[nxor]

Are you also aware, that typically members of your generation criticize members of my generation for being soft and lazy, despite this new harsh period of adversarial interviews? It boggles my mind that you found a job at a nice company (to say the least) without a test (and that seems like a bad move on the part of the company ?)

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I don't remember attacking, lecturing, or talking down to anyone. I was simply sharing my own life experience.

It is interesting that it was interpreted as some kind of threat, requiring an insult, in response.

Have a great day!

[nxor]

I liked your comment and was curious what you make of people who don't believe the process is adversarial, and whether companies should or shouldn't give out tests. When I said boggles my mind I meant in light of the situation today, not you personally

[ChrisMarshallNY]

OK. I'll break my own rule. When I say "Have a great day!", it means we're done. I won't foul this place with fighting.

The process should not be adversarial, in my opinion. It's a contract. I do something; you do something. There may be adversity, but that's not required, and it's actually likely to cause problems, down the road. Like any contractural relationship, each party needs to respect and trust the other party to come through with their end.

If the way that you introduce your company to me, is by bullying me (and tests are not "bullying," but many of the other interview games are), then we won't be working together. I don't like bullies. I won't be one, and I won't work with them.

These folks kept me on for a long time. There was a reason for that. I can't speak for all Japanese companies, but this one did not suffer skaters. You delivered, and you were constantly held to account. I did well in that environment. I suspect that many, here, would not.

I don't argue that companies should not give tests. I had tests in other interviews, and did fine. This company chose not to. One reason, is that the folks interviewing me, fought fang, tooth, and claw, for the headcount. When I became a manager, I had to do the same. It was a crazy frugal company.

This meant that they dedicated all their attention to the interview process. This wasn't where they were handed my CV, five minutes before they spoke to me. I was around them all day. They watched me work with others, and they gauged me on my character, more than my tech abilities. The Japanese are really big on character. At least, this company was.

I mentioned that I had an "old-fashioned" recruiter. They don't seem to have those, any more, but part of his job, was to vet me, before putting me forward. They trusted him, and paid him well. I was working for GE, before I interviewed, and had a fairly substantial amount of background, in hardware. That was important to them (it was a hardware company).

I guess that I said the right things, and they gave me a chance. I appreciated it, and worked hard to reward their faith.

I know that my attitude is considered "quaint," in today's cutthroat tech world, but I always legitimately believed in personal Integrity, Honesty, and Loyalty. These qualities actually meant something to this company. I am quite aware that they elicit scorn, from today's tech bros, but they worked for me.

> “I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

[nxor]

Thanks for the thorough response. I'd edit my comment if I could. I work for a similar company. I do agree that measuring a person's character and similar traits is a way to measure their potential. The next question would be, why have companies started hiring the way they typically do now?

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Well, here, we're getting into "guesses and opinion," rather than "personal experience."

I suspect that when tech became a place to earn big salaries, is when the dodgy folks started showing up.

It's always been common for folks with little background in tech, or unrelated experience, to apply for jobs. In fact, as a manager, I often looked for that. I was fairly decent at finding "diamond in the rough" talent (I sort of had to, as my company didn't pay especially well).

But, apparently, these days, even fairly innocuous job postings are inundated with tons of totally unqualified (and a significant portion of the "qualified" ones are outright fabrications) CVs.

Also, you get people that are crooks, applying.

The other side (in my opinion), is that modern tech CEOs are behaving quite badly. They consider their workforce to be some kind of hostile, subhuman slurry, and they treat their workers as such.

In order to fix this, the C-Suite needs to "blink first." They need to do better at treating their workers and prospective workers, well. HR culture also needs to change. It's become outright hostile to employees. I saw that happen in my own company, which started off, quite friendly towards employees. By the time I left, it was pretty much openly hostile.

That's unlikely to materialize, in today's tech industry. Any company that does this, will be eaten alive by their competition.

If people are serious about improving things, then legislation needs to be introduced, to prevent companies that improve their employee relations, from being killed by their competitors, and to help companies to survive manifesting risks, when they take chances on employees.

I am not optimistic that this will happen. If it does happen, it’s unlikely that it will be done well. In fact, the chances are good, that it would make things worse.