Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Same question - were you and are you continuing to actively interview candidates?

That's the mystery for me, why put the team through a charade that actively harms their productivity?

The only thing I can think of is the candidate disclosed something that would be a legal red flag and can't really divulge that is an issue without threat of a lawsuit. Or something came up in a background check, but I imagine it didn't get to that point if the candidate reached out to you directly.




The "why" is because people quit environments that are toxic, but hold out if there are signs of improvement. People don't want to quit - it's a large investment of time and investment to job hunt. It's annoying as hell. So if you can string together promises:

- We'll hire more people, it's just so hard to find candidates! - We're doing bonuses right after evaluations, but we're doing a new evaluation system that's taking a bit longer than we expected this year - We're just finalizing talking to a customer we'll have them signed next month, we swear

That delays people looking, delays that large investment, and you can extract engineering time with little investment.

If you ran a company that couldn't afford another engineer for a team that desperately needed another engineer, are you going to paint the bleak picture for your team and risk losing those engineers that you have, or lie? If you have morals and say you'd be upfront, great; but that's unfortunately not a universal answer.


Honestly, the weird thing is we don't need another person at all.


Yes, were still interviewing.

Harming productivity only matters for hourly staff (in the minds of bad executives leaders). Salaried folks have to finish the with no matter how long it takes, and it doesn't cost the company more.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: