When should I disclose my hacking convictions?
5 comments
Personal disclosure is a valued leadership trait. Openness is responded to with openness. The best rule of thumb is to volunteer the info quickly, matter of factly as possible. Put a human spin on it, share what you've learned, and made restitution. No need to mention it on your CV. But you must get in front of this issue during the initial conversations. Being able to admit mistakes demonstrates trustworthiness. Lots of folks get second-chances.
Don't include it in your resume but, volunteer the information during the first interview. Put a positive spin to it - "made mistakes, learned from it and here is how I am now better off".
That's really helpful, thank you!
I disagree with him. Unless you morally feel you have to disclose it (understandable) unless it is brought up or relevant (security clearances etc), then id leave it: it simply isn't something a lot of places care about at all, and won't affect your work, so it won't be an issue. That's my two cents.
Watch the documents you sign, like always, but particularly look for something like "employee will maintain eligibility to get a security clearance."
This closes off some avenues to you, but isn't a career killer, particularly if e.g. you work in security. (Of all things.)
I don't know why you'd disclose this without first being asked. If they don't ask, it isn't because they don't want to know, it's simply because it isn't in their decision calculus. I would not inject it into their decision calculus, in the same fashion as I wouldn't say "Don't have great reasons to not hire me? I can think of three!"
Your recent potential employer has a curious understanding f how much VCs notice non-founder employees, to my understanding. Feel free to check that with people who do this for a living, but I'd bet on most VCs being unable to name non-founder non-management employees, to say nothing of running background checks on them.
I don't know why you'd disclose this without first being asked. If they don't ask, it isn't because they don't want to know, it's simply because it isn't in their decision calculus. I would not inject it into their decision calculus, in the same fashion as I wouldn't say "Don't have great reasons to not hire me? I can think of three!"
Your recent potential employer has a curious understanding f how much VCs notice non-founder employees, to my understanding. Feel free to check that with people who do this for a living, but I'd bet on most VCs being unable to name non-founder non-management employees, to say nothing of running background checks on them.
Right on, thank you for the thoughtful reply. Much appreciated.
It's not uncommon for a VC to want to spend at least some time with the wider team, although it's unlikely they'd do any kind of background check on non-key employees.
That said there's some kinds of startups where investors may use extra caution (i.e. bitcoin startups) when doing due diligence.
That said there's some kinds of startups where investors may use extra caution (i.e. bitcoin startups) when doing due diligence.
I agree with patio11's 'decision calculus' point. And I'll add that if you don't plan to repeat your actions at the company, then you don't hurt them by staying silent until they ask--you'll just carry on as a normal employee.
I don't have a felony, but I do have to decide whether (and when) to allow a potential employer to know I'm gay. I know it's not legally the same, but it works the same way in terms of the interviewer's 'decision calculus'. Bringing it up is literally pausing to ask for explicit judgement.
I've always intentionally stayed silent in an interview about being gay, since I always plan to carry on as a 'normal' employee. At work, my intimate life doesn't interfere, just as your history is in your past.
I don't have a felony, but I do have to decide whether (and when) to allow a potential employer to know I'm gay. I know it's not legally the same, but it works the same way in terms of the interviewer's 'decision calculus'. Bringing it up is literally pausing to ask for explicit judgement.
I've always intentionally stayed silent in an interview about being gay, since I always plan to carry on as a 'normal' employee. At work, my intimate life doesn't interfere, just as your history is in your past.
As a fellow gay man, I kinda know what you mean. I often out myself in interviews to see their reactions. If they have a problem with it, I don't wanna work there.
Though I'm in the EU, where discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal, so I have that protection.
Though I'm in the EU, where discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal, so I have that protection.
First some context: I'm a full-stack dev, on the job-market, interviewing mostly at small-to-medium companies (3 - 50 employees). A few years ago (circa 2009-2010) I made some very foolish mistakes and ended up with 5 hacking felonies. I served a little time, paid some restitution, and got on with my life. I was finally released from probation 2 months ago.
My question is: At what point during a job-search / interview-process should I bring this up? I've tried putting it right on my resume (just to "get out in front of the issue") but then nobody seems to return my emails. I've tried staying mute and waiting for them to ask or mention a background check, but I'm worried that this tactic makes it seems like I'm hiding it or being deceptive.
Is there a best-practice for this? Or is it company-specific?
Lately, if I know that the work might require a security clearance, I'll disclose before the first conversation, just so I don't waste their time. A recent potential-employer gave me advice yesterday along the lines of: "Any small startup who is still raising money might need to know up-front, because of the potential for investors to run background-checks on early-stage team members during a round" - Is there any truth to this comment, in your experience? Would a VC care if I'm a non-founder?
On the other hand, I've been wondering: Is it possible that some small startups never ask about criminal history because they don't wan't to know? In that case, should I just default to being quiet until asked?
Again, any insight from this community would be very much appreciated. I've been going in circles with my logic, and I'd love some outside advice.
Thank you