[git-pull]

I disagree with the other comments. If you interviewed 30 times and are an expert in the field, you probably made up for the variants at this point.

The culture today systematically lacks respect for seniority.

You don't give non-standardized technical screenings to candidates with a demonstrable track record. What are you trying to do by screening people? Are you saying that the applicant is potentially fraudulent?

Why isn't their technical screening standardized? What is it testing for? Is there confirmation by an independent body the screening represents the responsibilities of the role?

Some more factors:

- If it's a startup and you have 10 years of experience, you'd have more experience than most founders. Outshining the master is super-unemployable, unless they're willing to split equity and let you in as a co-founder. Then they're serious. Otherwise, you're just another programmer to them.

- The person interviewing you doesn't want to hire the person who replaces them. Then they'd be stuck job hunting like you. Unless they're retiring in the near future, being too good is probably going to get you a sham technical screening, or some excuse that flunks you early on.

- There is a reporting bias. Due to survivor guilt, you don't see people chiming in every time they get their time wasted.

[the_d00d]

Great analysis... I like your 'outshine the master comment'. There is a good chance that the OP is intimidating the interviewer and should make an effort to display humility to counteract this.

[dmarlow]

"Outshining the master is super-unemployable"

Any founder worth a grain of salt, i.e. one you'd want to work for, realizes their weaknesses and strives to hire people smarter than they are.

[git-pull]

I think that's an idealization of what it should be.

I think that's what would be best for business.

So, back at a company called Buzzr, we had an opportunity to hire a very talented programmer known in the Drupal community. Many many accomplishments, it's safe to say if we took him on, it'd radically change our day to day operations (we needed to do something, in my opinion). He really did espouse the best of the concepts of Drupal, which was perfect, since we were a Drupal SAAS platform.

We didn't take him on. There wasn't much chat - but I was able to scoop up hearsay of why: He'd shake things up too much; too opinionated.

Here's the thing though: who would he be butting heads against? Nobody really had strong technical opinions. I was really junior at the time, and would be honored to work with him.

If you're somebody that has accomplishments and a track record, you're going to have opinions and a style. And for some reason, even startups where there is open room for delegation, decision makers lean toward protecting their turf. Even in situations where they couldn't do better themselves. Even when they're desperate for help.

We're making the mistake of viewing organizations being game theorists that make the most optimal decision - that's not always the case. Organizations don't hire, divisions and teams within them do. In practice, it's more nuanced and political.

It's safe to say, the decision maker's self-preservation overshadows the business making the best decisions.

Sometimes irking the decision maker's pride - disdaining something superior to them - is enough to end the process. It's less cognitive dissonance to just move to the other 999 applications in the pile, than worry how we're going to manage a generative, creative force. The narrative shifts to finding the most "appropriate" candidate based on the hiring manager's sense of safety.

That's my anecdote.

[dmarlow]

Thanks for sharing. I found your views and points insightful.

[dapplicant]

That's a good point, but in my experience the founder interview usually takes place last, and only if you've been green lit by the previous interviewers.

[git-pull]

I have many times where founders call me right after submitting my application.

There are also times where they are ecstatic at first, but something happens. I don't know - maybe someone's being a bad reference and I have to check on them, or I come off as ragged to them, who knows. Maybe I'm just so honest and candid I talk them out of hiring me.

Part of it is me. In job interviews, I make myself vulnerable, rather than assertive. They already Googled me (whether they admit it or not) and know what I can do. This is someone I'd work for, not an equal. Can I trust them to have integrity and be fair? Because that's what employment is, they have overwhelming power over your life.

Or maybe they move their line of thinking forward, "where are we going to put him?"

I've created open source applications from end-to-end. I have my own way of doing things. I'm enough of a force where people use my software on their machines, import my libraries, and use my documentation. That's a lot to process. Compare that to a fresh candidate on a clean slate that passed their technical screenings. On top of that, there's a couple of hundred to pick from.

Hiring me poses friction and risk. The applicant that passed all the tests conformed and regimented themselves to follow instruction? That's a worker, not a mover/shaker.

See what I mean? It's great to be a "somebody" in a technical field, but sometimes even founders realize their "quest for talent" isn't really so.

But based on this post, I think your issue is you're playing by their rules, doing their take homes and tests, to make it into the pool of "safe picks". Unrealized to many is that hundreds throw themselves at these tests, and they exist only to give the one flipping through resumes less eye strain.

It's not a dignifying experience.

These technical screenings are a sham. They protect entrenched streetwise careerists and lock out honest, reliable people who get stuff done. It promotes imposter syndrome, and wastes thousands of hours of time. This is one of the biggest problems in tech.

To repeat: the reason you don't hear more of this is people don't like to announce they're a failing at "getting a job". It's universal in most cultures being unemployed is being a failure. Understandably, people aren't going to publicly announce their struggle.

They think it's them. Sometimes it is. But if you've interviewed over years, or many many times, you've ruled out the quirks. You're now going to have to come to grips that you're not crazy, that there are systemic realities outside your control pushing you out. Probably ones which don't jive with the ideals of (fairness? merit? esteem?) of being a software developer.

What do you fill your time with, while you're job searching? I don't think you said.

[dapplicant]

First of all I appreciate what you've written in this thread. It sounds like we've had similar experiences.

> To repeat: the reason you don't hear more of this is people don't like to announce they're a failing at "getting a job".

This is reassuring to hear. It's really easy for me to feel crazy and depressed with the constant rejections. Crazy because I'm constantly being told that I'm not able to do the exact things I've been praised for doing again and again in the past.

> I think your issue is you're playing by their rules

I think you're right. I need to try something else.

> What do you fill your time with, while you're job searching? I don't think you said.

I've kept to my workday routine every day since becoming unemployed. Interviewing takes up a lot of the time. Aside from that I have some side projects that I work on occasionally. However my computer was stolen during the move, and I lost a lot of early prototypes that hadn't yet made it to Github. Sometimes when I try to work on one of those projects I just get caught in depression feedback loop. I released (and sold out!) a record last week, so I'll spend some time this week making a small app to help me fulfill those orders.

[switch007]

Absolutely. They may even go as far as saying it around the office and to all their friends. ;)