I’ve similarly had 6-round interviews where at the end I either receive a lowball offer or am rejected because of something disclosed up-front.
If i was good enough to get hired as a faang with just interviews and no take home stuff i see no reason to do that for a smaller company.
Probably the majority in current late stage capitalism
I like giving interviews. It gives me insight into their thinking and the company.
I just thought it should be clearer how many of these businesses likely operate to filter out.
Sounds a bit counterproductive
A lot of places are looking for unambitious, mediocre, status-quo following bodies to fill seats and follow arcane bureaucratic processes. Too much critical thinking is bad. Ability to deal with long drawn out bullshit is good.
I love working in tech because it’s so cushy and chill but it’s the most stupid (and delusional) industry i ever worked in.
They'll spend 5x your ask for a raise finding someone to fill your position because denying you keeps the rest of their payroll in line. And if you consider these people communicate across their industries, they will make informal cartels that depress all employee wages.
So I wouldn't be surprised if there was just a natural way to filter our employees who would be to demanding by making them jump through more hoops.
1. It depends on how desperate the applicant is: if they're searching while still employed then they can walk (like GP did).
2. Even if they are desperate, they may take the offer… for now… so they can start getting a salary again, but that won't prevent them from continue to look. In which case you've paid for them to learn a job which they'll leave and you'll have to pay someone a second time to learn as well.
False economy IMHO.
You don't have to show up on the start date, though you do have to be mindful of the bridge you may be burning. But it is totally reasonable to show up to a few days of work, and declare "you know what, I don't think this is a good fit" and no one will be offended. They don't have to know that you already accepted another offer.
Exploding offers, low-ball offers, all bullshit. But you don't have to play their games.
Some corporations will exploit whatever advantages they perceive. I overheard one hiring manager refer to their process as "the hunger games".
unless you're looking at VP and up level roles where there may be a significant delta in risk, cost, and pay it's probably not worth it.
If anything the manager would prefer a higher offer that the candidate is likely to expect than a low-ball which they reject and then the hiring process has to continue.
That doesn't pass the smell test. That would mean those companies do not care about filling a role of hiring competent workers. If your guy is willing to wait two whole months for your offer, you are either Google or you are trying to hire a dude who no company on earth wants.
Based on that, assumption was the budget would be adequate. Final response was that they would not even mention the salary because it was too far away.
Following week they posted the job advert for same staff engineer role but at under average eu minimum wage.
It's risky if no salary is listed but do not ever proceed if they don't openly accept your ask without any doubt.
>under average eu minimum wage
Wth ? How does this work
with regards to uk tech companies - they have salary ranges like 60k-75k - where someone might have spent time in a role at 63k e.g if the average tenure within a certain position is 3 years, 63k - then when you join they will say new joiners start at 60k.
That was the other guy's job, and it as a prerequisite - they would not reach me if the compensation was not to their satisfaction. My job was to determine whether the candidate could perform at the offered post. If I needed to discuss compensation then someone before me would have screwed up.
There's nothing you can do about the dishonest ones.
There are apparently some new regulations in Canada to protect job seekers from this, but it's not a clean line in the sand. It seems like companies won't likely be held accountable unless it is a pattern of hiring like this, but how do people establish a pattern when most people still won't discuss salaries?
Then they went legal trying to prevent me working for a competitor.
I actually got what I needed from the role anyway, but it was a lesson to heed the red flags. I've not heeded that lesson a couple of times recently, just because the market seems to be toast, but it's not been worth it.
Was threatened with that early in my career after I resigned, I just replied "Check my employment contract, Good luck with that".
They where chaotically unorganised and the contract had no non-compete, they are enforceable in the UK but it's quite uphill to enforce an overly broad one (up to and including it just been nullified if you go too broad) and they have to show good evidence why it should be enforced.
In my experience, that never happens. If they actually meant it, it would be written in your contract.
> Stretched over two months
These companies aren't Google. There is no valid reason why it should take so long to decide on candidates for a position. It is not necessary to have more than two interview sessions. I bail on any company that subjects people to this garbage.
That doesn't sound right at all for the tech sector.
There's the mandatory "is this a human" interview, there's a technical interview to weed out the dozens of candidates, then there's the interview where those who passed the first round are interviewed to check for hard skills, soft skills, cultural fit, etc.
Which one would you leave out? Even with a technical assignment you need at least 3?
FANGs subject candidates to between 2 to 4 meetings in their on-site interview. Google nowadays has at least 4 interviews. When I interviewed for MongoDB they were very proud of having 12 rounds of interviews, and the interviewer boasted they managed to streamline the process by cutting out two interviews. I could go on and on.
I don't recall a single interview process for a tech role that has less than 4 interview rounds.
Google is a very large company. They have capital on hand and an established, well-worn process for onboarding. It costs them comparatively little to hire.
For a small company, an engineering hire is a big investment. They don't do it as often, so it costs them more in terms of both direct costs and indirect costs - like the time it takes their existing team to go through the process and bring the new hire up to speed.
Don't want to act like an adult and tell me how much money I'll make? I'm out, good luck.
A few years back I wanted to get out of the work situation I was in. I looked around, had some interviews, had some offers. None of the postings had salary ranges, as is common where I live.
My eyes, however, were set on a specific small company because I liked their product. The process was long and involved multiple meetings, a take-home problem, and stretched over 2 or so months. I was upfront about what my salary expectations were (wasn't looking for a raise, just a lateral move). They said we discuss salary when you meet the founders, i.e. the last step before getting hired, but they also didn't tell me that my range was way off.
Turns out I had played this 9 week game and turned down other offers just to be severely low-balled by them. Maybe they saw that I really wanted the position and thought they could get away with a low offer.
Obviously, I rejected their offer on the spot. I also promised myself to never, _ever_, be fooled like that again. We talk money before I invest any significant amount of time or I walk.