Similarly, once you’re looking for a new job, assuming you’re looking for roles with the same job title you had before, do everything you can to paint your previous job in a positive light even if it was miserable. If you don’t, interviewers are left wondering how to interpret your dissatisfaction at your previous job. “If they weren’t happy there, will they be happy here?”

Honestly, this is the most toxic thing about job interviews for me - "hey can we do the thing where you pretend you didn't have a string of shitty jobs for 5 years? because obviously you were at fault if they were shitty."

Most jobs are pretty shitty, the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity about how shitty it was is just so inauthentic.

As an interviewer it's too hard to tell if a candidate was indeed a victim of circumstance, like an acquisition that turned into a shitty job, or if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge. An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the positive aspects of their job history. Hire a shrink to vent about the toxic shitty job.

So you are saying it is better if the candidate lies.

Otherwise you will be forced to reject him because there might be a possibility that the problem was him.

Seems like you are hiring the best liars. Or at least the best at playing an arbitrary game of saying and not saying the correct things that won't trigger a rejection.

At this point, are you even needed? Maybe we could replace the interview process with a lottery system. Same result, less expensive.

> if they are just a disgruntled malcontent who will also be disgruntled and malcontent at your company. The downside of hiring a malcontent is huge.

Honestly, I get much better along with malcontents than with these "annoyingly positive" people. So, tastes differ.

> An interviewer can assume that most quality candidates are also aware of this dynamic and will wisely choose to represent the positive aspects of their job history.

Many highly qualified candidates are bad actors and/or bad self-promoters.

I don't know if you and GP are using 'malcontent' to refer to the same kind of person.

> most jobs are pretty shitty.

If everywhere smells like shit, it’s time to check under your own shoe. I’ve had shitty jobs, snd while nowhere is perfect it’s definitely a stretch to say most jobs are shitty.

> the idea that you need to demonstrate toxic positivity

Nobody is asking you to do that. When I’m interviewing a candidate I’m assuming that this is a situation that they’re trying to impress/show themselves and if you’re shit talking your previous jobs then what are you going to be like if we disagree, or when you are interviewing for your next job? All I’m asking for is don’t shit talk your previous jobs and managers. If you can’t do that for 45 minutes I’m not going to hire you.

Call it "inauthentic" if you want but the reality is that the people who are interviewing you know they are going to have to work with you, and 99% of people prefer working alongside those who might boost their morale by demonstrating positivity and optimism (even if somewhat manufactured) instead of dwelling insufferably on all the negatives.

Another way to think about it, are you able to tolerate the less than perfect aspect of a job while still being pleasant to coworkers.

A lot of people can’t, and a lot of companies try to avoid those people.

So a lot of companies try to avoid a lot of people? How does that work out?

In my experience most companies work with a wide distribution of people. This "we avoid hiring people who have defects" reads as disconnected from reality. Nobody is perfect, and most companies are average and have average people.

> are you able to tolerate the less than perfect aspect of a job while still being pleasant to coworkers.

I honestly tend to get much better along with cynic people (and find them much more pleasant). In other words: tastes differ.

You can demonstrate toxic positivity about the desired work place I guess? Like, focus on how amazing it is going to be and what opportunities you see here that will clearly overshadow your previous job.

"If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole."

And yet despite this, miserable people who drag their misery and sorrow to every occasion and conversation continue to wander about and often will drag you down towards misery too if you let them. Avoiding misery is but a matter of self defence. The pat-down before you enter a nightclub doesn't feel great either.

Nah, realizing I don't have to constantly be thinking about relationship was what made things a lot less stressful for me. It's still stressful. But at least I get to mind my own business. Not saying everyone is like me. Maybe no one is. But it was better for me to mind my own business and internally say fork you to all the superficial relationships.

You should prioritize your mental health, but what the article is saying is that you actually need to GET AWAY from that type of situation, and the most likely route is using a chain of other people's hands to pull you out of the situation.

If you just want to hunker down and do your own thing you might survive, but the best thing to do is probably move on from such places (or work with your team when it gets bad to get out of it ya rite lol it goes on forever)

This is fine, until it comes time for layoffs. Like it or not, software development is an intensly social enterprise. Of course there are lone geniuses out there doing their own thing, and if that's you great. But it isn't how enterprise teams work. Particularly as you reach L7, every single aspect of your job will become political in one way or another.

Except the layoffs come from someone's spreadsheet 3 levels up, so even if everyone likes you that may not be enough. It definitely helps, but not guaranteed.

This is true even outside of software development. Working at pretty much any company is an inherently social enterprise dictated by those same rules you correctly pointed out.

This reads in essence as a reminder to be empathetic. Thanks for that.

If a workplace is split into different functions, and your coworkers in your function are not great, it can be difficult or seem bothersome to try to bond with coworkers in a different function

In companies with highly compartmentalized roles, too much work to do, and annoying co-workers, it's easy to say, "that's not my problem, go away." (With a bit more diplomacy, I'd hope.) I have always prioritized trying to be the stereotypical helpful person who might not know the answer to your question, but usually knows who to ask. The more your name comes up in the context of "who knows how X works?", the better your job security and future prospects through networking.

Thanks a lot for posting this, I really needed it today. Sometimes it’s hard to see the forest for the trees.

Relationships are always the most important thing in every line of work, and are often valued more than how good you are at your job.

- Want a promotion? I hope your manager likes you

- Need collaboration from colleagues? Better not be a dick to them

- Want to look for new opportunities? Better have a network

We are social beasts at the end of the day.

Unfortunately this also seems to pave the way for cronyism, and people climbing up the ladder without merit to back it up. What should be considered is a balance between soft and hard skills.

In a high stress work environment, don't be an idiot who eats poorly, sleeps too little, drinks too much alcohol, and then thinks thar during the day they can function at a high level without issues

Now rank your direct reports and select half a million of salary worth from the bottom quartile to right-size your team by COB. Details to follow.

sent from my iPhone