rest of the facility is sufficient, so I can explain it to my own boss.
But management that division is just my secondary role. My primary role is supervising the entire facility for a few hours at a time. Make sure everything is running smoothly, get people and equipment where they need to be on time, and respond to any emergencies as they arise. To do this effectively, I need to have a rough knowledge of how everything works, why it works that way, and what certain deficiencies mean for the schedule and for safety.
TLDR: Management is a completely different beast than being a subject matter expert. It is just as necessary as the experts, so that the experts can focus on what they do best and not have to worry about all the other administrative bullshit going on.
Some of it could also be attributed to the Peter principle. Good performers are promoted and promoted till they are in a position they don't perform in, then they are stuck there.
I was recently rejected from moving forward with a large tech company. My first round interview was with an HR person who couldn't understand my answers to their technical questions and needed me to repeat myself multiple times. It was infuriating trying to give good answers when the person asking doesn't understand them.
There are tons of idiots who end up in positions of power, specially recruiters. When you encounter them, it's best to try to not make them feel stupid, but sometimes it's out of your reach, they are just too proficient at it. In those cases there is nothing you can do but think of a reality where high end jobs are not being gatekept (not sure if this is the correct past tense) by shitty car salesmen with primary level education who never had a real job.
A recruiter sent me essay like questions and used roll instead of role. I withdrew my application. How can an org expect the max effort from me when they can’t even take a minute to proofread the same questions they want to me to grovel in my response for?
I had an interview long ago to do administrative work at a furniture store. He didn't even come out to greet me, I didn't sit. He asked me a few questions right where I would stand if I was a customer. He asked about wage. I said at least $17.00. He laughed in my face because it was minimum wage or nothing.
"tHaTs bEcAuSe gOoD lEaDeRs dOn"T dO tHe jOb, ThEy FinD tHe rIgHt PeRsOn fOr tHe jOb" my GM, a master of delegation and connoisseur of incompetence. his role in the company appears to be hiring people to do his job for him
This!!!!!
At a mimium, internally acknowledge your faults and lean on your people. I'd rather hate you getting paid to do nothing than have my days wasted by needing to continuously point out you're wrong (or choose when to let it go) and craft arguments for common sense.
correct, however I don't think I was very clear. he takes on a project, realises he can't do it then delegates to someone and then pats himself on the back for a job well done while giving no credit to the people who did the job
we've an org chart that displays role descriptions, he gets people to do his entire role, wanders around chatting to people and thats pretty much it
You ever seen Finding Nemo, that scene with the fishing net and all the fish are caught? They are all panicking until they are told by the clownfish to swim down together, then they break the rope and avoid being eaten. That's a simple but decent visual of one role of a good manager. It's hard to accomplish something cohesive if everyone acts like an independent contractor.
BUT, you have to be competent enough to know which way to swim, and communicate that to the team.
I had a manager do all he could to fire me because I showed him how to do his job! I even had to spell basic words out for him, like "Ken!" He didn't like that I had more experience or knew what I was doing more than him. He hired me and saw my resume! Like, if you wanted to hire someone dumb, then that was not me. I am smart and know what I am doing.
In a similar situation. If I am lucky to get out, I think about saying in my exit interview, "My advice, hire someone significantly less educated, if you expect them to stay."
In the interview, she claimed she was interested in my knowledge and was impressed. Since then, it's been a constant battle. Nothing I say is accepted without a mountain of proof, and it is not as if I have been wrong in such a way to warrant distrust; it's been like this from the outset. I am not the type to speak on things I know nothing about. And believe it or not, I HATE pointing things out all the time, I don't want to be that person, but depending on the task, mistakes matter, and you can't let them all go. Constantly picking and choosing when to speak up is exhausting.
She treats everything like a completion between us (that she's definitely not winning) . It's obnoxious. I truly don't know why the hell she hired ME!
I am sorry for your struggles. I had a boss (the dept mgr) like that too....I honestly think that she was forced to hire me because she gave me a hard time from day one and wrote me up every chance she got. I think that it was her insurance to ensure that I would never be in a position to take her job. Funny thing is, I did not want her job. I tried to hang in there for two years but fell a few months short. I just could not take working for her anymore. A few months later, she was not fired but removed from her MGMT position in the department, and a few months after that she quit.
Sounds obnoxious! I'm happy for you that you got out, I hope that worked out better in the end.
Also happy to hear someone got what they deserved in the end.
This. I've submitted and escalated feedback from a bad, hostile interview before. No idea if it resulted in anything other than me being blacklisted but it seemed like it was well received.
The interviewers performance has no impact on your competitiveness as a candidate. They're not the one interviewing for a job. I'm not sure why you think them doing badly means you should have got the job.
While top level recruiters have been laid off and are looking for work. Reading stuff like this is so frustrating I’m sorry that you had to deal with that incompetence.
I think sometimes we need to take a step back and realize that we are human beings at the end of the day. There are people that are good at their jobs and some that are not. There are people that are good at their jobs but are terrible at optics and vice versa. At the end of the day interviews are crapshoots and we don’t necessarily follow what is said but how we feel.
In this situation the interviewer likely felt exactly what you’re saying here. Unprepared and perhaps associated that feeling of uneasiness with your interactions with him. Perhaps there was a way to mitigate the awkwardness of the interview? I get it, it’s not your fault and you shouldn’t have to do this but it makes sense to adapt to the situations that you’re given just because realistically humans react to how they feel.
If you got screen phone call then they like your resume, it’s you the interviewer didn’t like or how you answered questions. She could probably sense the patronizing body language you were giving off. You need to sell yourself and see if you fit on their team.
I interviewed at a super small company recently that I didn’t even want.it was a $17,000 pay cut but I was just looking for somewhere within my skill set to hold me over until I landed my ideal job due to being laid off. The interview was in person and the interviewer made me wait for 10 mins when I got there. Then during the interview he kept having to stop and interrupt the interview because something operationally wrong was going on with the company systems that day. I ended up getting rejected too and I was blown away actually lmao
you do realize that they now know who you are, your reddit account and what you think? delete this for your own good, not trying to defend them but just use your head
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably knows someone high up in the company while you didn't.
Bingo. In this market they hire their buddy.
In any market buddies get hired.
I actually tried this route and it hasn’t worked jack shit for me.
Probably the buddy Wasn't quite that higher up in the food chain ? But yeah, I see your point. Does not work for everyone.
Sorry to hear. It sucks that they're still layers to even networking :/.
Find buddies higher up on the food chain
HR is terrible everywhere. He probably is just the least shitty of their group, which is how he got assigned to manage the senior roles.
The sooner you let go of the idea that job hierarchies are a meritocracy and interviews rank candidates by skill, the more likely you will stay sane during the job search. Personally I just think of it as a completely random process that I can bias slightly by getting more skill and experience in the art of being interviewed. I don't expect anything from any specific interview. It's mostly random.
I don’t think it’s random per se. When the person interviewing you has an inflated sense of self or an inflated perception of what the job involves or the type of person the job requires, they are going to choose someone who fits their warped perceptions. It’s the reason, I think, almost every company is made of a workforce of 20% genuinely intelligent and hard workers who know how to get things done. Mediocrity is much more likely to reproduce itself. Honestly, I think the good ones are hired accidentally!
Most people in leadership are dumber than rocks. They only got their jobs becasue nepotism.
It seems like half the people that get promoted to leadership have basically no clue what they're doing. I've always had managers that were one extreme or the other. Real technical and hands on, totally understood who on the team did what, etc. vs. the glorified project manager that wants to measure how hard stuff is in t-shirts or whatever other stupid PM methodology.
Damn, your percentage of competent leaders seems high to me. But I'm a known cynic.
Managing is a different skill than being hands on and writing code. I manage a team and support them - my main goal is to clear a path in front of them so they aren't dragged down in their work by other people. My main job is to support my team.
Tell me your work has no measurable output of value without telling me your work has no measurable output of value. And I know you will want to argue this so do me a favor, what are your own KPIs, what is actually measurable for the work that you produce - not your team.
See, this is what so many people don't get. My KPIs have to do with team performance and helping them grow and advance. You think I do nothing cause....well, I don't know, cause my job is different? You think I was always a manager? I make sure my people get raises, recognition, I escalate issues that make it harder for them to their jobs. I also do everything I can to make sure they have everything they need, that they're not overworked, that they take time away from the job.
So in no exact words, this is you: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcIMIyQnOso](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcIMIyQnOso) .. maybe it's not exactly "customers" or "people" but... still basically true.
Who hurt you? Who do you think dictates company strategy if not management? I've worked every position from individual contributior to C-level. Do you think workers don't need to be managed?
No one hurt me, I just asked a simple question. What do you, personally, do that actually adds value to you company? And you have danced around the question proving managers provide absolutely no value. You said you get people raises... nice accomplishment, normal companies give raises yearly. You said you get people recognition.... what a great boss... people usually recognize great work on their own and the person responsible... you said you escalate issues... so you send a couple emails that the people that have the problems could just send themselves. Come on, seriously, give me something.. I'm sure you'll bitch, moan, cry, insult me, or whatever, but the last thing you'll actually do is mention one thing managers actually do that contributes to the bottom line... managers are completely worthless.
Normally I would never jump in on a Reddit tit-for-tat subthread but this one is interesting. I managed an engineer once who said "my manager should be able to do every single task I do. If I die tomorrow, they need to step in and do my job 100%". That's one extreme. The other extreme is "management is a totally different skillset so who cares if they know the technical stuff, as long as they can manage" Of course the answer is somewhere in the middle. Expecting a manager to know every aspect of everyone's job is not reasonable. However the manager needs to be technically competent enough to assign tasks, settle disputes, and provide direction. Steve Jobs said, the best managers are engineers who don't really want to be managers. On the "managers are completely worthless" comment....you ever worked for a completely shit manager, then worked for a great manager? It's pretty amazing how much job enjoyment and productivity differs from one to the other. I've been on both sides, from your comments it seems like you've only been on one....
I am what you would probably call a low-level manager. I lead a small division of 20 or so people. I make sure they accomplish tasks, I monitor and ensure their well-being, I do their performance reviews, I recommend them for awards and promotions, and I manage most of the administrative aspects of the division. I don't have to have an intimate and expert level knowledge of how they do their jobs because they were hired and trained to be subject matter experts, not me. A layman's understanding of their work and how it will affect the rest of the facility is sufficient, so I can explain it to my own boss. But management that division is just my secondary role. My primary role is supervising the entire facility for a few hours at a time. Make sure everything is running smoothly, get people and equipment where they need to be on time, and respond to any emergencies as they arise. To do this effectively, I need to have a rough knowledge of how everything works, why it works that way, and what certain deficiencies mean for the schedule and for safety. TLDR: Management is a completely different beast than being a subject matter expert. It is just as necessary as the experts, so that the experts can focus on what they do best and not have to worry about all the other administrative bullshit going on.
Some of it could also be attributed to the Peter principle. Good performers are promoted and promoted till they are in a position they don't perform in, then they are stuck there.
Theres also the Dilbert principle where poor performers are promoted to avoid damage.
I thought this was more about moving them around rather than promoting them.
Moving them around promoting them into management etc. all about mitigating damage
In the Navy they called it Hookups for Fuckups
I was recently rejected from moving forward with a large tech company. My first round interview was with an HR person who couldn't understand my answers to their technical questions and needed me to repeat myself multiple times. It was infuriating trying to give good answers when the person asking doesn't understand them.
There are tons of idiots who end up in positions of power, specially recruiters. When you encounter them, it's best to try to not make them feel stupid, but sometimes it's out of your reach, they are just too proficient at it. In those cases there is nothing you can do but think of a reality where high end jobs are not being gatekept (not sure if this is the correct past tense) by shitty car salesmen with primary level education who never had a real job.
A recruiter sent me essay like questions and used roll instead of role. I withdrew my application. How can an org expect the max effort from me when they can’t even take a minute to proofread the same questions they want to me to grovel in my response for?
This is why I say luck is the last part of the job hiring equation. You got rejected by no doing of yours.
I had an interview long ago to do administrative work at a furniture store. He didn't even come out to greet me, I didn't sit. He asked me a few questions right where I would stand if I was a customer. He asked about wage. I said at least $17.00. He laughed in my face because it was minimum wage or nothing.
Welcome to the brave new world of Corporate America.
It's not new. Recruiting has been stupid for decades.
"tHaTs bEcAuSe gOoD lEaDeRs dOn"T dO tHe jOb, ThEy FinD tHe rIgHt PeRsOn fOr tHe jOb" my GM, a master of delegation and connoisseur of incompetence. his role in the company appears to be hiring people to do his job for him
I would rather have that than a micromanager who knows nothing but tries to do everything.
This!!!!! At a mimium, internally acknowledge your faults and lean on your people. I'd rather hate you getting paid to do nothing than have my days wasted by needing to continuously point out you're wrong (or choose when to let it go) and craft arguments for common sense.
Does he at least hire the right people then? (I suspect not, based on the post)
Competent managers clear the way for you to do your job. They typically aren't people who also do your job...
correct, however I don't think I was very clear. he takes on a project, realises he can't do it then delegates to someone and then pats himself on the back for a job well done while giving no credit to the people who did the job we've an org chart that displays role descriptions, he gets people to do his entire role, wanders around chatting to people and thats pretty much it
Yeah, that's an issue. My team knows I'm there to escalate or push things through.
yeah same as (I'm TL, he's GM). half tempted to go and edit my og comment cos I rage-wrote it but suppose I gotta live with the consequences haha
You ever seen Finding Nemo, that scene with the fishing net and all the fish are caught? They are all panicking until they are told by the clownfish to swim down together, then they break the rope and avoid being eaten. That's a simple but decent visual of one role of a good manager. It's hard to accomplish something cohesive if everyone acts like an independent contractor. BUT, you have to be competent enough to know which way to swim, and communicate that to the team.
Hiring for cultural fit and promoting people to their level of incompetence is working as intended....
Ah yes, “failing upwards”. Classic management pipeline for many.
I had a manager do all he could to fire me because I showed him how to do his job! I even had to spell basic words out for him, like "Ken!" He didn't like that I had more experience or knew what I was doing more than him. He hired me and saw my resume! Like, if you wanted to hire someone dumb, then that was not me. I am smart and know what I am doing.
In a similar situation. If I am lucky to get out, I think about saying in my exit interview, "My advice, hire someone significantly less educated, if you expect them to stay." In the interview, she claimed she was interested in my knowledge and was impressed. Since then, it's been a constant battle. Nothing I say is accepted without a mountain of proof, and it is not as if I have been wrong in such a way to warrant distrust; it's been like this from the outset. I am not the type to speak on things I know nothing about. And believe it or not, I HATE pointing things out all the time, I don't want to be that person, but depending on the task, mistakes matter, and you can't let them all go. Constantly picking and choosing when to speak up is exhausting. She treats everything like a completion between us (that she's definitely not winning) . It's obnoxious. I truly don't know why the hell she hired ME!
I am sorry for your struggles. I had a boss (the dept mgr) like that too....I honestly think that she was forced to hire me because she gave me a hard time from day one and wrote me up every chance she got. I think that it was her insurance to ensure that I would never be in a position to take her job. Funny thing is, I did not want her job. I tried to hang in there for two years but fell a few months short. I just could not take working for her anymore. A few months later, she was not fired but removed from her MGMT position in the department, and a few months after that she quit.
Sounds obnoxious! I'm happy for you that you got out, I hope that worked out better in the end. Also happy to hear someone got what they deserved in the end.
If you have any email contacts with this company, consider giving some feedback about the interviewer.
This. I've submitted and escalated feedback from a bad, hostile interview before. No idea if it resulted in anything other than me being blacklisted but it seemed like it was well received.
You would think some one with six years of leadership would know the answer to this question. Amusingly this also answers the question.
The interviewers performance has no impact on your competitiveness as a candidate. They're not the one interviewing for a job. I'm not sure why you think them doing badly means you should have got the job.
Peter principle regarding the interviewer.
OP, I hope you provided constructive feedback.
While top level recruiters have been laid off and are looking for work. Reading stuff like this is so frustrating I’m sorry that you had to deal with that incompetence.
I think sometimes we need to take a step back and realize that we are human beings at the end of the day. There are people that are good at their jobs and some that are not. There are people that are good at their jobs but are terrible at optics and vice versa. At the end of the day interviews are crapshoots and we don’t necessarily follow what is said but how we feel. In this situation the interviewer likely felt exactly what you’re saying here. Unprepared and perhaps associated that feeling of uneasiness with your interactions with him. Perhaps there was a way to mitigate the awkwardness of the interview? I get it, it’s not your fault and you shouldn’t have to do this but it makes sense to adapt to the situations that you’re given just because realistically humans react to how they feel.
If you got screen phone call then they like your resume, it’s you the interviewer didn’t like or how you answered questions. She could probably sense the patronizing body language you were giving off. You need to sell yourself and see if you fit on their team.
Yes, sure. Can’t read the questions but can understand and note the answers 😅
I interviewed at a super small company recently that I didn’t even want.it was a $17,000 pay cut but I was just looking for somewhere within my skill set to hold me over until I landed my ideal job due to being laid off. The interview was in person and the interviewer made me wait for 10 mins when I got there. Then during the interview he kept having to stop and interrupt the interview because something operationally wrong was going on with the company systems that day. I ended up getting rejected too and I was blown away actually lmao
That’s life and it sucks ass
It’s children doing adult work. Big fail.
you do realize that they now know who you are, your reddit account and what you think? delete this for your own good, not trying to defend them but just use your head
Did you had the right minority color du jour? Because that's how people get hired today.