"I did not plan to relocate, but the opening at $your company made me reconsider. I then delved into $location history and culture, and found it really fascinating. Since I am [young|experienced in $oldcareer], I decided it would be worth trying out something new."
The advice can be generalized even more. When communicating with an employer or potential employer:
-> Subordinate yourself to the desires of capital in all areas.
-> Suppress the self.
-> Become a true human resource. You are seeking to sell a large chunk of your life, and the buyers don't want scratched or dented goods. Desires of your own are flaws in the product you are selling.
This is, sadly, sound advice, but I think it's important to reflect on what this means about how incidental human flourishing is in our current political economy.
Well I guess this is an overstatement for the sake of explaining your point and as such it's very effective, but I don't agree with this perspective. The advice tells you to remember that the person hiring you has also put work into that conversation, and that they'll appreciate realizing you have put work into it too. So i think there's an instance of letting our humanity flourish in this, since you're doing an exercise in empathy. There might be too few of these opportunties/spaces left tbh
I’ve done a number of interviews in my career. You don’t have to be a genius to see through the candidates who play this game where they tell you a perfectly sanitized, idyllic response that they’ve calculated as the optimal phrasing that you want to hear.
A lot of applicants do it. The skill of interviewing is to get a sense of what the true situation is underneath what the candidate is saying with their words. These candidates who show up and do the “subordinate yourself to the desires of capital in all areas” schtick are plentiful. It doesn’t fool an experienced interviewer, so they’re going to be evaluating whether or not you can do the job without becoming a problem based on whatever other signals they can get. The candidate’s words are almost a no-op, other than a slight signal that they have a tendency to blow smoke instead of having real conversations.
Right, it's game of pretending that you sincerely desire these things. They don't want a faker, they want a true believer, and they have plenty of skillful people like you to use as tools to suss out who is and who isn't. To stick with the merchandise analogy, you must (sometimes) become like the "outlet" stores who fill their inventory with junk designed to be sold cheaply rather than marked down high end stuff. This flatters your customer into thinking they got a good deal, and is an effective way to make sales. This is an endless game of cat and mouse.
> They don't want a faker, they want a true believer
I'm trying to explain that it's easy to spot the fakers.
When you do a lot of interviews you see a lot of candidates who follow the advice above. Unless it's your first month of doing interviews, it's really easy to see right through.
The candidates never think they're coming off as fake, though.
Really skilled interviewers can bait these candidates into telling little half-truths and inconsistencies that reveal their game.
You're explaining that you think you do a good job of spotting the fakers. How would you know if you weren't? And anyway, the fakers (approximately everyone) don't have a choice but to be fakers, since the truth (I want this job because I want the money and visa it will confer) is disqualifying. Because no one is motivated primarily on the opportunity to work on adtech (to pick a popular example), one must choose one of:
1) Be truthful, and say the main reason you want the job is the money and the visa. You will be looked over as not having enough passion for the work.
2) Lie completely and say your number one motivation is adtech, something you would prostrate yourself to do in slum conditions if necessary. You will be sussed out as a faker.
3) Come up with some mixture of the two that the company can believe. If you can fool them into thinking you are at least somewhat motivated by the chance to work on their awful product, but also that there is truthfully some other motivation, you come across as a good bet and might not be thrown out of the pipeline.
A no-op is exactly what the candidate wants. The candidate wants to be judged on their skills which are transferable from job to job. There's nothing to "see through" here which is precisely why it's a no-op.
> A no-op is exactly what the candidate wants. The candidate wants to be judged on their skills which are transferable from job to job.
The interview is to determine their skills.
Some candidates will talk about their work history for 30 minutes and you leave the room with no real idea what they did. They tell you they created synergies and did cross-functional coordination with stakeholders in a metrics-driven blah blah blah. You receive no usable information about what they did, what they can do, or how much of the thing they talked about was due to their work. All you know is that they can talk a lot.
If they're applying to a dysfunctional vibes-based workplace then delivering an empty vibes-based interview can work. Smart people actively try to filter themselves out of those companies, not into them.
There are questions where it's time to shine with your skills and experience and then there are questions that are kind of snore because they invite everyone to give perfect answers.
> I’ve done a number of interviews in my career. You don’t have to be a genius to see through the candidates who play this game where they tell you a perfectly sanitized, idyllic response that they’ve calculated as the optimal phrasing that you want to hear.
I worked in multiple companies in my multi-decade career, including FAANG (or whatever acronym is used now). I was even an intervewer for one of those
The people that give the sanitized calculated responses are actually what employers are typically looking for. It shows the candidate is willing to do the job without causing problems by confirming as a good worker bee.
Your workplace is not somewhere for real conversations.
Then you shouldn't be asking those questions in the first place.
Why do you want a job?, Why do you want to relocate?, Why do you want to work here?, etc. are BS "no-op" questions that are not relevant to the skills that they are promoting.
If an interviewer asks these types of questions, they are literally showcasing that this part of the interview is a BS "Subordinate yourself to the desires of capital in all areas" conversation. You will predictably get the "no-op" answers you asked for.
The interviewer always sets the tone of the meeting. You can't complain when they chose to play along. If you want a real conversation, you need to make it amply clear.
I like to be asked this because I can for one tell the truth, and then see how the interviewer responds (when this is at an advanced stage of the process, with real people)
I don't ask many of those questions, but you would (apparently) be surprised at how often people have actual good answers to those questions if you're working at an interesting company.
I've talked to candidates who has mostly average resumes, but then when the topic came to how they found this job they had long stories about using our products since they were young or how it fits with some side projects they were working on.
If your company is a bank doing boring automation stuff, there's much less to talk about for those questions.
> Then you shouldn't be asking those questions in the first place.
> Why do you want a job?, Why do you want to relocate?, Why do you want to work here?,
I never said anything about those questions or even the type of questions. Did you confuse my comment for someone else's?
The no-op answers I was talking about can come from any question, including technical ones. Some candidates will tell talk in circles for 30 minutes about the company's product and how the team did amazing things, but you can't pin them down to explaining what they did or anything that might prove they know what they're talking about.
They will change the subject at every opportunity and talk your ear off with things regurgitated from blogs, but you leave the interview feeling like you wasted 30 minutes because they were so busy dodging every question and combining words together that they thought you would like to hear.
One alternative is to skip the conversational format and go straight into coding and deep technical questions, but hey guess what? There are people who will hate you for doing that too!
This is very good, practical advice. I would go even further and say that you shouldn’t even allow yourself to get into a position where you need to manipulate your answers to interviewers for this question. If the primary reason you want a job is for the relocation, you might be signing up for a job you don’t even like!
I’ve been part of a small number of hiring decisions where relocation was involved. There were a lot of failures exactly like this article talks about: Candidates who will say anything in the interview and even signal that they’ll accept any average salary as long as you’ll take care of their relocation were, in my experience, not interested in doing the work after they got here. Taking the job was a means to an end (getting to their destination) and once they arrived they were either looking for the next job or too busy traveling around their new location to do work.
We tried to mitigate this with clauses requiring them to pay back relocation expenses if they left within N months of arrival, but this didn’t work. They would resign the week after that timer expired or, worse, would start trying to get laid off through poor performance as a way to avoid that clause.
The best fits for relocation were opposite of what I would have thought: The people most hesitant to relocate were the most successful, both at the job and in establishing their new social life outside of work in the new location. They were relocating and taking jobs for the right reasons.
What are for you the right reasons for taking a job? Most teams will have enough common sense and healthy relationships to offer something workable, also most software products are a piece of whatever - be it insurance front-ends or package sorting algorithms. I mean yes there will be outliers both ways, like a toxic environment which the candidate can hopefully spot during the talks, or your particular product can spark real passion in people (not likely). But speaking for myself I've never spotted a toxic environment (also never landed in one either) and for the few positions where I was really passionate about they didn't care about my passion. So your comment reads like a lot of theory, or ten-thousand-feet-view if you want, while the candidate reality is that the only stuff which really matters is how good you lie about alignment.
Every job is the means to an end really. But if people are taking jobs at your employer and then feel unmotivated and are trying to get a new job elsewhere as soon as they can, doesn't that point to your employment situation being part of the problem? If it's so easy to get a job elsewhere for more favourable work and/or salary then are you just underpaying the market?
If you are in tech, never move for a job immediately. Work there for 90 days before you even touch a UHaul form. I have been at companies where within 20 minutes I hated my coworkers (playing EDM on high all day in office). Just get a hotel at motel 6. If you are loving the job then the move is a less stressful and enjoyable.
This isn't good advice in this case. The company needs assurance you are worth the investment and that means they need to know this will be personally good for you.
Maybe I just haven't met these engineers, but isn't the problem usually "I don't want to relocate" ? Who talks about relocating as if that's the primary motivation for a job?
This makes no sense. Even from a completely cynical corporate perspective, wouldn't these peoples dependency on you for sponsorship be a plus, not a minus?
I take a different view. For a lot of candidates that I've interviewed in recent years, they made the decision to move to London, and _then_ decided to apply to us. Some of the best engineers that I've worked with have joined that way, and many of them stuck around for a long time. Of course the candidate should show an interest in the company. But frankly, if you're an employer in a place that people want to move to, that's something that you should be taking advantage of, not complaining when the candidate is honest about it.
HR people are like alien entities from another dimension. These borderline stupid and ridiculous ideas they disseminate and the framework of nonsense bullshit they force on proper experts is mind boggling.
It's like a snotty kid telling a grown adult to go, f themselves because they think that's funny.
It is amazing to read the comments and see the level of cynicism about the hiring process. Anyway, a reason to relocate for me is bringing better opportunities to my children. I had the option to stay with a good paid job in my country of origin, where the social differences are huge, or relocate to another where society is more flat but to start again professionally. I took the second one.
31 comments
[ 212 ms ] story [ 1103 ms ] thread-> Subordinate yourself to the desires of capital in all areas.
-> Suppress the self.
-> Become a true human resource. You are seeking to sell a large chunk of your life, and the buyers don't want scratched or dented goods. Desires of your own are flaws in the product you are selling.
This is, sadly, sound advice, but I think it's important to reflect on what this means about how incidental human flourishing is in our current political economy.
A lot of applicants do it. The skill of interviewing is to get a sense of what the true situation is underneath what the candidate is saying with their words. These candidates who show up and do the “subordinate yourself to the desires of capital in all areas” schtick are plentiful. It doesn’t fool an experienced interviewer, so they’re going to be evaluating whether or not you can do the job without becoming a problem based on whatever other signals they can get. The candidate’s words are almost a no-op, other than a slight signal that they have a tendency to blow smoke instead of having real conversations.
I'm trying to explain that it's easy to spot the fakers.
When you do a lot of interviews you see a lot of candidates who follow the advice above. Unless it's your first month of doing interviews, it's really easy to see right through.
The candidates never think they're coming off as fake, though.
Really skilled interviewers can bait these candidates into telling little half-truths and inconsistencies that reveal their game.
1) Be truthful, and say the main reason you want the job is the money and the visa. You will be looked over as not having enough passion for the work.
2) Lie completely and say your number one motivation is adtech, something you would prostrate yourself to do in slum conditions if necessary. You will be sussed out as a faker.
3) Come up with some mixture of the two that the company can believe. If you can fool them into thinking you are at least somewhat motivated by the chance to work on their awful product, but also that there is truthfully some other motivation, you come across as a good bet and might not be thrown out of the pipeline.
The interview is to determine their skills.
Some candidates will talk about their work history for 30 minutes and you leave the room with no real idea what they did. They tell you they created synergies and did cross-functional coordination with stakeholders in a metrics-driven blah blah blah. You receive no usable information about what they did, what they can do, or how much of the thing they talked about was due to their work. All you know is that they can talk a lot.
If they're applying to a dysfunctional vibes-based workplace then delivering an empty vibes-based interview can work. Smart people actively try to filter themselves out of those companies, not into them.
Why do you want to relocate is one of them.
I worked in multiple companies in my multi-decade career, including FAANG (or whatever acronym is used now). I was even an intervewer for one of those
The people that give the sanitized calculated responses are actually what employers are typically looking for. It shows the candidate is willing to do the job without causing problems by confirming as a good worker bee.
Your workplace is not somewhere for real conversations.
Why do you want a job?, Why do you want to relocate?, Why do you want to work here?, etc. are BS "no-op" questions that are not relevant to the skills that they are promoting.
If an interviewer asks these types of questions, they are literally showcasing that this part of the interview is a BS "Subordinate yourself to the desires of capital in all areas" conversation. You will predictably get the "no-op" answers you asked for.
The interviewer always sets the tone of the meeting. You can't complain when they chose to play along. If you want a real conversation, you need to make it amply clear.
I like to be asked this because I can for one tell the truth, and then see how the interviewer responds (when this is at an advanced stage of the process, with real people)
I've talked to candidates who has mostly average resumes, but then when the topic came to how they found this job they had long stories about using our products since they were young or how it fits with some side projects they were working on.
If your company is a bank doing boring automation stuff, there's much less to talk about for those questions.
> Why do you want a job?, Why do you want to relocate?, Why do you want to work here?,
I never said anything about those questions or even the type of questions. Did you confuse my comment for someone else's?
The no-op answers I was talking about can come from any question, including technical ones. Some candidates will tell talk in circles for 30 minutes about the company's product and how the team did amazing things, but you can't pin them down to explaining what they did or anything that might prove they know what they're talking about.
They will change the subject at every opportunity and talk your ear off with things regurgitated from blogs, but you leave the interview feeling like you wasted 30 minutes because they were so busy dodging every question and combining words together that they thought you would like to hear.
One alternative is to skip the conversational format and go straight into coding and deep technical questions, but hey guess what? There are people who will hate you for doing that too!
I’ve been part of a small number of hiring decisions where relocation was involved. There were a lot of failures exactly like this article talks about: Candidates who will say anything in the interview and even signal that they’ll accept any average salary as long as you’ll take care of their relocation were, in my experience, not interested in doing the work after they got here. Taking the job was a means to an end (getting to their destination) and once they arrived they were either looking for the next job or too busy traveling around their new location to do work.
We tried to mitigate this with clauses requiring them to pay back relocation expenses if they left within N months of arrival, but this didn’t work. They would resign the week after that timer expired or, worse, would start trying to get laid off through poor performance as a way to avoid that clause.
The best fits for relocation were opposite of what I would have thought: The people most hesitant to relocate were the most successful, both at the job and in establishing their new social life outside of work in the new location. They were relocating and taking jobs for the right reasons.
Always be marketing what you can/will/have done for the company to bring value, not what the company can do for you.
tons of americans trying to get to europe
its pretty common if you head to places like reddit's r/cscareerquestions or r/itcareerquestions. lots of idealism and naiveté
It's like a snotty kid telling a grown adult to go, f themselves because they think that's funny.