I have never been treated this bad in an interview process in 20 years
startupdreams.substack.com
startupdreams.substack.com
Nothing in the posts seems extremely outrageous to me, they could have been nicer to him ... but let's be serious.
As a matter of fact, after reading the post I would not hire this candidate either - to be honest. Something feels very odd -like essential information has been left out.
He seems like someone that thinks very highly of themselves, always a bad sign.
all the names and accusations, it reflects extraordinarily badly on the writer, primarily
goes to show that intelligent people with hurt feelings are doing idiotic things and end up harming themselves just to "get back" to the other side
Are return receipts still a thing?
I have turned off those by default and would never return one - unless I was a candidate and really needed a job :-)
But for a candidate to be harrasing me about a return receipt ... good riddance friend
It's a feature of Superhuman. Controversial for sure, but you can even enable them in Gmail. Honestly, a feature built into every Enterprise email software out there. Not uncommon at all.
FYI: Calendly is not a very reliable piece of software. When I went to reschedule the meeting, it said it was cancelled. I'm sure she sent her note through it and Calendly just didn't cancel the meeting on my calendar, which I've experienced several times while using it. Not Laila's fault at all. No hard feelings.
Just want to push forward :)
I would never hire someone who wrote a post like this in response to such a mild slight, it demonstrates a tendency to blow small things way out of proportion. The supposed offenses of the employer are extremely commonplace in hiring, saying this from having been on both sides many times.
Sometimes you don’t get to know why they took a pass, usually because you wouldn’t like the answer. Having such thin skin is a personality flaw and I daresay the CEO picked up on that.
The only reason to lie about why I wasn't hired is because they are hiding something.
Not sure if it's reasonable to jump to illegal or unethical information?
Raise your hand if you’ve heard of vastly worse treatment of candidates. Damn, that’s a lot of hands…
They decided to pass on OP, so the CEO is a serial liar (for certain)??
Hmm... I think I need more evidence for such bold claims.
Also...
> Since I am very senior, the 2nd interview was barely an interview at all.
This... just isn't how it works.
Something seemed really off about the entire post.
1. They ask about your race, ethnicity, age, kids, and/or marital status almost immediately
2. They ask you to do borderline non-trivial "homework" to prepare but then skip it completely
3. They cut you off and basically push you out the door
4. They clip their nails and don't listen to you
5. They ask you some open-ended, deeply-technical trivia question and already have a cookie-cutter answer they're looking for rather than
6. They ask you random brain-teasers unrelated to the job
7. They pretend to hire you but are just milking you for free advice and free labor, but there was no real job (FITW- ServiceBell is shady af)
8. They fire you because a director makes racist remarks about the offshore team because you were a witness
Guess how many of these I've experienced?
Can't say I've had the same experience.
Honestly, there's nothing that they've done that's particularly egregious - lying about reasons isn't ethical but it's something that happens a lot. Writing a full blog post about how terrible they are though might make other companies nervous that you'd do the same to them for some perceived slight.
Kind of confirms everything in the comments thread here.
Based on the entitlement throughout ("rescinded my offer" when the interview process clearly hadn't completed), I'm not surprised they might have found a reason not to go forward.
You dodged a bullet I guess, might be worth keeping an eye on the company, maybe they're shutting down unexpectedly. Good luck with the search though.
I wonder what doting kid-gloves the author has been handled with in the past to warrant that assessment.
Also, reading recent tech job news, it seems like the author should maybe steel themselves for further disrespect and unprofessionalism if they are still looking for work.
It's rather unfortunate, but with interviewing, like with dating, you don't always get to know why the other party passed on you.
Then the second meeting never happened and "things got weird."
I wonder what his references said.
What qualified person would want to work at a place like that?
The FAQ outlines resubmission is frowned upon unless some time has passed, I think a year was mentioned.
You have my commiserations, but you should consider perhaps it a silver lining - some people seem professional, but are burdened with a poor communication skills or management hierarchy communication latency - IMO it'd lead to annoyance / irritation somewhere down the track. At the very least an interview process should end with a kind rejection blurb.
I've read over your Substack, other posts you've submitted to HN, posts made on Twitter, and a very lengthy thread you went on recently. You haven't listened to anyone who has said this to you in less direct words, so maybe this will help: your posts make you not seem well.
I wouldn't make you my boss, I wouldn't hire you, and I certainly wouldn't invest in you; not in this state anyway. You seem detached from reality, angry, and entitled. Delete this crap, delete your comments on HN (dang can help with that), and get into a therapy session showing them all of this. They can help you deal with anger, stress, and disappointment. Maybe you've just dealt with a lot of that lately.
Now having read about what went down rather then trying to put it together from comments, to me the best guess is the company / CEO was just going though the motions / churning and had one or two other people actually in mind from the onset.
I'd probably not use the term lie though, bullshitted, and blowing smoke in someone's face is more to the point in regard to what was more probable in that interview charade. The only other half reasonable assumption is there's a lot of politicking going on between various department levels, and the CEO knew fairly quickly George was a threat to whatever machinations where in the wind ... or was just too clever by half.