Similarly, once you’re looking for a new job, assuming you’re looking for roles with the same job title you had before, do everything you can to paint your previous job in a positive light even if it was miserable. If you don’t, interviewers are left wondering how to interpret your dissatisfaction at your previous job.
I think there's a degree to which this is true, I wouldn't walk into an interview and immediately start slagging off my old employer, but if you're interviewing me and get all worked up when I say bad things about them in answer to the question "why are you leaving your current job" that's on you and I won't regret not getting the job.
That's your choice. It's not a bad idea to answer "why are you leaving your current job" with "i'm looking for greater opportunities to [the opposite of why you are leaving your job]" and people can read between the lines AND have less of the concerns they would if you went guns blazing on the bridges behind you
You can be honest about why your previous employer wasn’t the right fit without burning bridges. I really dislike all of this “reading between the lines” aren’t Americans supposed to be direct?
No, American big business talking heads are supposed to be direct. American workers are supposed to be demure, grateful to have health insurance, and slot perfectly into the cog slot they've been assigned. Someone who openly criticizes their former employer is showing they have opinions and will resist being mistreated. I mean, showing they're not a team player.
Companies would much rather miss out on growth than have employees who have any kind of leverage over them.
> I really dislike all of this “reading between the lines” aren’t Americans supposed to be direct?
You're talking about a culture in which the standard greeting is "How are you?", and the standard response to said greeting is, "I'm fine!" - even when you're obviously not fine.
So, no, it's very much not direct. If you want to see what a "direct" software engineering culture looks like, look at Eastern Europe. There, people will routinely say things like "this code is crap", and no-one (including the author of said code!) bats an eye at it because it's supposed to be taken at face value, not as an insult.
Similar to goblin mode in dating you should 100% be yourself but only if you already have money and don't particularly need a given job. This works best when you already have a job.
You want the shitty PHB megacorps to reject you so you don't win to lose by getting a job you are going to hate.
It's a Tuesday. You crawl out of bed. You don't brush your teeth, you don't take a shower, you don't do your hair, you don't even really get dressed. You grab a piece of cake or a pretzel or something from the fridge, climb under a blanket in whatever room your TV is in, and binge Star Wars content for the next 5 hours. Your boyfriend watches a portion of this from the kitchen table, sipping his coffee. Goblin mode.
Goblin mode as a consultant is charging whatever high price will make you want to work on a project, not doing sales, only answering the phone when and for whom you want, and letting your work speak for itself.
Well, it's family name, too. You're just forgiven somewhat if you're outside the community and don't know which family is supposed to be given deference. Unless you're talking to a family of cops or the family that owns everything in the area, in which case you immediately agree with whatever political opinion they share (loudly).
From Philly to Boston, you got a lot of direct Americans, but the rest of the country? No, not really. West Coasters might be the most passive-aggressive people in the world.
This is the part of the interview where they seeking to understand your maturity and discretion. The actual reason for leaving is not the right answer. An answer showing that you understand social norms and have great self restraint is the right answer.
That part of the interview is a bunch of bullshit questions and socially acceptable answers from both sides. It is simply to check is candidate agrees to play the game by the rules.
Why are you looking for a new job? Because I have a dickhead manager and looking for a higher salary. But my answer will be I'm looking for new challenges, for opportunity to grow.
I'm not sure this is always the best approach. You should not vent, clearly; and it takes two to tango. However, some concrete and professional differences in opinion do matter. This could be an opportunity to express how you deal with such a challenge. You might explain (without revealing proprietary information) a difference of how the company's (new?) direction diverged from your professional path, how you informed the organization with an open mind, evaluated options and collaboratively decided it was time to move on, with sufficient notice and transition assistance.
I think there's some truth to what you're saying here, but there is room for some nuance.
In the US context, you should refrain from blaming specific people and if you possibly can you should explicitly leave open the possibility that everyone involved was trying to do their best (even if you really don't think this is true). Project an assumption of good faith even if it's not deserved.
But that said, you are looking for a new job and no one is going to be surprised to hear that there were things you don't like. More importantly, it's valuable to surface those things because you want to know if the things you didn't like are commonplace in the place you're interviewing.
On the other hand, managers are usually hiring because they failed to do their job competently with the last person in this role.
Brand-new positions are exceedingly rare these days. The market is worse than it's ever been for SWE. There was likely someone they laid off who could have filled it if management wasn't completely incompetent.
This isn't a growth market at the moment. It's a zero-sum game. Everyone's trying to screw each other over as much as possible, and they're lying through their teeth and pretending like it's not. Nobody on either side is sifting through this torrent of AI slop by choice.
trust me, as someone who is probably genetically incapable of refusing the temptation to "be real", it's exhausting and often doesn't lead to good outcomes. but i'm glad it's possible that i inspire otherwise-quiet people with my bad attitude.
It frequently doesn't work, but even when it doesn't you may still win yourself some unexpected allies who feel the same way. Sometimes those allies are in high places.
Honestly, this is the most toxic thing about job interviews for me - "hey can we do the thing where you pretend you didn't have a string of shitty jobs for 5 years? because obviously you were at fault if they were shitty."
Most jobs are pretty shitty, the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity about how shitty it was is just so inauthentic.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
If everywhere smells like shit, it’s time to check under your own shoe. I’ve had shitty jobs, snd while nowhere is perfect it’s definitely a stretch to say most jobs are shitty.
> the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity
Nobody is asking you to do that. When I’m interviewing a candidate I’m assuming that this is a situation that they’re trying to impress/show themselves and if you’re shit talking your previous jobs then what are you going to be like if we disagree, or when you are interviewing for your next job? All I’m asking for is don’t shit talk your previous jobs and managers. If you can’t do that for 45 minutes I’m not going to hire you.
Most humans don't feel that way most of the time. Barring extreme cases of trauma we tend to be moderately happy regardless of circumstances. If you find yourself unable to be consistently at least neutral in a first world country that tends to be a mental health issue worth addressing.
> Barring extreme cases of trauma we tend to be moderately happy regardless of circumstances
This has been scientifically proved wrong. Sonja Lyubomirsky writes that people come with innate levels of happiness, and apart from temporary swings (in either direction, in response to life events and activities), and apart from hugely intrusive, foundational trauma, "level of happiness" tends to remain constant for any given person's lifetime, and said level covers a huge spectrum, when viewed across people.
You can train your mind and habits to increase your happiness, but still, in her famous book, she assigns 50% weight to what level you are born with, and says that, however you fine-tune yourself only amounts to the other 50%. And, since her book was published, more recent research assigns an even higher weight to the innate level of happiness (i.e., higher than 50%). The sun does shine differently on different people, and it's not a mental health issue, it's just a given.
Think about it: if someone is born with 100% happiness, and never thinks consciously about their own happiness level, they will still be more happy (1 * 0.6 + 0 * 0.4 = 0.6), roughly speaking, than a person who is born with 0% happiness, but does everything in their power to improve (0 * 0.6 + 1 * 0.4 = 0.4).
> If you find yourself unable to be consistently at least /neutral/ in a first world country[,] that tends to be a mental health issue worth addressing.
I do agree about this; just know that the playing field is not level at all, and people who are less than moderately happy most of the time are not outliers; they are frequent.
I agree and resent that work is just a place where I go to get lied to and lie right back. We've found that lying is a highly successful workplace strategy. But the point of the lying game is to never admit we're lying.
The pretzels people will twist themselves in to avoid the cognitive dissonance of lying all the time and not wanting to be a lair is maddening. I find facing it head on is a refreshing frame.
A bit of clarity taken from "The Complex Problem Of Lying For Jobs"
> But over the years, I have broadened my definition of a lie, and I have realized that most of my interlocutors (including my younger self) had actually narrowed our definition of lie into uselessness in an attempt to feel better about our behavior in the job market.
> If we set aside pedantic obsession over the technicalities of whether the exact words you said were a lie, as if we're all capricious djinn [...] If you have a good idea of what impression you are leaving your interlocutor with, and you are crafting statements such that the image in their head does not map to reality, then you are lying.
I feel like this is broad enough to make most social interactions lying - if someone asks how you're doing and you say "good" and don't immediately vent about issues, you're trying to create a different impression, and so on?
in many polite circumstances people don't want to hear a truth, they want things to go smoothly and easily.
>I feel like this is broad enough to make most social interactions lying
They... kinda are tho. We even have a term specifically for that: "white lie."
Sometimes, like in your "how are you?" example, various patterns of white lie ossify into social protocol where both participants are saying things they don't literally mean, but both participants know the game.
You've probably heard of cases where anglosphere people go traveling, ask people how they are (or use any of our other non-literal pleasantries), and are surprised when a real answer is given.
White lies are a necessary wrong; we just shouldn't turn them into a "modus operandi" at a company. Indeed I cannot wrap my brain around how white lies managed to turn into a social protocol in the Anglosphere. Dishonesty encoded in the most basic forms of verbal interaction. In comparison, when I say "good day" in my own language, it's truly not far-fetched that I do wish you a good day, when I'm greeting you.
> if someone asks how you're doing and you say "good" and don't immediately vent about issues, you're trying to create a different impression, and so on?
This is exactly how many people outside of US feel when they observe the customary American greeting exchange of "How are you?" / "I'm fine, thanks." when it's patently obvious that the person asking doesn't actually expect any other response even though the person responding is obviously not fine.
Like, we get that this is a cultural thing and that it would be wrong to ascribe some profound meaning to such individual interactions. At the same time, it does make the overall culture look bad when that sort of thing is expected and even enforced.
Thank you. I very simply cannot and will not "play the game." I refuse to lay down and accept that the majority of my day's interactions will be laced with bullshit. Every time I have, my spirit has plummeted to dangerous lows; every time I've fought against it, even if it's worked against me (and it definitely has), the lift to my spirits has carried me to a better place.
Rather than giving in to it, I've taken it as a signal that something needs to change -- I'm surrounded by the wrong people, in a business with bad market fit (a root cause of this kind of toxic culture that isn't talked about enough IMO), etc. Sometimes a good place has just rotted. Like entropy, I don't think this sort of thing can be reversed once it's set in.
I recently interviewed with a great company full of great folks, and I was given the chance to frankly but firmly (and slightly humorously in a gallows humor sort of way) state precisely why I was leaving my last company; in fact, I used it as part of the interview where I interview them. This section of the interview went well, because as far as I could tell, these people are smart, down-to-earth, no bullshit, and appreciate living in the truth. They're a small company, so people can't hide behind bullshit as easily. I much prefer that.
The cognitive dissonance displayed all over this thread and tendency to hand-wave it away by painting anything that isn't playing along as not understanding social cues, lacking tact, etc, makes me sick. The whole culture is childish, literally -- it reeks of the particular brand of lack of accountability, tendency to gaslight, and so on that is displayed by children. When coming out of a 4-year-old's mouth, it's easy to disarm and work around and excuse, almost cute in its ineffectiveness; when coming out of a company, as a matter of policy, it's authoritarian and frightening.
I really, really can't stand it. The good people are out there, however.
This approach is simplistic. People can usually direct their anger and frustration, to some extent. Most of the time, there's little reason to be angry at a coworker. Even if they mess up, it's usually not a huge deal, it's relatively easy to mitigate or undo; if you need mediation, there's a manager "nearby" in the org chart to escalate to, and so on. In addition, you probably have some camaraderie from past projects and assignments etc, which provides a basis of resilience when they (or you) screw up. Staying relatively pleasant and positive is not a huge challenge.
Conversely, when upper management fucks up, and refuses to take responsibility (for example: admit to making the wrong decision, or even reverse the decision), that's when cynicism runs rampant among the rank and file. And gee, what a surprise, VPs and CEOs try to avoid underlings that speak up about the screw-ups of the brass.
So a lot of companies try to avoid a lot of people? How does that work out?
In my experience most companies work with a wide distribution of people. This "we avoid hiring people who have defects" reads as disconnected from reality. Nobody is perfect, and most companies are average and have average people.
Call it "inauthentic" if you want but the reality is that the people who are interviewing you know they are going to have to work with you, and 99% of people prefer working alongside those who might boost their morale by demonstrating positivity and optimism (even if somewhat manufactured) instead of dwelling insufferably on all the negatives.
You can demonstrate toxic positivity about the desired work place I guess? Like, focus on how amazing it is going to be and what opportunities you see here that will clearly overshadow your previous job.
And yet despite this, miserable people who drag their misery and sorrow to every occasion and conversation continue to wander about and often will drag you down towards misery too if you let them. Avoiding misery is but a matter of self defence. The pat-down before you enter a nightclub doesn't feel great either.
