The most common reasons for NOT getting the Job?

melysion

BunnieJ wrote: »

My OH says if he is ever in the position of employing someone for a job he would use the 'pick up half the pile of CVs and bin the unlucky ones' Luckily he isn't an employer! :rotfl:

Utterly moronic way to shortlist from a pool of candidates. I so hope that any employer who has done this have missed out on the employee of their dreams as a result.

mattcanary

Walcott wrote: »

My most common when looking last year was that I was overqualified for the role. I found that a bit silly because my experience is on my CV!

What they probably really meant was that you didn't convince them in the interview that you were enthusiastic about the job, and that you would stay with them for what they would consider to be a reasonable period of time.
As you say, why would they give you an interview otherwise?

melysion

mattcanary wrote: »

What they probably really meant was that you didn't convince them in the interview that you were enthusiastic about the job, and that you would stay with them for what they would consider to be a reasonable period of time.
As you say, why would they give you an interview otherwise?

It can also be used as an excuse when they dont want to employ someone they consider too old

mattcanary

melysion wrote: »

It can also be used as an excuse when they dont want to employ someone they consider too old

The application form or CV would tell them their approximate age though (unless they have missed out old information from it).

melysion

mattcanary wrote: »

The application form or CV would tell them their approximate age though (unless they have missed out old information from it).

Not necessarily. They wouldn't really get it from mine, as I started my degree/PhD studies later in life than usual. Thankfully, I also don't look my age so haven't really come across the ageism problem myself yet.

Also, generally speaking, I think you are only meant to list the last ten years of your work experience. Anything before that would be considered out-of-date and irrelevant I guess.

mattcanary

Okay.

I thought that the general method in CVs at least,, was to give only very brief information (such as dates, the job title and company you worked for) if the job goes back more than 10 years or is irrelevant to the job you are seeking now.

I suppose really though that you can design the CV in any way you wish.

But you would then have to be aware that you may have to do really well in the interview to overcome their prejudices or concerns. And if you deliberately miss out information that you think may hinder you in getting the job, then the company may be a bit irritated when you see them in the interview.

I suppose also that recruiters may not bother reading the second page of CVs. That says something about their laziness and lack of attention to detail. They may feel they are too busy to read all CVs thoroughly, but then employing their staff (and the right people) should be one of (if not the most) important things they do in their working life.

System

mattcanary wrote: »

What they probably really meant was that you didn't convince them in the interview that you were enthusiastic about the job, and that you would stay with them for what they would consider to be a reasonable period of time.
As you say, why would they give you an interview otherwise?

The problem with what you say is that the first stage of interviews in quite a few of those came back as positive and the second stage is where the overqualified came in. I disagree with the enthusiasm point as I was clearing the first round for almost all interviews.

mattcanary

Walcott wrote: »

The problem with what you say is that the first stage of interviews in quite a few of those came back as positive and the second stage is where the overqualified came in. I disagree with the enthusiasm point as I was clearing the first round for almost all interviews.

That does seem a total waste of time and effort then, if they were the same interviewers conducting each stage.

I have heard though that the first interview is conducted by what would be your line manager, and then the second interview may be conducted by HR. They would have different requirements and HR may focus more on things other than whether you could actually do the job.

I do think it would make more sense having just one interview, where both HR and the line manager attended and each asked their own questions. But there we go. Companies don'd always behave in ways that would seem to make sense.

DKLS

J_i_m wrote: »

And it's exactly that kind of attitude which deters people from following up and asking for feedback.

It's very difficult to learn from feedback which isn't honest or constructive.

Whilst I can appreciate that it isn't easy to call up a candidate to tell them that they weren't sucessful, it shouldn't be forgotten that the candidate too (not just the recruiter) have "invested" time, effort and probably money too into the occasion. The least you could do is to provide honest, concise and constructive feedback.

It's about customer service, something which ought to be high up on any companies list of priorities. And fobbing of a rejected candidate for little more reason because you couldn't be botherd or that you decided you didn't like the candidate personally is actually very poor customer service which reflects badly upon you and your organisation.

I wonder what your staff turnover is like if that's your attitude towards people.

Staff turnover is high but then again its a 7 billion pound business, with a presence in most countries.

vacationgirl wrote: »

I’m sure a lot of candidates will take solace from this

Not very professional is it?

Would you like to be treated the same way?

I never ask for feedback

Buellguy wrote: »

And kind of leaves you open to a rather large claim should someone decide you were less than fair in the interview. Can just imagine the questions in a tribunal, 'so, the interviewee saw you taking notes during the interview, can we see them please, oh I destroyed them'.
I know from my last job that the director who carried out all the interviews used to keep any notes made for just this reason.....

And you are the type of interviewer that really winds people up, you've just admitted to lying to interviewees, bet you get really wound up if someone lies to you........

Get real, if anything ever went to tribunal I would knock up some notes before the tribunal.

System

mattcanary wrote: »

That does seem a total waste of time and effort then, if they were the same interviewers conducting each stage.

I have heard though that the first interview is conducted by what would be your line manager, and then the second interview may be conducted by HR. They would have different requirements and HR may focus more on things other than whether you could actually do the job.

I do think it would make more sense having just one interview, where both HR and the line manager attended and each asked their own questions. But there we go. Companies don'd always behave in ways that would seem to make sense.

Yes, exactly the point I was trying to make but didn't elaborate in my first post so my mistake.

I got most of my feedback from the first stage feedback and used that to improve and after 3-4 interviews I was very relaxed and handling them well so it is not a total waste of time but TBH to get to the 2nd is always tough because they are unpredictable.

The only genuine reply I had for overqualified was when a financial controller interviewed me. She said at the end that she was sorry but it was going to be a no and she wanted to tell me that herself rather than have a recruitment consultant call. Her reason was that she said my CV was not the most impressive because she had people claiming much more. In fact she rejected mine at the start but mine was the only honest one she had seen. The others were exaggerating and when she grilled them they crumbled. For me she had probed and got answers. She probed further and she was satisfied that when I backed up with examples they were genuine. She said there is very little room for progression in the short to medium term and that she thought I could do her job but she herself was not seeing any development in her own circumstances so would not really have anywhere for me to go.

I appreciated that but for the most part the overqualified replies were just coming back as generic cop outs.