Interview feedback made me feel down

thundercut

Hi guys, sorry I'm just feeling a bit down tonight, so hoping the good folk of MSE can cheer me up.

I'm currently working as a contractor, so I know I'm much more fortunate than most, and great news is my current employer has extended my contract until the end of March next year.

Trouble is I want a permanent job for the security, so have made a few applications. Now, prior to this contract role, I had applied unsuccessfully for numerous roles (always asked for feedback but rarely given or usually really bland), but the most recent job I applied for did provide feedback, which has confused me: 'You were not engaging enough. You didn't gel with the line manager'.

Now part of me feels automatically defensive, as all my roles have involved me working with external parties, and stakeholders internally (I have numerous recommendations for my interpersonal skills which colleagues and business partners have given me on linked in). However, part of me wonders, if maybe, I am not engaging enough, and this is why I keep getting knock backs?

Even more worrying my interview overran, and I actually felt that I'd built up a good connection with the recruiting manager - we even had a bit of banter and jokes back and forth.

What does 'not engaging enough' mean - does it mean I'm unfriendly, lacking in energy?

Just makes me feel down as having always done well career wise, I seem to be in a right downward spell.

Wyndham

Sorry to hear this, it's good to ask for feedback, but can be tough to get it sometimes!

I would read engaging to include things like eye contact and body language as well as what you say. I'm slightly worried by the 'jokes' comment - humour is such a subjective thing and that may have counted against you if you didn't actually read the situation correctly? Or I could be completely wrong. At the end of the day, sometimes you are just not right for the job and someone else is - I know that's tough, but it's true.

So, wallow tonight if you need to, then tomorrow pick yourself up and look at the next one - there always is a next one - and maybe it will be 'the one'.

thundercut

Wyndham wrote: »

Sorry to hear this, it's good to ask for feedback, but can be tough to get it sometimes!

I would read engaging to include things like eye contact and body language as well as what you say. I'm slightly worried by the 'jokes' comment - humour is such a subjective thing and that may have counted against you if you didn't actually read the situation correctly? Or I could be completely wrong. At the end of the day, sometimes you are just not right for the job and someone else is - I know that's tough, but it's true.

So, wallow tonight if you need to, then tomorrow pick yourself up and look at the next one - there always is a next one - and maybe it will be 'the one'.

Thanks; I'd agree on the jokes - but very much he started making jokes etc, so I took his lead. I always try to maintain good eye contact, but I guess body language is difficult to assess as you can't see yourself!

-sparky-

thundercut wrote: »

What does 'not engaging enough' mean - does it mean I'm unfriendly, lacking in energy?

Without having knowledge of you, the interviewing manager, and what you were doing in there it is impossible to tell.

"engagement" is just a meaningless corporate catchphrase that gets thrown around a lot - no one really knows what it means. It's like school kids deciding who is "cool" and who's not. Same goes for "gel".

Seems that they were just lazy with their feedback and wrote whatever to get you off their back.

Just ignore it and don't take it personally. The feedback does not include anything specific and actionable - you can't use it to improve or rectify anything.

Some advice for the future, when asking for feedback from an unsuccessful interview: thank the interviewer for their time and ask what knowledge and skills you can work on to be a better match for a similar role. It invites them to give intelligent, actionable advice instead of crap about "geling with the line manager".

notanewuser

-sparky- wrote: »

Without having knowledge of you, the interviewing manager, and what you were doing in there it is impossible to tell.

"engagement" is just a meaningless corporate catchphrase that gets thrown around a lot - no one really knows what it means. It's like school kids deciding who is "cool" and who's not. Same goes for "gel".

Actually, "engagement" is an extremely valuable organisational tool which can be clearly measured and acted upon.

It is not the same as the definition of "engaging", which is about personality.

FATBALLZ

notanewuser wrote: »

Actually, "engagement" is an extremely valuable organisational tool which can be clearly measured and acted upon.

It is not the same as the definition of "engaging", which is about personality.

In one of my previous jobs there was an annual global 'Engagement survey' that all employees had to fill in. The thinking of the top level management was that whichever division of the company was most "engaged" would be the most productive and hence would get allocated most of the work.

So when the survey time rolled around each year we'd be given a pep talk by our local management that reading between the lines was basically "pretend you are engaged or you'll be out of a job because there won't be enough work".

It was an absolute farce.

n.b. Yes that's just one company, I'd be interested to know if there are any companies that actually deal with "engagement" in a meaningful fashion.

-sparky-

notanewuser wrote: »

Actually, "engagement" is an extremely valuable organisational tool which can be clearly measured and acted upon.

It is not the same as the definition of "engaging", which is about personality.

Agree, it has its roots in management theory and was invented by Gallup while researching employee performance and satisfaction. There are a couple great books written on the subject.

However, in the everyday workplace, "engagement", "engaging", and "engaged" are used interchangeably as a throwaway buzzword to mouth off during quarterly conferences.

Either way, it has no practical value to the OP in the form of feedback. You can't take garbage like "not engaging enough" and "didn't gel with the line manager" and translate it into a course of action.

It's like if you baked me a cake and I told you that it "needs more liveliness in the texture and flavour". Tells you nothing about what I was expecting and where you fell short.

notanewuser

-sparky- wrote: »

Agree, it has its roots in management theory and was invented by Gallup while researching employee performance and satisfaction. There are a couple great books written on the subject.

However, in the everyday workplace, "engagement", "engaging", and "engaged" are used interchangeably as a throwaway buzzword to mouth off during quarterly conferences.

Either way, it has no practical value to the OP in the form of feedback. You can't take garbage like "not engaging enough" and "didn't gel with the line manager" and translate it into a course of action.

It's like if you baked me a cake and I told you that it "needs more liveliness in the texture and flavour". Tells you nothing about what I was expecting and where you fell short.

I agree that it is less than helpful, but I don't agree that the interviewer meant this form of engagement when referring to the OP. An engaging character is not easily defined, but you know when you're instantly comfortable with someone - well, that's usually somebody "engaging".

-sparky-

notanewuser wrote: »

I agree that it is less than helpful, but I don't agree that the interviewer meant this form of engagement when referring to the OP. An engaging character is not easily defined, but you know when you're instantly comfortable with someone - well, that's usually somebody "engaging".

Yes, it was probably meant more as a comment about interpersonal chemistry, or lack of thereof.

No way of telling without actually being there to witness the whole thing.

Well, maybe if the OP brought some crayons and balloons the line manager would find him more engaging and they'd gel over all the shared fun.

reheat

How do you feel you do (or don't) get on with the line manager? Is it a relationship where you find it difficult to discuss stuff with him/her that you otherwise would (and should) discuss? Is this possibly what they mean by not engaging. Or maybe not seeking advice/help early enough?

I say this because I've been there myself!

Or is this all a total surprise to you?

Blackpool_Saver

engaging with him or an engaging personality, all very subjective, let them lead....