Incorrect answer at interview

Sharlee

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

It's not fair and never has been. The employer knows who they want to keep and will make sure the scoring reflects that. When faced with making a certain number of people redundant - you are never going to keep people you don't want. It just doesn't happen.

Yes I do agree but we work for an organisation that is supposed to campaign against unfairness, injustice etc.

Regards

Sharlee

wantsajob wrote: »

It's why interviews remain popular. How well the person does the job doesn't matter. It's all a popularity contest. Interviews are considered among the worst methods of selecting the best employee.

I agree, I hate interviews. I also know that, in the past, I have been helped with answers to make sure I get the top score.

Regards

caledonian_princess

Sharlee wrote: »

I agree, I hate interviews. I also know that, in the past, I have been helped with answers to make sure I get the top score.

An interviewer doesn't even have to do that. Providing there are more subjective things to be scored than actual right/wrong answers you can always get the candidate you want. It's always seemed like a colossal waste of time to me - if you know who you want just offer them the job; don't waste the organisation's resources and the candidates' time going through a charade of a recruitment process.

(I've been on both sides of this; I've applied for a job with my name on it and advertised one where I knew who I wanted.)

Sambucus_Nigra

Sharlee wrote: »

Yes I do agree but we work for an organisation that is supposed to campaign against unfairness, injustice etc.

Regards

Does fairness not apply to the organisation and management then? If they want someone then it's fair that they get that person. Or isn't it?

Sharlee

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Does fairness not apply to the organisation and management then? If they want someone then it's fair that they get that person. Or isn't it?

Ok I'm obviously no expert on employment but I thought the idea of interview was that the best person for the job is selected. So if the interview process is manipulated so they get the person they want for the job, this is not necessarily the same as selecting a person on the basis of their ability to do the job.

This is a job that is funded by tax-payers money. I think that tax-payers are better served by selecting a person who can do the job most effectively and efficiently thereby getting more value for their money and achieving the best outcomes.

Off to catch some rays.

Regards

Sambucus_Nigra

Sharlee wrote: »

Ok I'm obviously no expert on employment but I thought the idea of interview was that the best person for the job is selected. So if the interview process is manipulated so they get the person they want for the job, this is not necessarily the same as selecting a person on the basis of their ability to do the job.

This is a job that is funded by tax-payers money. I think that tax-payers are better served by selecting a person who can do the job most effectively and efficiently thereby getting more value for their money and achieving the best outcomes.

Off to catch some rays.

Regards

Part of the job though is the ability to fit in and to work with the management. No manager [funded by tax payers or not] will have people in their employ that they don't want to work with, if they can possibly help it.

It would be naive to think otherwise.

antrobus

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Part of the job though is the ability to fit in and to work with the management. No manager [funded by tax payers or not] will have people in their employ that they don't want to work with, if they can possibly help it.

It would be naive to think otherwise.

Yes, and to be honest, by the time you get to the interview stage, every one of the candidates could probably 'do the job'. So management will pick the one, they like the most/will best fit in with the team/ has the nicest smile/ has the biggest ....

There is no reason to suppose, given the circumstances outlined above, that the succesful candidate is in any way unsuited to the job. It might be disappointing for the friend in question, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

ILW

As an employer I would not want to be forced to employ someone I did not get on with.

Sambucus_Nigra

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, and to be honest, by the time you get to the interview stage, every one of the candidates could probably 'do the job'. So management will pick the one, they like the most/will best fit in with the team/ has the nicest smile/ has the biggest ....

There is no reason to suppose, given the circumstances outlined above, that the succesful candidate is in any way unsuited to the job. It might be disappointing for the friend in question, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

It's a redundancy/redeployment situation....so I'm guessing they know the candidates well...hence she wasn't top of the list to be redeployed and as such - didn't get the job.

t0rt0ise

There's nothing she can do and she'll just look daft and petty if she sends a nyah nyah sort of email.

It happened to me once. It was a DSS (Department of Social Security) job and the question asked was about what the job dealt with but at feedback they said they'd asked what the whole DSS dealt with. So someone messed up with the question and didn't get the answer they wanted so I lost out. Your friend has to put it down to experience.