More and better candidates than if they’re completely honest about their company? A promotion because they managed to keep wages down for staff? A higher salary or more stock for the same reason?
If you lie about the job and hire someone who doesn’t like the reality they’ll just find another job and now you have to start the hiring process all over. That doesn’t seem like a win to me.
This seems really out of touch. ICs absolutely despise interviewing. Half of my current team has expressed that they want to quit but isn't going to because they are so afraid of interviewing again. Many are coming up on 1-yr tenure and still want to leave but they'll be there for 2+ years because they hate interviewing that much. They're deathly afraid of it.
The rest who want to stay are only there because they're making incredibly high amounts of money thanks to being at the company just before it went public. (They joined 5+ years after the company was founded - hardly part of the original gang)
Legitimately wonder why people find this so so hard to understand.
Has no one ever been a manager? Have you never worked with managers who had to do these things? I've known many managers who admit to having to do all of these things. Some of them are proud that they did it - some are ashamed because they didn't want to but ultimately had to otherwise they would've gotten fired.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you do it because you enjoy it or because you have to - what matters is that you're doing it and someone is on the receiving end.
Genuinely - how many of you have ever done hiring while searching for a new company yourself? HN is truly full of the self-indulgent and self-righteous to think they're not doing this themselves or that this is wonderful to be around.
> Genuinely - how many of you have ever done hiring while searching for a new company yourself?
There are circumstances where this is ok and others where it isn't. Is it ok to hire for a company that you're retiring from? How about one where you can't continue to advance but you think is a great environment? What if you were at a startup that got acquired by a megacorp and you focus on hiring people who enjoy a big company environment?
IMO, so long as you are transparent about the pros and cons of the position, it's perfectly ethical and reasonable.
> IMO, so long as you are transparent about the pros and cons of the position, it's perfectly ethical and reasonable.
How often are people genuinely leaving companies because they think it's a great environment but it's just not for them? How often? 80%? 50%? 1%? (I'm guessing closer to 1% than 50%)
When hiring, I really strive to figure out what makes my positions special and then find people that are a good fit for what I can offer rather than trying to find some platonic ideal "best" candidate. So for me, other than a toxic situation, I'm very happy pulling people into a role at a company I'm leaving.
But at this point in my career I'm likely much more deliberate than average about making sure a role is giving me what I need as well as more deliberate than most managers about trying to find good all-dimension fits for my positions.
I guess I am in the 1%. My company has a great environment but the pay is much lower than FAANG. So I both am applying elsewhere but can also recommend it.
Any time a company or team needs short-term superficial progress you may see the lying and then the churn mill. Stakeholders or taxpayers are duped over the long-term but someone is clearly making out no worse for the wear.
