Tell HN: Don't post if you're not actually hiring
Second time this has happened to me and I'm frankly annoyed. I'm dabblin with the idea of full time and over the last two "Who's Hiring" posts I've found company's which have both piqued my interest and for who I have many many years of relevant experience in their stack. I write, excited to have a conversation, point to a relatively polished portfolio, and an HR person comes back to tell me that the position is filled or they are hiring a stronger match.
I don't want to whine too much but I feel like there is some SV pedigree nonsense going down here. Bottom line. Don't post in that thread if you have no intention of talking with the people who email you.
29 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 72.0 ms ] threadYou have a good point, I'm just thinking there are non-malicious explanations to consider first.
The above sentence, "Yeah I'd expect this is pretty standard, what bugs me is when..." is a comma splice. You should replace the comma with a semicolon or a period. "Yeah I'd expect this is pretty standard," and "what bugs me is when..." are independent clauses and thus should not be be split with a comma.
Maybe you're more careful with your applications, but it's easy for these types of things to slip in if such errors are habitual. It may be hurting your chances, as I'm probably not the only grammar Nazi out there.
Yes, it's entirely possible that an amazing candidate somehow saw the post, applied, and got hired in 24 hours, but more likely is that there was no open position in the first place.
REMOTE is code for "Rube who will accept half the going rate for their position". If you can't afford to pay at least $150,000 for a "Senior Lead" position, you aren't going to get a senior lead.
Now, If you said $60k, I'd agree, though it is possible you could find someone with senior lead skills in an emerging market who might be happy with this.
By that same token, if you attempted to pay a senior lead developer only $120 in SF (the salary you suggested such a dev is worth adjusted for the move), you'd not get a senior or lead developer.
Just because you enjoy the job doesn't mean you shouldn't be appropriately compensated for doing the job.
> Just because you enjoy the job doesn't mean you shouldn't be appropriately compensated for doing the job.
I am not sure of the exact numbers (haven't been in the market enough lately to pay close attention) but there is some cost of living difference between SF and ND (for example), and thus I'd expect to pay developers in different areas differently even though they have the same skill set. The particular numbers don't matter, the difference is the essence.
Or am I missing your point? Is your point that a senior lead dev should have a globalized, singular payscale? That seems like an interesting argument, but I'm not sure one that is supported by the labor data I've seen.
- are swamped with people applying in addition to trying to build a product,
- may actually have hired someone, and that person may actually be a better hire.
I'm sorry you had a bad experience. I really am. That doesn't mean there's malice at play. Also, please try not to kill the messenger; it is entirely possible that even if malice is at play, the person you're talking to isn't the perpetrator. It would not be the first time that a hiring manager believes there's an open rec until they try to fill it.
I don't know what you are referring to with "SV pedigree nonsense", but I'm assuming you mean that people aren't willing to hire you because you haven't been in the right SV scene. That's certainly possible. I can also tell you that my team currently has zero people in SV, people across the US and outside of it (as in transatlantic), and we still had the issue I described above. That doesn't mean that isn't what happened in your case, of course.
(EDIT: formatting.)
That's the behavior the OP was referring to.
We have obviously not moved forward with some candidates. They got answers; they were always candid and truthful, and combining that with appropriate tact is somewhat of an art ;)
I was hiring a team a few months ago, and I was under a lot of pressure to fill positions. We find a guy that I'm on the fence about, and I'm pressured to pull the trigger. My response, "I'll do it if I truly have one more open rec." So we hire him.
A few weeks later I'm still interviewing candidates and I find a women who is terrific, and who I wish I had found earlier, as she would have been a no-brainer hire. She's excited. I'm excited. I go to pull the trigger with my boss, only to be told, "we're reevaluating the rec, we'll probably hire someone, but just a few months down the road."
Hiring is one of the most political things an organization does. Having been on the hiring side of the equation for a while now, I would never take a company's disinterest in me to heart. A candidate's qualifications are important, but they are always the last thing on the checklist before hiring someone. You never know what item on the checklist above your qualifications didn't get ticked.
I was really mad about that episode. That and other things caused me to leave.
Like others have said, it's very possible the position has already been filled or you were not a good fit.
No, actually they are hiring. They just aren't hiring you.
When companies say the position is "filled," it's just an artful way (or so they would like to think) of saying that they're passing on you -- but are still looking for a better match.
So when you see the exact same ad posted again next month, in the very same spot, don't be in the least surprised.
Yes, it sucks that things are this way. It's a sucky industry generally, when it comes to simple things like communicating honestly, and treating candidates is if they're regular adults (capable of taking a straight-up rejection), rather than children, who need to be fed a "line" so they'll go and play somewhere else.