Hacker News Reader

Comment by loteck | Hacker News Reader

As an employee, it is valuable to me that my company will not hire someone who doesn't think our business does something important ("get over yourselves, you're not curing cancer"), or who thinks the right way to ask business decision questions is to ask if "you're morons", or who has a problem with the company asking very basic probing questions, such as confirming you've thought through the challenge of changing from remote work to a commute.

In short, if this post is representative of the way workers are thinking and communicating, then we do have a talent shortage, it's just not the talents you're thinking of.

View on HN

Well, I believe there is a surplus of companies who think they are doing something important. Can you imagine answering "Why do you want to work here" if you apply to a company like Marlboro? Sometimes requiring people to believe in what your company is doing is not that important because the majority of startups just aren't that interesting.

Accept that people work for money, not because they believe in your company.

That's why working in finance is nice. "I want to make money" is believing in the company.

That's really believing in any company. At least financing doesn't put up a facade and pretend they're doing "God's work" or something.

A lot of startups and companies are centered around advertisement. And ads & martketing are not exactly the most popular thing in the world.

Disclaimer: my job is basically making sure our customers can send you commercial email spa... sorry, interesting product offers from their line of business. It's also making sure the tracking is properly working and detect if opened the email/clicked on a link.

It's really hard to get motivated about that. One, ecologically minded for example, could even see it as damaging for the environment as it pushes people to buy things they don't really need.

However, it's also where a lot of the the money is, and also some of the interesting technical challenges, for which an engineer could be motivated.

I like how you've identified the moral qualms with your current profession.

How do you continue to justify to yourself working in that domain? Do you struggle with the question each day or perhaps have a philosophical framework to rely on? (maybe just /r/NatureIsMetal is enough?)

Basically, the lesser of two evils.

At my previous job, I was working on things like Nuclear plants systems or on military systems (not something to "evil" however, it was a part of their ATC system, not something meant to kill people).

And it could be worse, I could work for the finance industry.

Technically, it's quite interesting, it's a large infrastructure, it also permitted me to have my first taste of AWS and Azure and other cool bits of technology.

It was also a big change from my last job where, because of lack of budget, I had to scavenge for old disused servers for the dev infrastructure (yay, Compaq Proliant G1 with dual CPUs Pentium IIIs and 512MB of RAM, I had to use a floppy disk to install Debian on these... in 2012).

It's also not as clear cut as purely sending spam, our system can also be used for password resets, order confirmations or newsletters for example. I am also not completely 100% against marketing (hey, if I create a new product, it is useful to make people know about it), even though I think the world could do with ~90% less marketing. Maybe it's the way I trick myself, that, and simply not thinking too much about it.

It also pays relatively well, not that I'm that attached to having a big pay, living quite frugally, but I'm currently hunting for an apartment, and a big paycheck helps to get the mortgage.

It was also an opportunity for me to work for a big US company and see how it was to work with people all over the world. And it also confronted me with the American Optimism, which is really fascinating, at time annoying because it feels a bit fake, but also at time because it de-inhibits people from not attempting difficult challenges as opposed to a more cautious and critical European mindset. Not sure which mindset I prefer, but still, fascinating.

I'm also not the kind of guy switching jobs every 6 months. I also feel I'm kind of letting other people down if I leave (not completely rational I know). Also, a job is bit like a book, an (almost) never ending book, even if it's not that great, you are still curious about how it will unfold, and it's really hard (at least for me) to leave it in the middle.

At one point, I will probably search for a new job. And finding a job I at least find "neutral" but if possible "benefic" (from my moral point of view) will be high in my priority list.

Agree, most people simply want a paycheck to pay bills and have some disposable income and don't care about the startup's vision 'to change the world'. Startups should hire people because they can get stuff done. If someone happens to believe in the mission then it's more power to them but it shouldn't be a requirement.

So many times, I wanted to ask back why their company does what they do. Businesses exist primarily for earning potential. Why do you expect your employees to be different? I could understand determinjng if the candidate may hate your company, that's useful to find out but the vast majority of people are neutral to your business practices or they wouldn't even apply. If they happen to truly love some aspect of your business then that's great but it doesn't make much difference when so much weight is put on functional requirements... so why pretend you care about anything but the functional requirements.

If I'm ineffective at making you money but fit your business culture, you should hire me on principle then!

I so dislike the ball-gargling exercise of "why do you want to work here?"

It's often a "well, I need a job, you're hiring, and what you guys are doing looks at least marginally interesting to me" - I ought not need to find whatever product/service/market they're doing/in inspiring - I should just want to do it for the pay offered.

I just try to imagine it in other contexts.

"Well, your construction firm is well-established and routinely delivers projects on time and under budget, but for this job, we need to know that you believe in our mission -- that deeply impacts your ability to frame walls and pour concrete!"

Why can't I just be a professional tradesman?

It becomes more absurd the further you get away from employment too

Disgusting language like this doesn't belong on HN.

I've noticed that I was interpreting the question incorrectly. In the past I thought it was "why did you chose this company over all others?". But if you think of it as "what aspects of our company do you find interesting?" it becomes a quite regular question which I can easily answer honestly.

"Because I have a weird hobby: I like to live in a flat, I like eating food a couple of times a day, I like to give some food to my kids."

... so the reality is that I need to lie at the interview to get the job, this is so sad.

It's "why should I hire you, over anyone else?"

Given two candidates for a Phd, which do you accept:

- the one who needs a Phd because that earns more money (duh!) - the one who has been obsessed with X for years, did research into X, has burning questions and wants to dedicate some years to answering them, and found your place to have the researchers who publish the most relevant, interesting and insightful papers over the last few years.

I ought not need to find whatever product/service/market they're doing/in inspiring - I should just want to do it for the pay offered.

You don't need to find it interesting. But if another candidate will do it for the pay offered, /and also/ likes the product and has a clear plan for their life, expect them to get the job instead of you.

And, expect you'd do better if you /did/ find a job offering where you were also interested and motivated.

All of that is true, but all of that is easily deduced from other parts of the interview. Why ask a question when you know 2/3rds or more of your candidates are going to lie? So much of the modern interview process is essentially filtering for highly skilled liars.

This is one of the trick questions they can ask to eliminate idiots. It's basically a creative writing exercise. I have a pretty Sartrean view on work. I play at being my occupation. The career/job doesn't define my existence. Deep down I could care less what I do, but I like to put on a good show.

>In short, if this post is representative of the way workers are thinking and communicating, then we do have a talent shortage, it's just not the talents you're thinking of.

Cute and snarky, but lets not misdirect. The article isn't a representation of how people communicate to REASONABLE employers, so your comment doesn't make much sense. Its in response to the pervasive disconnect that is prevalent in the current hiring industry.

And if after that clarification you still think the article takes an unjustified tone, I'd say you are just as much a part of the problem.

> it is valuable to me that my company will not hire someone who doesn't think our business does something important

Is it not possible to identify those people without paying them less to prove it?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here otherwise I would think if someone is a perfect fit with the org and the org isn't willing to compensate that person accordingly then all you're doing is picking up suckers who may not even be worth the reduced pay rate. A good engineer knows what they are worth.

Hint, your business isn’t important. The business I’m working for makes lives a lot easier, but if it disappeared tomorrow it wouldn’t hurt anyone overly much.

Very few businesses actually matter, despite your opinion of the business. If your argument is you only want to work with other suckers (who “care” about the business over comp and tangible compensation), I suppose that’s an opinion that could be held. Is that a rational opinion to hold?

I don’t come to work because I care about your business, I care because you pay me. I’d like to work with others who have the same rational outlook, not with a cult.

Successful businesses support the livelihoods of all of the families that depend on that business's continued success, including employees and clients. All such businesses matter very much to those people, regardless of their industry.

An incredible achievement matched only by literally every other employer, and requiring the level of emotional investment immediately supplied by any employee with recurring rent/mortgage payments.

In other words, "get over yourselves, you're not curing cancer". If you need employees to "care", because the company supports their livelihood - don't worry, they already do. If you need them to "care" more than that, you need a better justification.

Successful businesses support the livelihoods of all of the families that depend on that business's continued success,

Just want to point out that this point is entirely back-peddling your original point (an objection to "get over yourselves").

If the point of a given company is that it supports a person and maybe dependents, then you really don't need to ask someone why they want to work at the company or whether they believe in the company, because the answer is obviously "because you will pay me." I mean, corollary to the value of most companies being that they support people via the salaries and wages they pay, is the companies shouldn't be injecting the implication that their employees should sacrifice and work for less given the importance of the work the company does (and that ethos is widespread).

One of the smarter folks I know makes this point repeatedly and firmly. Delivering reliable value to customers and a good environment and career path to employees is a worthwhile and valuable achievement. Even if in the process you aren’t “curing cancer”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com