I take a different view. For a lot of candidates that I've interviewed in recent years, they made the decision to move to London, and _then_ decided to apply to us. Some of the best engineers that I've worked with have joined that way, and many of them stuck around for a long time. Of course the candidate should show an interest in the company. But frankly, if you're an employer in a place that people want to move to, that's something that you should be taking advantage of, not complaining when the candidate is honest about it.
The advice can be generalized even more. When communicating with an employer or potential employer:
-> Subordinate yourself to the desires of capital in all areas.
-> Suppress the self.
-> Become a true human resource. You are seeking to sell a large chunk of your life, and the buyers don't want scratched or dented goods. Desires of your own are flaws in the product you are selling.
This is, sadly, sound advice, but I think it's important to reflect on what this means about how incidental human flourishing is in our current political economy.
I’ve done a number of interviews in my career. You don’t have to be a genius to see through the candidates who play this game where they tell you a perfectly sanitized, idyllic response that they’ve calculated as the optimal phrasing that you want to hear.
A lot of applicants do it. The skill of interviewing is to get a sense of what the true situation is underneath what the candidate is saying with their words. These candidates who show up and do the “subordinate yourself to the desires of capital in all areas” schtick are plentiful. It doesn’t fool an experienced interviewer, so they’re going to be evaluating whether or not you can do the job without becoming a problem based on whatever other signals they can get. The candidate’s words are almost a no-op, other than a slight signal that they have a tendency to blow smoke instead of having real conversations.
A no-op is exactly what the candidate wants. The candidate wants to be judged on their skills which are transferable from job to job. There's nothing to "see through" here which is precisely why it's a no-op.
> A no-op is exactly what the candidate wants. The candidate wants to be judged on their skills which are transferable from job to job.
The interview is to determine their skills.
Some candidates will talk about their work history for 30 minutes and you leave the room with no real idea what they did. They tell you they created synergies and did cross-functional coordination with stakeholders in a metrics-driven blah blah blah. You receive no usable information about what they did, what they can do, or how much of the thing they talked about was due to their work. All you know is that they can talk a lot.
If they're applying to a dysfunctional vibes-based workplace then delivering an empty vibes-based interview can work. Smart people actively try to filter themselves out of those companies, not into them.
Right, it's game of pretending that you sincerely desire these things. They don't want a faker, they want a true believer, and they have plenty of skillful people like you to use as tools to suss out who is and who isn't. To stick with the merchandise analogy, you must (sometimes) become like the "outlet" stores who fill their inventory with junk designed to be sold cheaply rather than marked down high end stuff. This flatters your customer into thinking they got a good deal, and is an effective way to make sales. This is an endless game of cat and mouse.
> They don't want a faker, they want a true believer
I'm trying to explain that it's easy to spot the fakers.
When you do a lot of interviews you see a lot of candidates who follow the advice above. Unless it's your first month of doing interviews, it's really easy to see right through.
The candidates never think they're coming off as fake, though.
Really skilled interviewers can bait these candidates into telling little half-truths and inconsistencies that reveal their game.
You're explaining that you think you do a good job of spotting the fakers. How would you know if you weren't? And anyway, the fakers (approximately everyone) don't have a choice but to be fakers, since the truth (I want this job because I want the money and visa it will confer) is disqualifying. Because no one is motivated primarily on the opportunity to work on adtech (to pick a popular example), one must choose one of:
1) Be truthful, and say the main reason you want the job is the money and the visa. You will be looked over as not having enough passion for the work.
2) Lie completely and say your number one motivation is adtech, something you would prostrate yourself to do in slum conditions if necessary. You will be sussed out as a faker.
3) Come up with some mixture of the two that the company can believe. If you can fool them into thinking you are at least somewhat motivated by the chance to work on their awful product, but also that there is truthfully some other motivation, you come across as a good bet and might not be thrown out of the pipeline.
> I’ve done a number of interviews in my career. You don’t have to be a genius to see through the candidates who play this game where they tell you a perfectly sanitized, idyllic response that they’ve calculated as the optimal phrasing that you want to hear.
I worked in multiple companies in my multi-decade career, including FAANG (or whatever acronym is used now). I was even an intervewer for one of those
The people that give the sanitized calculated responses are actually what employers are typically looking for. It shows the candidate is willing to do the job without causing problems by confirming as a good worker bee.
Your workplace is not somewhere for real conversations.
I don’t think the post says this at all. It’s mostly just common sense, like “don’t tell the interviewer you just want the job for the money and the ability to live abroad.” Instead be interested in whatever the company is doing.
This seems pretty straightforward, but I guess people like OP are exposed to a lot of bad interviewees by nature of their job.
Well I guess this is an overstatement for the sake of explaining your point and as such it's very effective, but I don't agree with this perspective. The advice tells you to remember that the person hiring you has also put work into that conversation, and that they'll appreciate realizing you have put work into it too. So i think there's an instance of letting our humanity flourish in this, since you're doing an exercise in empathy. There might be too few of these opportunties/spaces left tbh
This is very good, practical advice. I would go even further and say that you shouldn’t even allow yourself to get into a position where you need to manipulate your answers to interviewers for this question. If the primary reason you want a job is for the relocation, you might be signing up for a job you don’t even like!
I’ve been part of a small number of hiring decisions where relocation was involved. There were a lot of failures exactly like this article talks about: Candidates who will say anything in the interview and even signal that they’ll accept any average salary as long as you’ll take care of their relocation were, in my experience, not interested in doing the work after they got here. Taking the job was a means to an end (getting to their destination) and once they arrived they were either looking for the next job or too busy traveling around their new location to do work.
We tried to mitigate this with clauses requiring them to pay back relocation expenses if they left within N months of arrival, but this didn’t work. They would resign the week after that timer expired or, worse, would start trying to get laid off through poor performance as a way to avoid that clause.
The best fits for relocation were opposite of what I would have thought: The people most hesitant to relocate were the most successful, both at the job and in establishing their new social life outside of work in the new location. They were relocating and taking jobs for the right reasons.
Maybe I just haven't met these engineers, but isn't the problem usually "I don't want to relocate" ? Who talks about relocating as if that's the primary motivation for a job?
You would be surprised. A large number of resumes for every job posted are from people outside of the area who want to move there for different reasons.
Most people want to have a job set up before they move to a new city.
> Most people want to have a job set up before they move to a new city.
This is obvious for most people... generally a bad financial idea to move to a new city without a job. But, primarily taking a job just to move to a new city seems odd to me. I guess I just prioritize a job I want to work at over a city I live in.
I see it a little different. I'm not saying I prioritize work over everything else, I just see them as almost unrelated. The location is a filter, not a motivation. For various reasons, I wouldn't ever choose certain cities to live in and there's very few reasons a job would overcome that (I guess if you gave me enough money that would make me reconsider... but it's a pretty high bar that is likely unreasonable).
Meanwhile, if your spouse is moving for a job, it seems bizarre that a response on "why do you want to relocate" wouldn't just be some form of "my spouse got a job here, so I will be living here now".
This isn't good advice in this case. The company needs assurance you are worth the investment and that means they need to know this will be personally good for you.
This makes no sense. Even from a completely cynical corporate perspective, wouldn't these peoples dependency on you for sponsorship be a plus, not a minus?
If you are in tech, never move for a job immediately. Work there for 90 days before you even touch a UHaul form. I have been at companies where within 20 minutes I hated my coworkers (playing EDM on high all day in office). Just get a hotel at motel 6. If you are loving the job then the move is a less stressful and enjoyable.
"I did not plan to relocate, but the opening at $your company made me reconsider. I then delved into $location history and culture, and found it really fascinating. Since I am [young|experienced in $oldcareer], I decided it would be worth trying out something new."
I take a different view. For a lot of candidates that I've interviewed in recent years, they made the decision to move to London, and _then_ decided to apply to us. Some of the best engineers that I've worked with have joined that way, and many of them stuck around for a long time. Of course the candidate should show an interest in the company. But frankly, if you're an employer in a place that people want to move to, that's something that you should be taking advantage of, not complaining when the candidate is honest about it.
The advice can be generalized even more. When communicating with an employer or potential employer:
-> Subordinate yourself to the desires of capital in all areas.
-> Suppress the self.
-> Become a true human resource. You are seeking to sell a large chunk of your life, and the buyers don't want scratched or dented goods. Desires of your own are flaws in the product you are selling.
This is, sadly, sound advice, but I think it's important to reflect on what this means about how incidental human flourishing is in our current political economy.
I’ve done a number of interviews in my career. You don’t have to be a genius to see through the candidates who play this game where they tell you a perfectly sanitized, idyllic response that they’ve calculated as the optimal phrasing that you want to hear.
A lot of applicants do it. The skill of interviewing is to get a sense of what the true situation is underneath what the candidate is saying with their words. These candidates who show up and do the “subordinate yourself to the desires of capital in all areas” schtick are plentiful. It doesn’t fool an experienced interviewer, so they’re going to be evaluating whether or not you can do the job without becoming a problem based on whatever other signals they can get. The candidate’s words are almost a no-op, other than a slight signal that they have a tendency to blow smoke instead of having real conversations.
A no-op is exactly what the candidate wants. The candidate wants to be judged on their skills which are transferable from job to job. There's nothing to "see through" here which is precisely why it's a no-op.
> A no-op is exactly what the candidate wants. The candidate wants to be judged on their skills which are transferable from job to job.
The interview is to determine their skills.
Some candidates will talk about their work history for 30 minutes and you leave the room with no real idea what they did. They tell you they created synergies and did cross-functional coordination with stakeholders in a metrics-driven blah blah blah. You receive no usable information about what they did, what they can do, or how much of the thing they talked about was due to their work. All you know is that they can talk a lot.
If they're applying to a dysfunctional vibes-based workplace then delivering an empty vibes-based interview can work. Smart people actively try to filter themselves out of those companies, not into them.
I suspect a lot of interviewers think it is a good thing when someone repeats those lines. That is they are not trying to get under the words.
That's probably right. The interviewers who are sitting around complaining on HN are probably not the typical interviewers one encounters.
Right, it's game of pretending that you sincerely desire these things. They don't want a faker, they want a true believer, and they have plenty of skillful people like you to use as tools to suss out who is and who isn't. To stick with the merchandise analogy, you must (sometimes) become like the "outlet" stores who fill their inventory with junk designed to be sold cheaply rather than marked down high end stuff. This flatters your customer into thinking they got a good deal, and is an effective way to make sales. This is an endless game of cat and mouse.
> They don't want a faker, they want a true believer
I'm trying to explain that it's easy to spot the fakers.
When you do a lot of interviews you see a lot of candidates who follow the advice above. Unless it's your first month of doing interviews, it's really easy to see right through.
The candidates never think they're coming off as fake, though.
Really skilled interviewers can bait these candidates into telling little half-truths and inconsistencies that reveal their game.
You're explaining that you think you do a good job of spotting the fakers. How would you know if you weren't? And anyway, the fakers (approximately everyone) don't have a choice but to be fakers, since the truth (I want this job because I want the money and visa it will confer) is disqualifying. Because no one is motivated primarily on the opportunity to work on adtech (to pick a popular example), one must choose one of:
1) Be truthful, and say the main reason you want the job is the money and the visa. You will be looked over as not having enough passion for the work.
2) Lie completely and say your number one motivation is adtech, something you would prostrate yourself to do in slum conditions if necessary. You will be sussed out as a faker.
3) Come up with some mixture of the two that the company can believe. If you can fool them into thinking you are at least somewhat motivated by the chance to work on their awful product, but also that there is truthfully some other motivation, you come across as a good bet and might not be thrown out of the pipeline.
> I’ve done a number of interviews in my career. You don’t have to be a genius to see through the candidates who play this game where they tell you a perfectly sanitized, idyllic response that they’ve calculated as the optimal phrasing that you want to hear.
I worked in multiple companies in my multi-decade career, including FAANG (or whatever acronym is used now). I was even an intervewer for one of those
The people that give the sanitized calculated responses are actually what employers are typically looking for. It shows the candidate is willing to do the job without causing problems by confirming as a good worker bee.
Your workplace is not somewhere for real conversations.
I don’t think the post says this at all. It’s mostly just common sense, like “don’t tell the interviewer you just want the job for the money and the ability to live abroad.” Instead be interested in whatever the company is doing.
This seems pretty straightforward, but I guess people like OP are exposed to a lot of bad interviewees by nature of their job.
Well I guess this is an overstatement for the sake of explaining your point and as such it's very effective, but I don't agree with this perspective. The advice tells you to remember that the person hiring you has also put work into that conversation, and that they'll appreciate realizing you have put work into it too. So i think there's an instance of letting our humanity flourish in this, since you're doing an exercise in empathy. There might be too few of these opportunties/spaces left tbh
[dead]
This is very good, practical advice. I would go even further and say that you shouldn’t even allow yourself to get into a position where you need to manipulate your answers to interviewers for this question. If the primary reason you want a job is for the relocation, you might be signing up for a job you don’t even like!
I’ve been part of a small number of hiring decisions where relocation was involved. There were a lot of failures exactly like this article talks about: Candidates who will say anything in the interview and even signal that they’ll accept any average salary as long as you’ll take care of their relocation were, in my experience, not interested in doing the work after they got here. Taking the job was a means to an end (getting to their destination) and once they arrived they were either looking for the next job or too busy traveling around their new location to do work.
We tried to mitigate this with clauses requiring them to pay back relocation expenses if they left within N months of arrival, but this didn’t work. They would resign the week after that timer expired or, worse, would start trying to get laid off through poor performance as a way to avoid that clause.
The best fits for relocation were opposite of what I would have thought: The people most hesitant to relocate were the most successful, both at the job and in establishing their new social life outside of work in the new location. They were relocating and taking jobs for the right reasons.
Maybe I just haven't met these engineers, but isn't the problem usually "I don't want to relocate" ? Who talks about relocating as if that's the primary motivation for a job?
You would be surprised. A large number of resumes for every job posted are from people outside of the area who want to move there for different reasons.
Most people want to have a job set up before they move to a new city.
> Most people want to have a job set up before they move to a new city.
This is obvious for most people... generally a bad financial idea to move to a new city without a job. But, primarily taking a job just to move to a new city seems odd to me. I guess I just prioritize a job I want to work at over a city I live in.
> I guess I just prioritize a job I want to work at over a city I live in.
Most people don't prioritize work over everything else. They move toward the life they want and try to find a job that supports it.
People move to be closer to friends and family or to be in a city they like more.
A lot of applicants requesting relocation were moving because their spouse got a job in the city and they had to move, too.
I see it a little different. I'm not saying I prioritize work over everything else, I just see them as almost unrelated. The location is a filter, not a motivation. For various reasons, I wouldn't ever choose certain cities to live in and there's very few reasons a job would overcome that (I guess if you gave me enough money that would make me reconsider... but it's a pretty high bar that is likely unreasonable).
Meanwhile, if your spouse is moving for a job, it seems bizarre that a response on "why do you want to relocate" wouldn't just be some form of "my spouse got a job here, so I will be living here now".
This seems so obvious. It's like asking your manager for a raise and giving the justification that you want a bigger house.
Always be marketing what you can/will/have done for the company to bring value, not what the company can do for you.
This isn't good advice in this case. The company needs assurance you are worth the investment and that means they need to know this will be personally good for you.
This feels like generically good advice when interviewing in general - show an interest in your potential future employer.
This makes no sense. Even from a completely cynical corporate perspective, wouldn't these peoples dependency on you for sponsorship be a plus, not a minus?
Sutton's Law.
If you are in tech, never move for a job immediately. Work there for 90 days before you even touch a UHaul form. I have been at companies where within 20 minutes I hated my coworkers (playing EDM on high all day in office). Just get a hotel at motel 6. If you are loving the job then the move is a less stressful and enjoyable.
"I did not plan to relocate, but the opening at $your company made me reconsider. I then delved into $location history and culture, and found it really fascinating. Since I am [young|experienced in $oldcareer], I decided it would be worth trying out something new."