Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeash | Hacker News Reader

What if he scares off 10 1x engineers because he's poisonous? Or what if he scares off another 10x engineer who happens to be a woman? Keeping toxic people around is not usually going to pay off, regardless of "outrage culture" (which is an odd way of describing a culture that punishes abuse of power).

View on HN

"which is an odd way of describing a culture that punishes abuse of power"

The guy wasn't abusing his power. He was being a fucking weirdo, after rejecting her for a job. So that power dynamic was over. Now he's being very unprofessional, weird, creepy, and a whole bunch of other things.

Also outrage culture, we're talking about a culture where someone got fired for making jokes about "forking" another guys repo and big dongles in a private conversation. Then the person who got him fired then got fired for having her companies web site DDoS'd off the internet. That's just one of many not quite right things that's happened in our culture.

People keep saying that there's no power dynamic because she already got rejected. I don't get it. Interview decisions can change. People can interview for a different position at the same company. It's not as straightforward as everybody seems to want it to be.

We are not talking about a culture where someone got fired for "forking" jokes. That may be the culture, but it's completely unrelated to the issue being discussed here.

"People keep saying that there's no power dynamic because she already got rejected. I don't get it. Interview decisions can change. People can interview for a different position at the same company. It's not as straightforward as everybody seems to want it to be."

Very unlikely for a start up that'll you'll interview again for a different position. They would just offer you the other position. Also very unlikely is a rejection turned into acceptance.

"We are not talking about a culture where someone got fired for "forking" jokes. That may be the culture, but it's completely unrelated to the issue being discussed here."

That is exactly what the person was talking about and this thread is very much the same. A bunch of people outraged because they should be.

They don't always hire for everything at once. Why is it so absurd that a startup might hire for a different position a few months down the line? And why is changing a "no" to a "yes" unlikely? Do interviewers never change their mind afterwards?

Personally, I'm not outraged because I "should be." I'm mildly annoyed at the person in question, and I'm outraged at all the people coming out of the woodwork to defend him.

"And why is changing a "no" to a "yes" unlikely? Do interviewers never change their mind afterwards?"

It's not that they never change their minds, it's more that they usually don't. Especially after telling someone officially they're rejected. If a company rejected me then phoned me up two days later saying they changed their minds I wouldn't look too favourably on them.

"I'm mildly annoyed at the person in question, and I'm outraged at all the people coming out of the woodwork to defend him."

Personally I just think he's a weirdo who's clearly not that smart. But I've seen some people call him a "sexual criminal". I'm like WTF! That's a bit extreme. That's the sort of thing the outrage culture is describing.

You seem to be saying that changing the interview result isn't worth considering because it's not normal and would cause you to think poorly of the company, yet this whole discussion is about asking an interviewee on a date which is also not normal and causes me to think poorly of the company.

It has nothing to do with normality, just potential.

I haven't seen "sexual criminal" but rest assured that I'd object as strongly to that as I object to all the people defending this guy.

What if he's a 0.5x engineer and firing him would be good anyway? I was merely illustrating that just because someone acts in an outrageous way doesn't make them a liability, net. There's no rule saying effective companies must be filled with saints, even if that would be nice.

You implied that if he's really good at his job then he must necessarily be a very valuable asset. My point is that he could easily be a liability even if he's excellent at his job, and not because of "outrage culture."

I've been around long enough to see what a toxic superstar can do. It's really easy to look at the "superstar" and see it as an asset, but forget how much liability to associate with the toxic - and therefore to conclude "net win" when it isn't.

Not saying it could never happen, but it tends to leave your company a prisoner. You can't lose the superstar, but you can't attract other top-level talent because the superstar is toxic, which leaves you even more dependent on the superstar...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com