Mobile Phones and Interviews

Caroline_a

AP007 wrote: »

Not managers - directors! They would not be contactable at all unless another director got in touch with them. We could not call them at home or after 5pm anywhere.

5pm???? weren't they still at work? What sort of industry is that?

Caroline_a

AP007 wrote: »

I am sure they are plenty of companies doing just great and I am sure its different for different industries but never in any I have been interviewed in has anyone taken a call.

There is such a thing as a digital switchboard by the way. Lots of department stores have them

they look kinda like this
http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=1813211

Never seen one of those in an IT company. Ours use VOIP phones, which look like slightly larger ordinary landline phones and have hunt groups etc. The software on the (connected) pc finds and connects the call.

AP007

Caroline_a wrote: »

5pm???? weren't they still at work? What sort of industry is that?

No the directors especially the FD were some of the 1st to leave.

When it was snowing he'd go at 4pm!

Bars and restaurants.

Torry_Quine

I think it's the height of bad manners to have your mobile on during an interview whichever side you are.

maurice28

Caroline_a wrote: »

My experience from the past 10 years is at very large, high level IT global companies. Their senior managers and directors all behave in the way I have described. They would be quite envious in some ways of your managers who are able to go on holiday undisturbed - I've never known that happen in my experience - I was once pulled into the office on Christmas Eve by an American director who expected that I should deal with something that was fairly trivial. I had booked it as a holiday and when she phoned I was actually in the hairdressers. No matter, it was expected that I went into the office.

I can't say I agree with this view that answering calls when you are meant to be engaging with someone else is the norm, no matter how busy you are. I haven't worked with 'global IT companies' but I've worked for FTSE 100 and 250 listed businesses and there in general, right up to director level, if people have been in a meeting or an interview they have generally concentrated on that and caught up with their messages as soon as they are free. The world didn't collapse, the company didn't fold and nobody died.

I would imagine constantly answering calls when meeting with other people would be viewed as unprofessional by many, even other directors!

beckysbobbles1

I really don't see an issue.

The Interviewer is senior within the firm, therefire they may need to be contactable all the time.

Just because they were in an interview, doesn't mean they should stop doing their jobs.

Perhaps he should have said sorry if it was distracting.

And the people saying they wouldn't take the job because of this need to grow up. If you seriously wouldn't take a job because of this apprant rudeness then you must be the most wrothy people out there!

Southend1

For those here who think it's essential to answer the phone every single time it rings.... exactly what is it that can't wait half an hour or be dealt with by someone else?

I struggle to believe ANYONE is so indispensable that not answering the phone for a short period would cause any serious harm to anything.

CCFC_80

Caroline_a wrote: »

You are joking? Of course they do. Especially senior managers and directors! Well they do in my world anyway. I just swapped several emails with my manager and it's after 11 at night and she is on holiday.

Really:shocked::shocked:. if thats the case then I'm glad I'm on minimum wage Wouldn't want to earn say 100k a year for a job you have to be married too. Life is too short

beckysbobbles1 wrote: »

I really don't see an issue.

The Interviewer is senior within the firm, therefire they may need to be contactable all the time.

Just because they were in an interview, doesn't mean they should stop doing their jobs.

Perhaps he should have said sorry if it was distracting.

And the people saying they wouldn't take the job because of this need to grow up. If you seriously wouldn't take a job because of this apprant rudeness then you must be the most wrothy people out there!

Sorry but it gives a very poor impression and as most have said on here completely unprofessional. As someone previously said, no-one is likely to die and the company wouldn't collapse or go bankrupt if a mobile phone was switched off for 1 hour, especially if the company was run properly. This sort of company suggests it isn't.

Caroline_a

CCFC_80 wrote: »

Really:shocked::shocked:. if thats the case then I'm glad I'm on minimum wage Wouldn't want to earn say 100k a year for a job you have to be married too. Life is too short


Sorry but it gives a very poor impression and as most have said on here completely unprofessional. As someone previously said, no-one is likely to die and the company wouldn't collapse or go bankrupt if a mobile phone was switched off for 1 hour, especially if the company was run properly. This sort of company suggests it isn't.

100k is peanuts to most of these people. They work hard and play hard and many of them end up retiring at 45-ish, with massive pensions etc. To be honest, I'd rather do that than scratch a living out until I'm 75 because I can't afford to retire. However, it's horses for courses and not everyone is capable or able to get to that level.

And do not delude yourself that these companies are not run properly.... they are far leaner and more efficient than those that work 9 - 5 and won't do anything more because 'it's not my job'. That is the sort of attitude and working practises that contributes the most to redundancies and companies folding. I worked a few years ago for the biggest IT company in the world (no prizes for guessing). I'd come from a short contract role in my local council. The local council had more admin staff in one department, supporting 5 other people than the large company had in its whole UK head office. Things are done very differently from the 'old' ways in these large corporations which is why they are successful. Oh - and there was always huge numbers of applicants for every job there!

CCFC_80

Caroline_a wrote: »

100k is peanuts to most of these people. They work hard and play hard and many of them end up retiring at 45-ish, with massive pensions etc. To be honest, I'd rather do that than scratch a living out until I'm 75 because I can't afford to retire. However, it's horses for courses and not everyone is capable or able to get to that level.

And do not delude yourself that these companies are not run properly.... they are far leaner and more efficient than those that work 9 - 5 and won't do anything more because 'it's not my job'. That is the sort of attitude and working practises that contributes the most to redundancies and companies folding. I worked a few years ago for the biggest IT company in the world (no prizes for guessing). I'd come from a short contract role in my local council. The local council had more admin staff in one department, supporting 5 other people than the large company had in its whole UK head office. Things are done very differently from the 'old' ways in these large corporations which is why they are successful. Oh - and there was always huge numbers of applicants for every job there!

Again have to strongly disagree with you. For me it wouldn't matter if the salary is 100k, 500K or a million a year. I wouldn't want to have a job that you would have to be married too. I would rather live to 75 scrimping and saving then run the risk of having lots of money and heading to an early grave with perhaps a nervous breakdown and high stress levels.

Oh BTW slightly off topic but well done to That Sainsbury's check-out worker who refused to serve a customer whilst talking on her mobile phone. I would have given her a medal.