Not turning up to Interviews

axomoxia

loobs40 wrote: »

I have been doing interview for some weeks now for IT people. Still amazed at the lack of interview technique.

Even better

" What attributes can you bring to the company?"
" Well, there will be stuff I have learned at university that your IT developers might not know, so I could teach them things...."

lol oh to be be young and carefree again

Having spent the last year and half working with a chap who did the same degree at the same university as me, only sixteen years later, the last statement from the tyro IT guy is perfectly correct. Why would this be a problem?

emilyteach1

axomoxia wrote: »

Having spent the last year and half working with a chap who did the same degree at the same university as me, only sixteen years later, the last statement from the tyro IT guy is perfectly correct. Why would this be a problem?

There are ways of saying things. Implying that you can teach existing employees something new is a) presumptive about their level of skill and qualification and b) arrogant, brash and rude.

There's nothing wrong with stating that your recently obtained IT degree can bring some new, fresh skills to the table, but it's all in the wording.

DCFC79

teabelly wrote: »

It amazes me how much of a one way street employer flexibility is. They want you to stay late, work extra time at the drop of a hat yet when you want to alter your hours a bit to make your life easier they're suddenly an immovable force. People have lives. They might need to be an hour late here and there to pick up dry cleaning, go to the dentists or whatever. If you're 9 to 5 M-F you can't get access to quite a few services on weekends and most families are already busy enough then anyway.

Quite a few jobs I have applied for do not mention start and finish times. Just weekly hours. As far as I am concerned if you don't mention specific start and finish times then you have a degree of flexibility. If there isn't much then put in the hours and say they can't be varied. Don't wait until the interview to mention them!

i like you signature, yor post is also very true, im on not much more than nmw and im beginning to only do work that warrants being payed the amount i get

bristol_pilot

emilyteach1 wrote: »

There are ways of saying things. Implying that you can teach existing employees something new is a) presumptive about their level of skill and qualification and b) arrogant, brash and rude.

A very good example of why interviews are such a poor way of selecting candidates...I sometimes wonder why we continue to use them. The candidate who makes a valid point about bringing in new ideas in 'the right way' will clearly be preferred over the candidate who says that he could teach the existing staff a thing or two. But what one is actually doing here is selecting the candidate who is better at being interviewed. It could be the case that the seemingly arrogant candidate actually does have greater knowledge or skill in computing than the first candidate. It is usually the case that the person who 'talks best' at interview gets the job. If giving a good impression and the 'gift of the gab' is an important part of the role (e.g. in sales), then fair enough but I can't help feeling that 'being good at being interviewed' is not a very good selection criterion for technical roles.

emilyteach1

bristol_pilot wrote: »

A very good example of why interviews are such a poor way of selecting candidates...I sometimes wonder why we continue to use them. The candidate who makes a valid point about bringing in new ideas in 'the right way' will clearly be preferred over the candidate who says that he could teach the existing staff a thing or two. But what one is actually doing here is selecting the candidate who is better at being interviewed. It could be the case that the seemingly arrogant candidate actually does have greater knowledge or skill in computing than the first candidate. It is usually the case that the person who 'talks best' at interview gets the job. If giving a good impression and the 'gift of the gab' is an important part of the role (e.g. in sales), then fair enough but I can't help feeling that 'being good at being interviewed' is not a very good selection criterion for technical roles.

Totally agree, but I still think a little bit of tact could go a long way. Social skills and awareness of one's environment are surely desirable qualities in all candidates.

I'm not an employer, but if someone flounced into my place of business claiming to be able to teach my staff a thing or two, I'd be slightly affronted. If, however, they broached the subject of supplementing existing staff skills and offering support wherever necessary subtley and politely, they'd be in for a chance provided the rest of their application and interview was up to scratch. After all, outside of management [usually of a senior nature], few roles require prospective hires to teach existing employees [and why anyone would want to work somewhere that they felt their counterparts' skills were lacking and inferior is beyond me].

I still, by and large, despise interviews though [and I've never done a technical job in my life]. I know that I've missed out on a small proportion of jobs just by not coming across right in interviews, despite my skills, qualifications and experience.

In the case of technical related jobs, I think that interviews may still be necessary, but much more leeway should be given to cut through the fluffy BS of 'people skills' jobs. Hands-on practical assessments to demonstrate one's specific skills wouldn't go amiss, either; actions speak louder than words!

justcat

emilyteach1 wrote: »

In the case of technical related jobs, I think that interviews may still be necessary, but much more leeway should be given to cut through the fluffy BS of 'people skills' jobs. Hands-on practical assessments to demonstrate one's specific skills wouldn't go amiss, either; actions speak louder than words!

Exactly! I actually have a second interview for n IT job and I have been told that I will need to fix a computer. This is more like it rather than other interviews I have been on where they have asked not one technical question.

dave4545454

bristol_pilot wrote: »

A very good example of why interviews are such a poor way of selecting candidates...I sometimes wonder why we continue to use them. The candidate who makes a valid point about bringing in new ideas in 'the right way' will clearly be preferred over the candidate who says that he could teach the existing staff a thing or two. But what one is actually doing here is selecting the candidate who is better at being interviewed. It could be the case that the seemingly arrogant candidate actually does have greater knowledge or skill in computing than the first candidate. It is usually the case that the person who 'talks best' at interview gets the job. If giving a good impression and the 'gift of the gab' is an important part of the role (e.g. in sales), then fair enough but I can't help feeling that 'being good at being interviewed' is not a very good selection criterion for technical roles.

very true. there are thousands of unemployed skilled people who will never ever get a job because they suck at interviews even though they would do the job perfectly and often a lot better than the person picked.

interviews are a very poor way of choosing the best person for a job.

jtr2803

OP I feel your pain! I have conducted interviews for two seperate posts over the past two summers and have had a nightmare both times. I called one guy to arrange an interview but he was on holiday when we held the first rounds so I arranged to come in on a booked day of annual leave to interview him after his return and he never showed :mad:. He also did know I was on A/L that week, he could have even had the decency to call.

The second time round one didn't show, one cancelled on the day and one said he couldn't make it in as he had 'car trouble' so we offered him another slot and he just kept messing us around. I always let people know within 5 working days as having been one of those people waiting to hear I know how horrid it is.

The most recent interviews we held were awful in terms of quality of candidate at interview, I am sure many people just applied for the sake of it. One man, after us explaining that 70% of the job would be data input in various forms, told us that data input was the part of his previous job he disliked the most?! A graduate with aboslutely no office based work experience told us she wanted the top end of our advertised pay scale - on what basis?!. Some people had done no research on the company at all and others were just rude and wanted to know how much I earnt, which had no relevance at all.

*Sigh*

SueC_2

DCFC79 wrote: »

i like you signature, yor post is also very true, im on not much more than nmw and im beginning to only do work that warrants being payed the amount i get

Although the signature could possibly be expanded a little:
Minimum wage paid = minimum effort made = minimum wage for the rest of my days.

It's quite a short-sighted view though. No employer is ever going to reward you with a payrise for doing nothing other than the bare minimum requirements of your job. By refusing to work beyond that, you are in effect locking yourself into that position for the rest of your career. It's your choice, obviously, but I can't really understand why anyone would choose to stay on NMW if a little effort could see them earning more.

qetu1357

dave4545454 wrote: »

very true. there are thousands of unemployed skilled people who will never ever get a job because they suck at interviews even though they would do the job perfectly and often a lot better than the person picked.

interviews are a very poor way of choosing the best person for a job.

I have recruited loads of times and any employer worth their salt wouldn't rely on just an interview.

There is the application form, then the interview and regard less of role, I always set a test relevant to the role.

Then there is references, induction and probation.