
Lies Employers Use to Get You to Work with Them - jilted
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-lies-employers-use-trick-you-working-them-j-t-o-donnell
======
carsongross
This is just another instance of western societies devolving from a high-trust
environment into a low-trust environment. In the short term, cheating in the
prisoners dilemma of social trust is beneficial for the cheater, but in the
long run it ends up resulting in lower economic growth, making everyone
poorer.

Social trust is _the_ key to economic growth (by allowing de-risked
specialization) and political liberty (by allowing minimal black-letter law.)
It is too bad that it is rarely discussed, and has been casually jettisoned by
the west.

~~~
angelbob
What do you see in contrast to "the west"? I'm just curious what you're
comparing the US (and possibly Western Europe) to.

I don't see China as being a tremendously high-trust social environment, for
instance.

~~~
carsongross
I agree regarding China, and I think it will end up limiting economic growth
there once they get past the industrialization bump. (I believe they are past
it.)

I contrast the west with, for example, Russia, which has a very intelligent
work-force and extensive natural resources, but has been unable to break out
of the corruption and lack of trust endemic to their culture. India is another
example: there is no reason they shouldn't be a first world country looking
only at their human and natural capital. The middle east is lousy with
countries with incredibly intelligent peoples stuck in second-world (at best)
conditions. And so on.

~~~
nmrm2
Isn't colonialism is a much better explanation in the case of India and, to a
lesser extent China?

~~~
hga
A country with rather rigid castes and 40,000 endogamous groups is likely
never going to be high trust. "Colonialism" if anything cut against these two
facts.

Don't know about China, but they do have an issue with colonialism going back
centuries and centuries, even if the Han culture eventually "conquered" the
invaders.

------
Aloisius
I don't want to hire anyone who would be unhappy working for me. Lying to
someone about what their life would be like working at the company seems
totally counterproductive to that goal.

I do appreciate it when a candidate has a list of questions related to things
that are important to them. In my experience though, that is _exceedingly_
rare - at least with engineers.

I'm lucky to be asked basic questions like what time people are expected into
the office in the morning let alone someone asking for concrete examples of
advancement.

Usually I have to probe into their past job history to try to figure out what
is important to them and doing that in an hour is extremely difficult - just
breaking down their defensive barriers so they'll relax and give me candid
answers can take half my time. Still, there is only so much I can do in a
limited amount of time, so at the end I just try to lay out what an average
work day looks like and my philosophy as their manager and hope that they will
be able to make an informed decision.

~~~
fredkbloggs
The essence of the modern employment contract is that we keep showing up and
doing more or less what we're told, and you keep the paychecks coming until
doing so would jeopardize senior management pay, at which point you kick us to
the curb with nothing. Anyone on either side of the table expecting something
else is delusional.

> I don't want to hire anyone who would be unhappy working for me.

Then you're not going to hire anyone, your empire will stagnate or shrink, and
you will not be promoted into senior management. At some point you will be
kicked to the curb.

Lying enables you to hire people who might otherwise be unavailable or much
more expensive. When the labor market is weak, this isn't very important, but
in a strong labor market it can be the difference between growing your
organization and losing it to attrition. Assuming you're not willing/able to
pay more than your competition (no one is), lying to candidates is going to be
among your top tactics. By the time they both know they've been lied to and
are upset enough to want to do anything about it, they'll have kids and a
mortgage, or there will be another recession, or some other circumstance will
trap them. They're not happy, but you are: by growing your team, you've earned
a promotion to director.

Sure, your hires are less productive than starry-eyed believers, but there
aren't enough of the latter to staff a giant corporation (or even a medium-
sized one), and senior management pay is based primarily on the size of one's
empire. There's no point in a staffing policy that limits empire growth. A
giant company, even a very inefficient one, pays senior managers far more in
absolute terms than a smaller, more profitable one. Therefore it's in the
interests of the senior managers to encourage hiring as many people as
possible as long as they're cheap, regardless of whether they're happy or
productive (and don't worry, if business is bad, they can be kicked to the
curb). As a line manager, it's in your interest to go along with this no
matter what it takes, because that's how you climb the ladder.

> I do appreciate it when a candidate has a list of questions related to
> things that are important to them. In my experience though, that is
> exceedingly rare - at least with engineers.

It's more that there's little point in asking because the assumption is that
you will lie. At best, even honest answers have a very short shelf life; the
experienced candidate assumes that conditions will change quickly and for the
worse. Most importantly of all, the candidate knows he or she will have no
recourse if conditions are not as advertized, regardless of the reason. That
makes the answers non-actionable, and thus the questions a waste of time.

> Usually I have to probe into their past job history to try to figure out
> what is important to them and doing that in an hour is extremely difficult

We don't tell you because we know you don't care. People have been getting a
lot smarter about the employer-employee relationship over the past decade or
two. A corporation exists primarily for the benefit of senior managers: it
gives them a place to compete with one another, engage in cutthroat politics,
try out pet theories about business and management, and gives them the lion's
share of the business's profits for little or no work. It does not exist for
the benefit of the rank and file, customers, or shareholders. Few people are
so foolish as to expect anything but misery and insecurity as a member of the
rank and file. Why give you information you can use against us later? Put
another way, what's in it for us?

~~~
jackmaney
I have no idea why you got downvoted. I simply don't believe that there is a
single employer out there who would not lie to their employees.

And your question to Aloisius is excellent: what's in it for us?

~~~
Aloisius
I would think the possibility of not being miserable for a third of your life
would be more than enough incentive.

I suppose though if you're worldview is that you're destined to be nothing but
a cog in the meat grinder of humanity, then that must sound like a pipe dream.
And frankly, it doesn't sound like it would be possible for one to ever be
happy even in a good environment with that kind of deeply cynical worldview.

~~~
jackmaney
> I would think the possibility of not being miserable for a third of your
> life would be more than enough incentive.

So, your argument essentially boils down to "tell me what I want to know or
I'll make your work life a living hell."

Please tell me the name of your employer. I don't ever want to work at the
same company as you (or, at the very least, I don't want to be on the same org
chart as you).

~~~
Aloisius
No. No that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that unless you're honest during the interview about what you need
out of a job, you'll end up joining companies that will make you miserable
because they are fundamentally a bad fit for you.

~~~
jackmaney
Ah yes, the old "bad fit" chestnut. What employers never mention, however, is
that when candidates _are_ foolish enough to open up about what they want,
they're often pushed away as "not a good fit for the company/team".

~~~
Aloisius
Yes, that does happen - especially when it is true.

------
tjradcliffe
If employers really want people to work with them, they will pay them more.
Everything else is meaningless and unenforcable. Cash on the barrel is the
only thing that counts.

For job seekers, it's fair and reasonable to assume that any employer who
makes promises against the future is lying, so for every promise you are made
("You'll eventually get to work on cool technology X!") you should increase
your starting salary expectations, because you need to get a fair wage for
being lied to.

------
white-flame
The best defense is a good offense. In other words, you should not be locked
into your relationship with your employer, especially as a new hire.

It's always your option to quit if things aren't as advertised, and not worth
salvaging. This means managing your finances and attitudes to be more mobile,
and not basing your security and contentedness on the good will of your
employer.

Bad employers act a lot like political candidates. The hiring process is the
campaign, and once the votes are tallied and the position is locked in, the
worker is subjected to things not quite as described. You never know what
things are going to be like for your personal situation regardless of how much
you read up on company experiences, so keep a fallback plan open, sacrifice to
maintain a financial buffer, and don't get bogged down in your possessions and
location.

This mindset is also useful even when your employer is great, in family
emergencies and other life-upheaving events.

~~~
spacko
This strategy would only work if "bad employers" (in this context those who
will lie during the hiring process) are in the minority. Even a lying employer
can still end up being a comparatively good place to work - but nonetheless -
your strategy will just repeat the situation and at some point you will have
to explain why you are switching all the time.

------
anon987
Great article!

I usually work at BigCorps. One problem I have is that they send the
exceptional workers to interview me (and other candidates), but once I start I
find out I'm working with a bunch of duds. How can I get a big picture view of
(almost) all of the people I will be working with along with their skill
levels?

I don't expect everyone in the company to be all A team or B team tier, but I
don't want to be a part of an organization where 80% of the people are barley
qualified to do their job.

~~~
angelbob
Start by asking, "who would my manager be?" or "who would my team be?"

If you're not being interviewed by anybody who will be on your prospective
team, that's already a red flag. You should be talking to your future
coworkers (and maybe others, sure) and you should know which ones they are.

~~~
anon987
Oh I understand that.

To be more precise: Let's say I will be working on a team of 5 people. They
send the manager and the smartest guy and things look great, but how do I
gauge the skill level of the people who _aren 't_ there along with the skill
level of other teams. For example, maybe my team is great, but I'll be working
with other teams (infra guys, networking guys, legacy systems guys, whatever)
who are obstructive and unskilled.

How do you get outside the "interview box" to see more of the company?

~~~
matt_s
One good gauge of a question would be: "how long does it take to get a new
VM?" "And how long before the team has software installed?"

This will hint at the bureaucracy behind the scenes if they answer honestly.

The only other way is to know people either on those teams or that have worked
with those folks before and essentially do "reference checks" but in reverse
on your prospective employer.

------
jilted
Interesting read.

I've personally seen other 'tactics' used, most notably a former company's CFO
told my Manager that I was being paid 20k more in Salary than I actually was.

This 20k was then subtracted from the IT Budget presumably on a yearly basis.
Any other stories from readers?

------
suttree
Is it just me or does reading an article on LinkedIn about people lying at
work feel like a recursive loop?

~~~
angelbob
It's just seeing it from the other side. Both sides lie, and both sides have
coping tactics for the lies of the other.

~~~
suttree
That's a very reasonable opinion, fair point.

------
monroepe
My new manager just admitted to me a couple weeks back that my old manager
(who is his manager now) straight up lied to me to get me in the door. He lied
about how quickly my salary would increase. They told me that every six months
salary is generally increased. Now that six months has come, he tells me that
it is very rare for an increase mid-year.

~~~
RogerL
If it isn't in writing, it doesn't count.

Heck, in writing doesn't count for much if it isn't part of a contract.

~~~
fredkbloggs
Most contracts (at least in the US) can be terminated by the employer at will
with no further obligation to the employee. The only terms that are meaningful
are those that obligate the employer to payment unconditionally, or upon
termination.

------
erikb
The article is more reasonable than the headline for me.

I don't think most employers around me lie on purpose. It's really that kind
of situation were you try hard to be good to the other person, but in the end
real life hits you in the face and you don't come around to deliver as much as
promised. I'd argue I fell in that trap a few times myself.

------
jackmaney
And then they wonder why good employees often leave with--usually at most--two
weeks of warning...

------
basseq
1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are weasel words. What is "a lot"; what is "extensive"; how
often is "on occasion"? They're not lies: they just mean nothing.

2 and 3 are firm statements: ask for them in writing. Even if they're not in
an official employment contract, an email stating same might give you enough
ammo for a Fraudulent Inducement Of Employment case (if push came to shove).

Ask follow-up questions to get a quantitative answer _based on past
performance_. Promises of future raises (or other future actions) are complete
BS and should be treated as such.

~~~
slantyyz
>> They're not lies: they just mean nothing.

Everything in the article's list is a basically gratuitous promise. Things
change -- the economy, the financial performance of the company, management,
etc. Any change can be justification to nullify one or more of those promises.

The easy way to see if the hiring company is lying? Ask them to put everything
in the contract, and put --numbers-- where applicable (30 days of training at
the company's expense per year, ability to work at home 2 out of 5 business
days, budget to hire help if workload exceeds 50h/week, etc.).

It'll be pretty clear whether they're lying or telling the truth if they start
balking at specifics.

~~~
fredkbloggs
No one is going to put that stuff in a contract unless it's a senior
management position. The company cares much less about hiring you, no matter
who you are, than about capping its liability. If you do manage to get such
terms written in, you can bet that the company will still have no obligation
to you as it can simply terminate the contract at any time without
compensation. Even in a strong market, there are plenty of other candidates
out there who will either value the gratuitous promises or simply ignore them,
so there's no need to risk any real contractual liability just to hire you.

~~~
slantyyz
> No one is going to put that stuff in a contract unless it's a senior
> management position.

Of course they won't.

In all fairness, I don't think anyone who has been around the block would be
tricked by any of the items in the list, but I'm sure a lot of less
experienced job hunters could be.

SO, if you are a person who weighs a decision on these gratuitous promises
what is the best course of action to see if the prospective employer is lying?

Probably to ask for all that stuff spelled out in detail in the employment
contract.

Sure, you may not get hired for the reasons you cited, but it'll become pretty
clear that those promises were empty too, and you'll handle the next
opportunity differently.

------
PaulHoule
You know a recruiter is a fresher when they say that they need to fill this
job real fast because the last guy burned out.

~~~
hwstar
Red Flags...

Immediate requirement to fill a newly opened position. Must be able to assume
a project which had abrupt departures of project members. Must be able to work
in a fast-paced environment. Travel required.

------
wolfgke
Why don't you ensure that all the promises simply written down in the
employment agreement, so that in case that you are betrayed you have a lever
(on the other hand: If the employer are not willing to write it into the
employment agreement, there is a chance that he will try to cheat you sooner
or later).

~~~
hwstar
What employment agreement? In the US most everyone is employed "at-will" which
means you or your employer can terminate the employment relationship for any
reason whatsoever. It's usually only C-level executives which have employment
agreements in the US.

~~~
wolfgke
I knew that the US have no period of notice for employments (and thus the
employment can be canceled at about anytime). But I wasn't aware that there
are usually no employment agreements in the US.

------
linuxydave
Hah, #1, #4, and #5 happened at my very first job. I was young and naive.

------
michaelochurch
_Flat hierarchy_ is a big one. Many startups use it to convince junior hires
that they'll be two hops from the CEO when, in fact, that CTO has 75 reports
and the junior engineer is actually two _de facto_ levels below where he was
told he'd be in the offer letter.

Investor contact is another, related, one. When engineers accept 0.05% equity
slices at the expense of hedge-fund jobs, they're doing it because they've
been told (and haven't had the life experience to have doubts) that they'll
have investor contact within 6 months if they do a good job, and have the
connections necessary to be founders inside of 18 months. It almost never
happens that way.

