Ask HN: How much do you reveal to candidates about internal problems? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How much do you reveal to candidates about internal problems?

Suppose your company is growing fast and you need to hire more developers. A candidate comes along and asks all kinds of question about tests and documentation and all that boring stuff. You know there are some pretty serious deficiencies, but you don't want to scare away the candidate. On the other hand, nobody likes to be subject to a bait-and-switch.

So how much should you reveal as a technical interviewer when the candidate decides to be the one asking the questions, and is there a good way to go about it?

View on HN

I would be honest about it. Really you should be saying "it's not in the best place but we know where the gaps are and we're working to improve it", and if you can't even say that then the candidate has every right to view your company with suspicion.

For a startup nobody is going to judge you for your processes being in an aspirational state. In fact it is an area where a new hire can make a difference.

For a company that's been working on something for 20 years and process is in bad shape it is a different thing. A new hire facing it is going have a harder time believing they can make a difference.

I know a few people who had employers who were not honest about this.

Every single one of them left within 3 months and they pretty much just used the time as paid interview prep. For one case in particular, they essentially just paid for this fellow to interview prep for an upcoming FB interview. And he stayed just long enough for the recruiter to get to keep their fee.

So it depends on your risk/reward trade off of this happening to you.

I'm so upfront, I put some of our problems in the job listings.

I want to hire people who see the problems as something they are comfortable dealing with and not a reason to leave the job.

> A candidate comes along and asks all kinds of question about tests and documentation and all that boring stuff. You know there are some pretty serious deficiencies, but you don't want to scare away the candidate.

If a candidate is asking about tests and documentation and process etc, it's likely because they have strong opinions on them. Let them know what it's like currently, and maybe what what the plan is, so they can decide if that's going to work for them. Personally, I'd ask about process because I enjoy being a cowboy, and a strict release process is not for me.

Company culture is treat others the way you want to be treated. So be honest, and don't try to BS around the answer.

Of course, there's confidentiality and politeness with certain questions, e.g. often people ask why this seat is empty and you don't necessarily want to tell them that the last guy ragequit. But you also don't want to spin things. I often bring up Glassdoor reviews and it's common for people to spin excessive work as "a challenge".

If you're hiring someone smart (and you often want to!), they'll see right through it.

Also they shouldn't expect things to be perfect. If everything was 100% documented with full test coverage and everything is under control, why hire someone? That's a flag.

You don't want to scare away the candidate, but the alternative is worse; i.e. you either lie or downplay the issues in your organisation. As a potential candidate, this tells me you and/or the organisation cannot be trusted. Our first encounter started with you lying. That sets a terrible precedent.

You don't need to go into full glorious detail either, but do not lie. Speak honestly about the issues in your organisation and what you're doing about them. Maybe the candidate can even add some value there. If you can't, that says a lot about your organisation. If you can't speak to a candidate about it, maybe you should speak on it internally.

As much transparency as possible, especially if it's an ugly situation.

Otherwise, you're likely gonna get the wrong people for the job or even worse you can turn an excellent hire into a resentful demoralised employee who feels cheated.

I've seen this exact thing playing out with a client I'm working with and they got double f*ked.. They hired the wrong person for the job and the person left the project worse off.

Be honest. We can tell when answers are dodges. And I always have the philosophy that the current state of affairs is not important - knowing where the weaknesses lie and moving in a positive direction are what matters. After all, if everything was perfect, you would not need me.

Part of the candidate's job is going to be interesting on those problems.

Your ideal candidate is going to be interested in solving those problems, and possibly have experience solving that kind of problem

As much as humanly possible without giving them a confluence and jira user. Otherwise it's a bait and switch by omission and I may be walking in that case.

If you just don't lie, then you're already ahead of half the companies out there in my book.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com