
Helping the People Who Don’t Get Hired - vonnik
http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-ATWORKB-2407
======
orionblastar
I am disabled and mentally ill, which is why I don't get hired for a job. I
didn't used to be this way and developed it from a lot of stress while
working.

I can still do tech work and program, just that everyone can pick up I am
mentally ill and discriminate against me for it. I'd have to find the right
company that can accommodate a mentally ill person as an employee. I'm often
accused of having autism in the way I talk and write.

I am also over 40 now, so age is a factor.

~~~
booruguru
> I am disabled and mentally ill... I didn't used to be this way and developed
> it from a lot of stress while working.

I vaguely understand that workplace stress can be debilitating, but I don't
have a clear understanding of this issue.

Would you mind shedding a bit of light on your story?

~~~
orionblastar
Sure I worked for a law firm for four and a half years. I received pay raises
and promotions and had a very good salary. I worked in a team, and debugged
Visual BASIC code and ASP VBScript code. Problem was I was picked on and
bullied by some members of management and some coworkers and I didn't know
why. The work kept piling on, more programs to debug.

It used to take months to debug a program to get it right with quality and
security checks. Management suddenly wanted it done in weeks instead of
months. Most programs were written in spaghetti code, with no comments, no
documentation, and I had to fix all of that. I was moved into a new position
called legacy software and any program that was messed up became legacy
software.

I worked extra long hours, I took some work home to try and make the
deadlines. I was under a lot of stress and I even had dreams about the code. I
had problems sleeping, and had to go to work while I was sleepy. On June 2001
I experienced my first delusion. I thought I heard two airliners crash into
our office tower one after the other. I freaked out and had a panic attack.
Went to a mental hospital after others didn't hear the plane crashes. I was
diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and placed on short-term disability. I
was told that the stress at work had triggered a stroke and caused some damage
and I developed this mental illness that is rare (Less than 0.5% of the
population has it). On September 11, 2001 while I was recovering at home on
short-term disability I saw the two planes crash into the WTC and it sounded
just like my delusion. I was scared, and the people at my work must have been
scared that I heard two planes crash into our building, and then 911 happens a
few months later.

I return to work in November 2001, my cubical is gone, they move me to this
open space near a bookshelf and give me even more work. I had another panic
attack and was told by my boss to "Snap out of it or you are fired!" and I
couldn't snap out of it so security escorted me out of the building and I was
fired.

After that it has been hard finding work, when I apply I am 'overqualified'
even if the company makes a public statement that they can't find qualified
people and have to hire H1B Visa workers to fill jobs. If I did get hired,
they keep me on only to debug their programs and get them to the next level
and then fire me.

I don't understand why I was treated that way, and I've always been nice to
people and helping them out.

But I ended up on disability in 2003 because I am unemployable, can't find a
job that would be willing to work with me through my mental illness and keep
me on.

~~~
mchaver
Would remote work be an option for you? It might be a good option if
controlling your work environment is important for you.

~~~
orionblastar
Remote work would be alright with me. I am on disability and allowed to earn a
limited amount of income on a part-time basis. I am not able to drive anymore
so remote work would be good.

I just need to find something I am good at and doing it remotely, I am out of
practice with my skill sets.

------
rwhitman
Very interesting story.. weird how this WSJ article references an HN thread

I feel like a group panel interview would skew candidates in a different way
than a one on one. There's some psychology around how people act in groups at
play that might really mask the viability of a candidate.. for instance in
group social settings, wouldn't whoever's the most dominantly confident (or
just loud), going to have an outside advantage in impressing the interviewer?

~~~
worldvoyageur
Where I work, we make extensive use of group simulations in our hiring
decisions. With a well designed scenario, defined roles for group members and
contentious issues that must be resolved, you really learn a lot about how
people add value, or subtract it, in a group setting.

The hiring team forms a circle at a discrete distance around the group and
each of us has an assigned person to watch. That way we can catch body
language etc. When doing this, it is remarkable how some people can in a low
key, quiet way, bring missing information into the discussion, sway the group
or bring it to a constructive consensus. We love those people and they have a
high success rate when we hire them.

It is pretty normal that a very impressive candidate one-on-one looks very
different in the group setting, and vise versa. We tend only to hire the
people that do well in both the one on one and the group.

Oh - the loud dominant strategy is very hard to pull off successfully in a
group context. There is too much risk of it being obvious (to the hiring team
watching) that it subtracted value.

~~~
rhizome
Do you work for The Landmark Forum?

------
ufmace
What I wonder about this idea - it sounds like they started out with a open
house for everyone who applied, regardless of qualifications, instead of phone
screens. So how many really qualified candidates are going to be interested in
travelling out to the company for an "open house" with everyone else who
applied for the job?

From a candidate's perspective, the phone screen lets you prove yourself to
the company and get to know them a little before taking the commitment of
actually going there - usually during business hours, possibly disrupting any
job you're currently working at. I feel more comfortable taking time off to go
there when they've already proven that they're serious about me and I know
that they've evaluated me well enough to know that there's at least a good
chance I'm a fit for the position.

~~~
jpg0rd0n
> it sounds like they started out with a open house for everyone who applied,
> regardless of qualifications, instead of phone screens.< I'm the CEO in the
> story. Oversimplifying a bit, we didn't invite everyone who responded to our
> ad to come to the open house, but put the responses into three buckets:
> those who get an invitation immediately (the "positive" email), those who
> get a second chance to say something interesting (the "negative" email), and
> those who were basically ignored because their background matched those who
> didn't do well in the past. As we have iterated and refined the approach, we
> emphasized the value of speaking to us in the first communication and
> dropped the negative email.

I understand your point about the phone screen, but found that this is a
trade-off. The phone screen was very ineffective for us in letting people know
who we are, our size, our location, what we do on a daily basis. The open
house format lets the prospective employees see us as we are, where we are.
Inevitably, people drop out of the process, and it's fine with us, as it opens
up slots for those who like what they see. In an open house format, the
candidates ask questions as a group, which means that any particular person
benefits from the questions that others ask. They see our existing staff and
can decide if this is a group they want to work with.

We are upfront with the candidates that we can't hire all of them, and
therefore it seems like a fair exchange to do something for the "unchosen" as
a bonus for coming in. Brooke and Noah have helped by providing guidance for
them, and we have all tried to create a community of the unchosen.

The core concept being promoted here is that the current recruitment system is
broken, and it is the fault of all of us who unquestioningly perpetuate it. My
response is to experiment with different ideas until we find a model that
works for all parties involved. I don't have a magic wand to provide the
solution, but do keep notes on what hypothesis is being tested, what seems to
work, what doesn't work and what possible improvements we should try.

~~~
ufmace
Thanks for the additional details. I suppose the usefulness of this depends a
lot on how many positions you're looking to fill, and at what level of skill.
It sounds like you're using it to fill multiple entry-level positions, where
it makes more sense. I suppose the people there know that there are multiple
positions, so don't feel quite so much like they have to compete with
everybody else to get hired. And if it's relatively entry-level, then maybe
most of the candidates don't have full-time jobs already to be disrupted at,
and would appreciate help if they didn't get hired?

I admit that I tend to think of things initially in terms of myself and what I
would be looking for, more of a single position for someone with experience
and marketable skills, and currently holding a full-time job. There's probably
some room for improvement in the process for that too, but I don't think the
open house idea would be a good fit.

~~~
owennoah
The key word in the open house issue is "open" to allow for transparency
currently lost in the limited disclosure game that is the modern interview
process. That benefits everyone. Not to mention we offer evening events to
respect those with full time jobs.

------
vonnik
Nicholson here. I posted this and my startup, FutureAdvisor, invited Brooke to
come to the Bay last fall for an event like the one reported here.

Here are two previous HN threads on Brooke, Noah, Staffup Weekend and their
method:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8859199](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8859199)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8958290](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8958290)
[https://www.futureadvisor.com](https://www.futureadvisor.com)

P.S. We're looking for an infrastructure engineer.

------
ChristianKletzl
I am hopeful that helping your non-hires ultimately becomes a fixed part of a
company's recruiting process (especially in SV where companies compete on the
craziest hiring perks).

Applicants spend a significant time to prepare and come on-site, even though
in many cases this only leads to a rejection. A company's brand and culture
should (by a candidate) also be evaluated by how they treat the candidates
they don't hire, just how a person should be evaluated by how they treat their
waiter.

We've created smarthires.io for this reason. Companies can refer candidates
they liked but didn't hire and we'll introduce these candidates to other
companies in the same network. Many times a candidate who's not a great fit
for one company could be the perfect fit for another.

------
fredt
The best organizations and their people make it a joyous, exciting process. It
brings out the best in applicants and all involved. It also leads to
friendships, whether the person is hired or not. This is how lifetime
relationships develop.

------
jpg0rd0n
The bigger question is whether this experiment will inspire others to try
something new and different. If most companies do not adopt such an approach,
will the adopters have a competitive advantage?

~~~
owennoah
"The ability to make good decisions regarding people represents one of the
last reliable sources of competitive advantage, since very few organizations
are very good at it." ~Peter Drucker

------
fsk
Don't this guy too seriously. He made people take a long APL course as part of
their job interview process.

~~~
BrookeTAllen
I agree that nobody should take me too seriously. I often take myself too
seriously and it is exhausting and thankless work.

On the other hand, I disagree with your assertion that I made people take a
course as part of a hiring process. I simply said that I’d hire someone if
they knew some things and 27 of my candidates who didn’t know those things
asked if I would teach them for fee. I agreed to offer a three-week course on
condition they wanted to learn for its own sake and that they were NOT doing
it to get a job because I wasn’t guaranteeing anyone would get hired and,
besides, the chance any one person would get hired was perhaps 4%. In the end
a bunch of them proved to be superb and I hired two instead of one as I’d
originally hoped. And I got a few others jobs elsewhere. I didn’t have to do
that, but I did. And they didn’t have to learn what they did, but they did.

You can accuse me of being biased in favor of people who like learning things
for its own sake and who know how to do the job I need done. But if you are
going to accuse people of forcing time-consuming education on candidates then
I’d hope you’ll spend time going after employers who force you to have an
irrelevant degree from a costly university before they will even let your
resume past some idiotic filter.

------
BrookeTAllen
BROOKE HERE (the guy from the article).

Some thoughts on this discussion…

ON PREJUDICES: Often I don’t get what I want because other people have
inaccurate judgments concerning me. But what can I expect; who has the time to
really do due diligence. And who am I to judge their judgments of me? If I
were a judge at court I’d have to recuse myself because I am way too close to
my own case.

This is not to say prejudice doesn’t exist. It does. And it is not to say it
isn’t harmful. It is. Prejudice harms us all and the prejudices that harm me
the most are my own; they keep me from being all I can be.

When I overlook good candidates because I judge them on irrelevant
characteristics then I am constraining my options and that does me no good.
Although it would be wonderful if the world was perfect I’ve found it most
fruitful to concentrate on the problems closest to me and interestingly they
usually involve something about me I could improve upon or resign myself to.
I’m happier and more productive when I spend so much time trying to be part of
a solution (and not the precipitate) that I don’t have time left over to
theorize about what people beyond my influence should be doing.

ON MENTAL DISABILITIES: If you spend any time with the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders I’m sure you can find yourself and
everyone you know in there. It seems to me that strengths and weaknesses of
the mind should be considered only if relevant just as with things in the
physical realm. I’m not sure where to draw the line, however I rue the day
when sociopaths cannot be discriminated against. In any event, I’ve concluded
that life is a terminal spectrum disorder we just have to deal with as best as
we can (until we don’t have to any more).

ON SELF-DISCLOSURE: As a practical matter, if you have an obvious disability
the best time to bring it up is right before it becomes obvious. For example,
if you have a stutter and you ask for forbearance at the beginning of an
interview then you can win people’s hearts and they will be rooting for you.
But if you don’t then often they cannot wait for the conversation to end. If
your disability is not obvious but might require accommodation later on then
probably the best time to disclose it is after you get a job offer and before
you accept.

If you choose to go public with your issues and make them a cause célèbre then
in order to win broad support it will need to be clear that you are doing it
for the benefit of people in your circumstances and not just as cover for your
own failings. Even then, the recognition you deserve might only come
posthumously, but that is irrelevant unless it is recognition that you seek.

PEOPLE I’D LOVE TO HEAR FROM: Although this discussion is interesting I wonder
if any of you out there would like my help improving how you hire people. If
so, please contact me.

I am retired and don’t need to do this, but I want to. If you are stinking
rich I can be expensive and if you’re sincerely broke then I can be free.
Either way, you have to tell me who you are. I’m at BrookeAllen.com.

------
MichaelCrawford
It would be very helpful not only to me, but to people like me, were potential
employers to comply with the labor laws. Specifically, the various state laws
regarding age discrimination - in Oregon, one may not discriminate for reasons
of age against people over forty. There is also the US Americans with
Disabilities Act. I am dead certain that I lose work because I link to two
essays about my mental illness right at the top of every page of my website.

My Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder was diagnosed in 1985.

I started my first salaried coding job in 1987.

I was hired as a Product Development Manager in 1990.

I graduated with a BA in Physics in 1993.

In 1994, I invented a novel, unobvious lossless bitmap graphics compressor.

In 1995, I was hired as a Senior Engineer at Apple Computer, where I worked as
a "Debug Meister".

In 2000, I was married to a woman who knew all about my illness. We purchased
a nice house with money I earned as a consultant.

In 2015, I can't get a job because I have grey hair, and I am openly public
about being mentally ill.

~~~
dsacco
_> > There is also the US Americans with Disabilities Act. I am dead certain
that I lose work because I link to two essays about my mental illness right at
the top of every page of my website._

With respect, why do you do this? How can you possibly think this is a good
idea?

I sympathize that you have a mental illness, but you're being stubborn by
complaining that you can't get a job when one of the primary obstacles is
clearly in your power. Don't advertise that you have a mental illness. No
matter how you would like the world to work, it does not work in such a way
that advertising mental illness is in any way conducive to searching for a
job.

Here is another example, to take away the stigma of mental illness: I'm a
hiring manager, and I just found out that you have cancer on your blog. This
was directly in the navigation of the blog.

This is bad. I don't _want_ to not hire you because you have cancer. I don't
_want_ to discriminate against you. But you've suddenly become much more
complicated and emotionally loaded than this other person who doesn't have
cancer. Worse, you display no regard whatsoever for social cues by advertising
this so bluntly.

If your mental disorder has anything to do with you not getting a job, it's
really just because you're sending horribly unattractive social/communication
signals to potential employers.

There is an idealized world we'd all like to see, and there is a world we
actually live in. It's not like you're a woman being discriminated against
here. Your mental illness does not need to literally be the first thing people
see about you when they look at your online identity.

Sorry if any of this was harsh. I wish you the best in your search, but please
consider not being quite so "loud" about your problems. Reframing who you are
to potential employers could do wonders.

~~~
DanBC
> But you've suddenly become much more complicated and emotionally loaded than
> this other person who doesn't have cancer.

You mean than this other person who might be lying to hide their cancer from
you.

Your bigotry has made you say that you would prefer dishonest liars to people
who are honest but with a mental illness.

Don't you see how utterly fucked that attitude is? It's disgusting and you
should feel ashamed.

~~~
dsacco
_> >Your bigotry has made you say that you would prefer dishonest liars to
people who are honest but with a mental illness.

>>Don't you see how utterly fucked that attitude is? It's disgusting and you
should feel ashamed._

You've made this far more personal than it should or has to be. You've
completely misunderstood my meaning and chosen to become very offended at
something I did not actually say. Given that, there is no reason to lash out
at me when I am simply trying to help him. If you disagree, just say that.

Now, I'm not a bigot. I genuinely care about his predicament. I've known many
people personally who suffer from mental illnesses of varying types.

What I was explaining is a hypothetical scenario where someone discriminates
subconsciously, not consciously. They see a person's candidacy for a job and
their first association is with mental illness, not competency. This is a
terrible first impression. My point is that the world is filled with what I
call "grey-area" discrimination. It's people who are otherwise kind and caring
but not self-aware enough to stop themselves from discriminating when a
subconscious impulse arises in the face of something they don't want to deal
with.

Now, elsewhere in this thread Michael explained that it is more important for
him to take a stand than to have a job. That's fine! I fully support him. As
long as he _understands_ the impression he is making in interviews and job
applications, I applaud him for being so committed to social change. My
purpose was only to help him understand that what he is doing is tactlessly
honest, if one wants to apply for a job. It appeared to me from his parent
comment that his primary goal was getting a job, not taking a social stance,
so I wanted to give frank advice.

We all embellish who are to inspire confidence in others. On a date you will
talk yourself up. On a job interview you will talk yourself up. Relaying a
story to your friends, you will talk yourself up. Michael is doing the extreme
opposite of that, and I wanted him to be aware of it because it was not the
first time I had seen him complaining. But I fully understand his decision, in
light of his explanation.

~~~
MichaelCrawford
Thank You.

What is particularly upsetting to me, is that those who seek work, are
expected not to take stands.

Consider that I am - indirectly - related to Roger Sherman. On the back of the
US $2.00 bill is John Trumbull's "Declaration of Independence". The original
painting is in a very dimly lit room in the US Capitol building.

Uncle Roger is fourth from the right, the tall guy with the tall forehead.

All of the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence risked
their lives by doing so. This led to their having a handwriting contest; John
Hancock got to sign first, because he had the boldest, clearest handwriting.

While commonly regarded as tragic that soliders, sailors, aviators, policemen
and firemen give their lives for what they believe in, I am commonly told that
it is wrong for computer programmers to live their lives conscientiously,
rather than by working towards their employer's next quarterly report.

------
jniuhiuhiuh
Amazing!

------
reeco
Great article! It is inspiring to see and experience people helping other
people especially when it comes to jobs.

