Why tech companies are afraid to hire people who actually know how to work

This happened again. My colleague was rejected for a technical leader position that she was perfectly suited for. And she was rejected for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she would have been able to handle the job.

I know this because they told her directly. Again.

This is not the first time I’ve been shocked by how a tech company hires based on “vibe” rather than competencies. And yet another proof that this practice is alive—at the expense of results, client trust, and the reputation of the entire tech industry.

It will all end with employees from such companies dealing with their feelings when the employer announces the closure—because no one bought their crooked, expensive, and problem-solving-deficient software.

Re-culturing the tech industry

Make no mistake: I am a supporter, even in some sense the pioneer of corporate culture in tech companies. It’s important, and its development pays dividends. But just because something is done correctly doesn’t mean it can’t be done wrong.

By the way, I’ve been saying the same thing about AI for the last three years.

About a year and a half ago, my former colleague—let’s call her “Annie”—was rejected for her dream job for a serious crime: she said what she thought, was honest, and offered solutions instead of the usual interview clichés. I wrote about this back then.

This wasn’t the start of the “hire based on vibe” trend in tech. But it was the boiling point, and my accumulated protest made me give the advice: “Don’t solve the company’s problems at the interview. Just say what they want to hear.”

So, for the record: Annie didn’t follow my advice. It took time—and even some debts—but in the end, she got hired by a company that truly wanted results. She will bring millions to this company.

I also checked on the company that didn’t hire Annie. I don’t know who they hired, but judging by their job listings page, they’re not hiring right now. Not at all. No one.

So, was I wrong when I said, “Just tell them what they want to hear”?

I wish I could think that way.

Be direct. But not too direct

This time, "vibe-hiring" reached a friend I’ve never worked with but admire just as much.

And just like last time, "Liza" was told at the early stages of the interview: the company isn't exactly in trouble, but it lacks speed. Be direct, they told her. Come with answers. She will replace the previous person in this position – the previous one simply couldn’t handle it.

Last time I called this a “trap” – I really wanted to make a joke about Admiral Akbar. But I understand that companies are not monolithic with one brain for everyone, especially companies that are not on the brink of collapse yet. Inside, there are surely people who want – no, who absolutely need – the work to be done. And they fight their battles from within.

Anyway, Liza was direct. She laid out the answers to their problems. And didn’t get the job. To the hiring company's credit, they gave her honest feedback when she asked. Although she had to ask twice. Liza, among other wonderful professional qualities, is a perfectionist who sees everything through to the end.

"Prioritizing work completion" – the wrong answer

With Annie, the feedback sounded something like “she's not a team player.” Annie didn't allow me to reveal the exact wording. This time, Liza allowed – just one line. That’s enough. Here it is:

“You said that one of your strengths is 'I see things through to the end, even if I have to do it myself.' We are concerned that this might signal a tendency to prioritize tasks over team building, and it might indicate a personality driven more by recognition than relationships.”

Oh.

First of all, no. Look at her wording, which they kindly quoted. She inserted “even if” — exactly as she should. Nothing strengthens team relationships more than someone who steps in to save the day when necessary.

Second, the word “might” appears twice, and each one is doing a lot of heavy lifting — though just a bit more than “signal” and “indicate.” No matter how honest the feedback is, I’m sure it went through lawyers.

Who wouldn’t have said what she said? Wouldn’t you have said it?

Here’s what she told me

“As a woman in tech, I can’t spend too much time processing someone else’s feelings — otherwise it comes back and lands on me. I have to be direct just to be heard at all.”

And here’s what she didn’t tell them. Honestly, it took effort to get it out of her. But I’m glad I did — because it captures both sides of the same problem: stalled growth.

“The person who would be my boss very strongly practices the 'feelings over experience' approach.”

Point one: she would constantly have to wrap every statement in a “feeling sandwich.” I couldn’t do it. And I suspect she would be blamed anyway.

Point two: every technical specialist she interacted with during the process — and here’s her summary of the conversations — all of them know that the company values culture over results. And that’s exactly why they don’t need to try very hard and don’t take any risks.

That’s it. That’s what kills companies that put “vibe” above competence. Failure doesn’t come from the people creating the atmosphere — it comes from the people hiding behind it.

I almost… almost suspect that the line of feedback with all the “might”s, hinting that Lisa is too task-oriented, came from one of those techies who probably didn’t even really believe what they were saying.

Because Lisa does exactly that. She finds inefficiencies, brings to light what is hidden, and fixes what is broken. This is what every tech company needs - especially now. Whether it's on the brink of collapse, on the verge of success, or somewhere in between.

They all need someone who will see it through to the end - even if they have to do it alone!