←back to thread

1703 points danrocks | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

Recently I interviewed with Stripe for an engineering MoM (Manager of Managers) for one of their teams. I interview regularly, so I am used to many types of processes, feedback mechanisms, and so on. I won't go into details about the questions because there's nothing special about them, but I wanted to share some details of my experience for people thinking of interviewing there.

1) About 35-40% of the interviewers started their questioning by saying "I will only need 20 minutes for this", while emphasizing it is an important leadership position that they are hiring for. So 20 minutes is all needed to identify "important, critical leaders"? What a strange thing to say - also a GREAT way to make candidates feel important and wanted!

2) There is significant shuffling of interviewers and schedules. One almost has to be on-call to be able to react quickly.

3) For an engineering manager position, I only interviewed with only technical person. To me it hints that Engineering MoM is not a very technical position.

4) Of all the people I spoke to, the hiring manager was the one I spoke the least with. The phone screen was one of the "I only need 20 minutes for this" calls. The other one was quite amusing, and is described below.

5) After the loop was done, the recruiter called me to congratulate me on passing, and started discussing details of the offer, including sending me a document described the equity program. Recruiter mentioned that the hiring manager would be calling me to discuss the position next.

6) SURPRISE INTERVIEW! I get a call from the hiring manager, he congratulates me on passing the loop, then as I prepare to ask questions about the role, he again says "I need to ask you two questions and need 20 minutes for this". Then proceeds to ask two random questions about platforms and process enforcement, then hangs up the call after I answer. Tells me he'd be calling in a week to discuss the position.

7) I get asked for references.

8) After passing the loop, have the recruiter discuss some details of the offer, have the hiring manager tell me they'd be calling me after a week, I get ghosted for about 3.5 weeks. References are contacted and feedback is confirmed positive.

9) I ping the recruiter to see when the offer is coming - it's not coming. They chose another candidate. I am fine with it, even after being offered verbally, but the ghosting part after wasting so much of my time seems almost intentional.

10) I call up a senior leader in the office I applied to, an acquaintance of mine. His answer: "don't come. It's a mess and a revolving door of people". I was shocked with the response.

11) I get called by the recruiter saying that another director saw my feedback and is very interested in talking to me and do an interview loop.

Guess I'm not joining, then.

I am ok with passing loops, being rejected, I've seen it all. But being ghosted after acceptance is a first. What a bizarre place this is.

Show context
temp7536 ◴[] No.29388310[source]
For those who have worked around and at Stripe for the past decade, this is not a surprise. Stripe, and especially the founders, have a quite a poor reputation for screwing over people in and around their orbit.

Almost every fintech startup has the story of Patrick reaching out about an acquisition, mining them for information playing along and then ghosting - same thing for candidates. They leadership team, specifically Patrick and Will Gaybrick are extremely smart but have screwed over a ton of people - be very careful about trusting.

You don't hear anything about this online, they're incredibly effective at squashing hit pieces and have a huge amount of reporters and power brokers under their control. On HN and silicon valley Stripe and Patrick are a PR machine. Patrick has almost direct control over YC and HN, you'll notice that every single Stripe post automatically has pc as the first comment, regardless of anything else. Everything negative gets buried.

With Patrick now living in Woodside, Will on permanent vacation in Malibu and John permanently in Ireland the company is definitely a bit in chaos mode internally. Their entire people team has turned over and they're having major retention issues - so I'm not super surprised that stuff like this is starting to leak out.

I run a $XB fintech, and am afraid to use my name given the backlash.

replies(22): >>29388384 #>>29388419 #>>29388425 #>>29388625 #>>29388690 #>>29388744 #>>29388854 #>>29388863 #>>29388977 #>>29389083 #>>29389191 #>>29389254 #>>29389350 #>>29389354 #>>29389501 #>>29389713 #>>29389791 #>>29390203 #>>29390870 #>>29391382 #>>29393469 #>>29414225 #
lmilcin ◴[] No.29388419[source]
I am not sure about "HN code of conduct" here, but personally I dislike serious allegations posted anonymously and without any proof to back it up.

You may well be right, but posting these kinds of things this way is best way for HN to devolve to be unusable for any serious discussion on anything.

--

EDIT: (I can't answer any more because I am being throttled by HN for posting "low value content").

How hard do you think it is to create multiple fresh, throwaway HN accounts to post "corroborating" comments?

I dislike these comments not because I think they are incorrect but because if this is the discussion standard we accept it is basically open season for trolling.

replies(6): >>29388470 #>>29388494 #>>29388580 #>>29388630 #>>29389006 #>>29391996 #
ramraj07 ◴[] No.29389006[source]
Disagreed. It’s clear it’s a throwaway and they’re saying unsubstantiated things, but the readers can make their own minds up about what to believe in and what not to. I like HN to get the insider scoop, precisely this type of comment. I’m not gonna hate on stripe or PC, but now I’ll know to look a little more carefully at someone asking questions about my future company (lol) to see what their intentions maybe. What’s wrong with that?
replies(1): >>29393522 #
1. lmilcin ◴[] No.29393522[source]
> I like HN to get the insider scoop, precisely this type of comment.

How can you treat it as "insider scoop" if there is no way to tell whether the facts are true or the person is what who they claim to be?

Would you accept that level of journalism? We can see what journalism does to society when you forgo any checks on the fact or the provenance. Just watch Fox News and come back to tell what you think about it.

If you are taking unsubstantiated, anonymous posts as facts you are just easy to manipulate.

replies(1): >>29402543 #
2. ramraj07 ◴[] No.29402543[source]
I am not taking these things as gospel, I’m not sure why it’s hard to grasp that you can hold different pieces of information at different levels of trustworthiness. Of course whatever that person said is hearsay, I’m not gonna form an inviolable judgement on stripe just from it. It’s another piece of information though.

Perhaps for someone in a small town who’s brain is half dead unsubstantiated facts become reality but I’m hoping to be in a place where I’m afforded more freedom to form my own opinions on things from what others say.

replies(1): >>29403194 #
3. lmilcin ◴[] No.29403194[source]
Well, we would all like to think we are intelligent people and resistant to being manipulated.

There are studies that show that most people think they are resistant to marketing ads.

There are also studies that show that ads are effective on almost everybody.

> I’m hoping to be in a place where I’m afforded more freedom to form my own opinions on things from what others say

It is not the problem with freedom to form your opinions, it is the problem with the process of forming those opinions.

Unfortunately, most people form their opinions by accepting "facts" that already agree with what they know, feel or believe and by refusing most of what is conflicting with it.

And this thread shows this. People are already suspicious of the person or the company and so they will gladly skip the logical process and accept as facts something that is not even hearsay (hearsay still requires that you have a person testifying they heard something, which we don't have here because the poster is anonymous).

replies(1): >>29414840 #
4. ramraj07 ◴[] No.29414840{3}[source]
All valid points but isn’t this the fundamental perennial fight with freedom of speech? Of course this is a private forum but from what I can see it’s at least trying to be open. The benefits of letting people make unsubstantiated claims (as long as they are not inciting) seems fair to me is all.