[eloisius]

As an interviewer it's too hard to tell if a candidate was indeed a victim of circumstance, like an acquisition that turned into a shitty job, or if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge. An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the positive aspects of their job history. Hire a shrink to vent about the toxic shitty job.

[aleph_minus_one]

> if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge.

Honestly, I get much better along with malcontents than with these "annoyingly positive" people. So, tastes differ.

> An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the positive aspects of their job history.

Many highly qualified candidates are bad actors and/or bad self-promoters.

[bumby]

I prefer positive people but can deal with complainers if they’re actively looking to make thinking better. The problem is when malcontents only bitch and rarely do anything about it. That creates a toxic environment.

[rcxdude]

Also very much depends on whether they're right or not. You can always compain about something, are they actually complaining about the things that matter?

[achierius]

I don't know if you and GP are using 'malcontent' to refer to the same kind of person.

[blitzar]

plural noun: malcontents :- a person who is dissatisfied and rebellious.

In Silicon Valley that is called a Founder.

[taormina]

And you don’t hire founders.

[Apocryphon]

Pithily true, but what about acquihires?

[svnt]

They didn’t apply to a job posting.

[kentrado]

So you are saying it is better if the candidate lies.

Otherwise you will be forced to reject him because there might be a possibility that the problem was him.

Seems like you are hiring the best liars. Or at least the best at playing an arbitrary game of saying and not saying the correct things that won't trigger a rejection.

At this point, are you even needed? Maybe we could replace the interview process with a lottery system. Same result, less expensive.

[Magmalgebra]

> So you are saying it is better if the candidate lies.

This is a toxic framing of an essential test. Constructing polite fictions is an essential skill for collaboration - no less essential than coding. Saying you're leaving in part because "your vision for the product has drfted from leadership's" tells me you probably think they were a pack of moronic baboons and that if you feel that way about some of your future team mates you can keep it under wraps.

[eloisius]

Exactly. It sounds like this test is working as expected based on the comments here. "Honest" might mean telling your coworker that their code sucks and you could do it better if they would just get out of your way. Tactful and positive would be saying they're off to a good start but here's some feedback. If someone can't describe their current or previous job in somewhat positive terms, I don't expect they'll be able to tactfully navigate difficult social situations in their new job.

[franktankbank]

Imagine if any other field operated this way, holy shit, how does tech only get away with this toxic shit? Good try their Joe, you only nicked the artery a little bit! Umm nope thats not how we cut the lumber Bill, don't worry though the rafters are invisible under the roof!

[margalabargala]

Tons of other fields operate this way.

Notably, in aviation, when things go wrong it is generally looked at in a non-blame way so that training cam be updated to prevent similar problems in the future.

It might not be what makes you happy, but ATC isn't in the business of making you happy. They're in the business of saving lives, which this method accomplishes better than what you're expecting.

[Magmalgebra]

This isn't a "tech" thing, it's a "professional managerial class" thing.

This same tests is applied in banking, finance, consulting, sales, or any number of other highly renumerative white collar professions. The farther up the ladder you go the more important it becomes.

[int_19h]

> Constructing polite fictions is an essential skill for collaboration

This is very much culture-dependent, not some fundamental truth.

It is true for American culture, yes. There are many others.

[Arainach]

Constant negativity kills team morale.

Even if the complaints are about things which are individually valid, the pattern is toxic.

Imagine a sports team. After running around for 45 minutes you're all probably tired. Would you rather work with someone who says "I'm tired, it's hot in here" or someone who focuses on encouraging those around them and talking about the team's accomplishments?

Part of the interview is proving you can avoid griping and focus on positives for at least 30-60 minutes, which is an essential skill anywhere.

[hobs]

Yes, and toxic positivity obliterates morale - being unable to acknowledge the negative outcomes of decisions means that you are just working towards some idiot's dream until you go play the roulette wheel again to figure out what the next people are not telling you about this place.

This is what literally makes tech workers go dream about farming.

[haswell]

Somewhere between toxic negativity and toxic positivity lies a middle ground and I think some of the comments here are presenting a bit of a false dichotomy.

When interviewing people, it’s usually possible to identify both extremes.

I’d prefer to hire someone who is not toxic. That goes for both extremes.

[franktankbank]

So going back to the originally assertion about not saying anything negative about the company when asked for reasons why you didn't like it? Why is saying something negative in that situation toxic? Crazy making man!

[haswell]

Saying something negative isn't inherently toxic. But saying something negative in a job interview is walking a line. Everyone everywhere has experienced negative factors in a prior job, so it's not exactly a revelation if someone has some war stories.

But what a person chooses to focus on does say something about how that person thinks.

If I ask someone what they dislike about their previous job, and they say something like "there were times when management would change directions at the last minute and cause the whole team to scramble", that's relatable and not necessarily a red flag.

If someone starts venting about low quality coworkers and shitty management, that's probably a red flag.

If someone volunteers negativity unprompted, that's probably a red flag.

My point here is that discerning between toxicity and honesty is usually possible, and what a person chooses to be negative about is a signal that helps tell the difference.

What I don't want on my team is a culture of negativity. A negative/pessimistic default is a wet blanket that shuts things down before they have a chance to get started. It creates tension where it need not exist. And it requires significant effort to counteract once it exists on the team. And to reiterate, I'm not looking for toxic positivity either. That's a separate problem.

[lolinder]

I have never had a work environment ruined by toxic positivity—the normal healthy human reaction to that kind of environment is gallows humor, which hits the sweet spot between acknowledging the problem and showing a willingness to be there with your team.

I'm sure there are people out there who do have a toxic positivity problem, but my own anecdotal experience leads me to prefer to err on the side of rejecting unnecessarily grumpy people, because they tend to more frequently be a problem.

[FitCodIa]

> gallows humor

I think that may be a very cultural thing. I love gallows humor (I understand, enjoy, and cultivate it myself), but some cultures don't even understand it.

[lolinder]

Yeah, probably true.

[svnt]

Toxic positivity in startups means the people not looking at the real issues role play startup while everything crumbles around them.

Maybe it works out in big orgs but if it infects the team of a small org your work environment will be ruined when you are all laid off after months or years of overworking to make a blind optimist happy. Unemployment coincident with burnout is worse than some negative feedback during the process.

[Arainach]

What you're describing as toxic positivity is refusing to criticize things as they're happening. That's very different from not badmouthing people and teams behind their backs when they're not around to respond.

[hobs]

Well you are insanely lucky, its the default in most startups and many companies that I have seen consulting, working directly with, or otherwise. Leadership has no strategy, the business is growing or shrinking regardless of their decisions, the rank and file are restless because its obvious they are led by folks who have no idea what's going on, and nobody is allowed to talk about it.

[FitCodIa]

Precisely. Fuck "yes people", and the commitment to lying to ourselves / to each other about broken things, as an institutional strategy. If we always dismiss the negatives, then responsibility and accountability have no meaning. Every organization needs a few people who act as the org's mirror and conscience.

[hobs]

There's no reward for it, but it is required.

[ThrowawayR2]

Nobody is asking you to lie. Your previous job and coworkers may suck enough to pull watermelons through a garden hose sideways but the job interview is not about your previous job or coworkers. It's about showcasing how awesome _you_ are and how well _you_ accomplished whatever you managed to accomplish despite the suck. Keep the gripes to yourself even if for no other reason that it takes time away from tooting your own horn in a time limited situation.

[toast0]

Is the candidate willing and able to find the positives in a negative experience?

This is an important skill, because this job sucks too :P

[mikepurvis]

> the best liars

Maybe, but I think there's a piece where you can be genuinely demonstrating in the interview context that you know how to reflect positively on an experience which obviously wasn't that all great or why would you have left it.

As an interviewer I'm not looking for IT WAS THE BEST WOO but rather "these were the elements I most appreciated, these were where I had opportunities to grow and push myself and here's what I ultimately got out of it." Yes, the "what went wrong" will be discussed too, but that's a different question, and as interviewee I look to pitch the downsides less in terms of "I had the worst boss/colleagues/projects/clients/whatever" and more of a circumspect kind of "elements A and B that had been really good early on were less of a priority later in my tenure, and I felt that management and I had differing priorities which was increasingly leading to unhelpful compromises in how things were done; although I stuck it out for some time to ensure as smooth a transition as possible, ultimately I came to feel that my seat would be better filled by some more aligned to the company goals."

[hobs]

Of course, but many of the interviewers are looking for you to be a fresh faced young pup whose had nothing but love and kisses from every previous position, hell I had my new job ask if they could call my last boss and talk with them in an interview like format - its wild.