Hacker News Reader

Comment by ucaetano | Hacker News Reader

But ultimately, should Google have hired me? Yes, absolutely yes. I am often a dick, I am often difficult, I often don’t know computer science, but. BUT. I make really good things, maybe they aren't perfect, but people really like them. Surely, surely Google could have used that.

No, Google shouldn't have hired him, and he made it very clear why: he's a dick.

Related discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15474893

View on HN

At least in my experience, the real dicks you want to avoid would never casually call themselves dicks.

I don't know Howell, but that reads more as light self-deprecation than an admission of genuine toxicity.

The biggest dicks are the smooth guys who always say the right things and never take a position.

I wonder why is this downvoted? Sane discussion that benefits everyone rocks.

People who avoid that usually have nothing to tell.

Or worse, who say the right things, never take a position in front of you, and then stab you in the back when you're not around.

in my experience at least some of those who openly/seriously call themselves dicks are low-level sadists that just enjoy being abusive or insensitive and use the "self-aware" commentary as an equivalent to the standard "inb4" forum post (ie "inb4 i'm a dick").

Insensitive to who? Themselves?

I've worked with many dicks I never want to work with again who proudly call themselves dicks.

It’s cheaper to spend 200 hours (or pay 20k more for the role) to get a non-dick than it is to pay 20 coworkers 10K more each to deal with the jerk. (Not to mention backfilling talented folks who don’t want the toxicity)

I also question why anyone would want to work at a place that... didn't want you.

Google shouldn't have... followed their own guidelines?

To say someone should have, is to say they would regret it.

Google isn't a person. And they most certainly will not regret a thing...

You need to read the full comments on that thread. Or this counter-argument: https://startupsventurecapital.com/you-fired-your-top-talent...

There is a lot wrong with that article and it should not be used as a reference for this subject.

Be careful with binary assessments of whether someone ‘is a dick or is not a dick.’

The linked article draws more differences than similarities as far as I can tell. Max Howell readily admits weakness before pride. He brags outwardly at the end of his message, which was a little distasteful, but it was after he widely incriminated the project he is bragging about. The linked article describes a very different type of person. People are rarely so simple.

There are many depths of info and systems available for concieving/understanding personality types and archetypes. Reply if you’d like some recs.

I'm not assessing anything, just quoting himself.

Well, you did say, in your own words: "No, Google shouldn't have hired him, and he made it very clear why..."

That seems like a pretty clear assessment to me.

If dickishness was a crime then most of our software engineers would be in jail.

That it's not a crime doesn't excuse dickishness.

You need to find a new place work if that is true.

In the aftermath of the Damore affair, one thing that came to light was that Google managers operate private blacklists, which they attempt to spread beyond Google to make people unemployable, and that they are so unafraid of HR that they openly brag about it. It sounds like some pretty toxic behaviours are tolerated there, among management if not among the engineers...

source?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952574

I have not worked at Google and have no idea what the list in question is, who maintains it, or what it takes to get on said blacklist. Speculation admits a lot of possibilities, including your own, but there's no evidence that managers created that list. It could well be line staff producing and publishing their own list of preferences. As a random example, perhaps a list of known sexual harassers that HR has not acted on, curated by an individual contributor with a victim's right's motive, and shared with at-risk coworkers. In such a situation, a person might legitimately wish to not put themselves in another stressful, high anxiety situation involving harassment.

Either option and many more are possible. All the ones I can think of suggest that Google's hiring and transfer process needs work.

People who tweeted about adding names to the list were identified via LinkedIn as managers at Google. I don't want to doxx anyone because maybe they have seen the folly of their ways but there was a whole furore about it at the time.

In the UK employer-maintained blacklists are illegal http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36242312

Reply on news.ycombinator.com