Debunking Hiring Superstitions: Things That Aren't Really a Thing

(This post originally appeared on AdatoSystems.com)

\ According to medical experts, people believe superstitions in order to produce “a false sense of having control over outer conditions, and reduce anxiety. This is also why superstitions are prevalent in conditions of absence of confidence, insecurity, fear, and threat.”

\ “…absence of confidence, insecurity, fear, and threat…” seems to describe job seeking perfectly.

\ What I’ve observed, both in my own behavior and when helping others, is that hard times cause our minds to play tricks on us. In a moment of crisis, we want—sometimes more than anything—to understand WHY. This driving need affects our judgment and perception and makes it harder to separate fact from fancy.

\ When we’re looking for our next job, almost by definition, we feel (and to a certain extent are) vulnerable. For some of us, a job interview can often – despite everything we know on an intellectual level – feel like a process of tacitly asking for validation. We’re putting ourselves, in the form of our resume, in someone else’s hands and asking them – after minimal review and very little context – to render judgment on whether we’re “good enough” for them.

\ Even in the best circumstances, that can feel extremely not-great. Worse, most interviews are not set up to create the best circumstances.

\ And so, as we try to make sense of our job search experiences, our minds begin to jump at shadows.

\ In this post, I want to explore some of the more common concerns that creep into the minds of job-seekers, and see if I – assisted by a few amazing friends with both experience and insight – can’t lay out what’s absolutely true, what’s possibly real, and what’s complete bullsh… fabrication.

I’m going to start with my primary reason for writing this blog: listing and debunking misconceptions that are both popular and absolutely wrong. But I have to be crystal clear before I even start: I’m not saying these things have never happened, nor that they couldn’t happen. They have, and they can, and they will again.

\ What I’m emphasizing is that they’re not normative, let alone acceptable, behaviors in the tech industry. Any company that allows these things to occur is telling you far more about who they are than about your eligibility as a candidate.

No, you haven’t. I can confidently say, presuming the vast majority of those reading this post aren’t horrible, abusive people who’ve left a swath of destruction in their wake. You’re a normal, if imperfect, person trying your best and making occasional mistakes like everyone does.

\ For clarity, this myth isn’t even talking about the person’s work history. It’s based on the interview itself – that a bad interaction with a recruiter has somehow gotten them banned not only for that company but from every other company as well.

\ Look, maybe you had a bad day and didn’t answer every interview question as well as you could. Or you gave a snarky answer. Or were late to jump on an interview call. Or forgot someone’s name. Or didn’t write a thank you note afterward.

\ These things will NOT ruin your career. Honestly, most of the things we obsess over after the Zoom call ends are barely even a blip on a recruiter’s radar.

(To clarify, I’m talking about applying to a different job – one that you’re qualified for. Not the same job you just got declined for, or a job that’s outside your skillset)

\ No, they don’t. No reasonable organization that’s trying to fill a role is going to push away good people who are so eager to work at their company that they apply to two (or three, or more) jobs consecutively. That’s just not logical.

This is a variation of the “canceled” question above, but it’s nuanced enough that I wanted to address it separately. It’s instructive to understand what happens when one company (the one you’re applying to) reaches out to past employers. While it’s not against the law, it’s not something most companies avoid (both doing and listening to). HR manager Aimee Reyes explains this is because,

\

“there could be consequences for an employer if the offer was rescinded for incorrect or bad-faith answers by the former employer.”

\ Therefore, the only questions a previous employer typically supplies are:

• That the candidate did, in fact, work at the company.
• The dates of employment.
• Their title(s)

\ That’s it. No, seriously. If they supply anything else – the reason for termination, their salary, or even if they felt that the employee was “good” or “bad” at their job – they open themselves up to massive lawsuits.

\ According to Yasmine Agyekum, a recruiter with years of experience at several top software vendors,

“Most companies in this industry practice neutral employment verifications –  meaning we don’t say the reason for termination whether it’s voluntary or involuntary”

\ In addition, put yourself in the position of the hiring company. You call a previous employer and (completely unprompted) they share an opinion that the candidate in question was a crappy employee, showed up late every day, kicked dogs on the way into the office, and routinely microwaved broccoli and fish in the lunchroom. That doesn’t sound like one HR pro trying to help out another. That sounds like someone at the previous company being vindictive.

\ The result is that, in the vast majority of cases, it’s simply not done.

As I’ve blogged about in the past, job descriptions can be largely works of fiction, or at least contain sections that are largely unnecessary. The fact that you don’t check every single box is immaterial. Because you should always focus on doing YOUR job, not THEIRS. YOUR job is to apply for roles that sound exciting, at companies that have a culture, community, creation, or calling that inspires you. THEIR job is to say “no” (or yes). Do not do THEIR job first by saying “no” preemptively.

\ Bottom line? Just apply. It costs you nothing, and you simply never know where it could lead.

I started in tech in 1989, when the two things you needed for a job in the computer industry were breathing and a suit (and TBQH, one was optional). While it’s not quite that simple anymore, the speed with which tech continues to change has always translated to it being easy to “break in”. As long as you’re willing to slog through a couple of years (and thus, a couple of cycles of tech), you will be able to say “I was there when ____ technology started.” A few years more, and you’re not only a veteran, you’ll likely be a recognized leader in that space.

\ As far as I can tell, this sets tech apart from every other trade or industry. We have no *real* educational requirements (ignore the b.s. listed on job postings for a moment); there’s no apprenticeship process. No union or trade group that has to sponsor a new candidate. Everyone who shows up with a keyboard and a dream has the same chance (To a point. I’m not being naive. I’ll get to all the -isms – ageism, racism, sexism, etc. – in a moment).

\ Now, the reality check is that being an expert in a technology does not always translate to “companies will back a Brinks truck up to your front door to get you to join them.” The job market is hard right now for everyone, regardless of depth or skills, years of experience, or connections.

\ But the myth we’re addressing is whether you can reasonably hope to get started in tech even if you don’t come from the “right” background. And the answer to that is a resounding YES. How do I know?

\ Full disclosure: My degree is in theater. Period. Aside from a couple of certification boot camps, my career is based on self-taught skills or on-the-job experiences. Easily half of the folks I work with – and that includes hard-core developers – come from backgrounds in music, unrelated sciences (chemistry, geology), law, and a not-insignificant number of folks whose formal education ended with a High School diploma.

\ My point: There is no “wrong” way to get into tech. If it excites and inspires you, there is a place for you here.

I am not going to deny that there isn’t a very real problem with bias (multiple biases, really) in tech. Those biases start with racism and sexism and extend across the spectrum of “isms” – ableism, ageism, classism, name bias, beauty bias, and beyond. Some of these I’ll address (with the help of friends) in another post.

\ But to come back to the topic at hand: the idea that you can’t participate in tech – that you’ll be refused entry to the industry – as if there’s an amusement park measuring stick next to a sign saying, “You must be this young to ride a Herman Miller Aeron chair” is simply false. There’s nothing about working in tech that pre-supposes or requires a certain age.

\ As I said in the previous section on having the “right” background, if this work interests you, there is a place for you here.

In my next post, I’m going to pivot from the things that are almost certainly NOT happening to concerns job seekers have said to me which might be happening, although it’s highly dependent on context and circumstance.