Feedback After Interviews

Little_Vics

To be honest, if people are struggling with confidence for certain roles it matters, in particular if client facing or giving presentations on a regular basis. This should be outlined in the person spec if it's an essential /desirable criteria. If they perform worse than other candidates, they won't get the job. It's quite simple, and I don't understand why it's disconcerting to you?

I stand by what I said in the first post - I know on paper they can do the job, and what I'm looking for is whether they fit with the team. However, there are 3 of us on the panel, so it's not just my decision.

I'm pretty sure you'll disagree with me, which is fine. I don't think this tangent is helpful to the OP, so let's just leave it at that.

wapow

Little_Vics wrote: »

To be honest, if people are struggling with confidence for certain roles it matters, in particular if client facing or giving presentations on a regular basis. This should be outlined in the person spec if it's an essential /desirable criteria. If they perform worse than other candidates, they won't get the job. It's quite simple, and I don't understand why it's disconcerting to you?

I stand by what I said in the first post - I know on paper they can do the job, and what I'm looking for is whether they fit with the team. However, there are 3 of us on the panel, so it's not just my decision.

I'm pretty sure you'll disagree with me, which is fine. I don't think this tangent is helpful to the OP, so let's just leave it at that.

On the contrary, you've made a fairly obvious point to which any sane individual would agree with. If the job is client facing or requires presentations then they would need to be an effective communicator.


Lets try this another way.


1. When you say fit with the team, what do you mean exactly? They get on together? They can work together?

This isn't a tangent as such and it also gives an insight into the thinking individual, of a manager's views on what makes a successful candidate and how they like to deal with different scenarios.

Lieja

Unfortunately, confident people will always do better in interviews because they can sell their skills and qualities, whereas a nervous or under confident person will usually struggle to articulate their answers.

Candidates aren't invited to interview if their application/cv doesn't make the grade, so everybody interviewed usually stand the same chance. The decider is the interview and as Vics says, it's not about qualifications or experience at that point. It's about personality, and unfortunately if it's hidden under a layer of nerves or shyness then the interviewer will not be able to see how the candidate will fit in their team.

I totally agree that interviews aren't an ideal way of choosing the best person for the job, but unfortunately they're the simplest and most efficient way of getting someone half decent and being able to justify why they were chosen.

Little_Vics

Ok - fair question.

Yes, essentially. Is the candidate a team player? How do they deal with conflict? Will their experience of working in a team in the past fit in with how the current team operates? How flexible are they? What social skills do they have? Do they have the same set of values?

I said earlier that this stuff can be hard to quantify, but it's normally one of the scores that we give when interviewing. It's very subjective, but that's why there's 3 of us!

So, as I said in my first post - we know on paper they can do the job, so what I'm looking for is someone who fits in. If they don't - and not all do - I wouldn't want to employ anyone who would change or pretend to. It might be a bit wishy-washy - but sometimes the most confident people are those who are happy with who they are, and who wouldn't pretend to be someone else (youth worker hat on!). Does that make sense, even if you disagree?

wapow

Lieja wrote: »

Unfortunately, confident people will always do better in interviews because they can sell their skills and qualities, whereas a nervous or under confident person will usually struggle to articulate their answers.

Agreed.

Lieja wrote: »

If it's hidden under a layer of nerves or shyness then the interviewer will not be able to see how the candidate will fit in their team.

THIS is where I'm trying to understand why interviewers do not take a different approach.

In my long experience, large company's usually put these types of individuals with the team itself and let them spend a day or half a day with the team to see how they get on.

The interviewer will then take the feedback from the team and use to make a judgement.


If someone's CV indicates they've held good jobs, in good positions, for long periods, had glowing references, have been in various roles with great companies, worked in many teams


Yet that individual is still nervous in the interview, then surely it would be a little shallow to use just that one interview experience as the be all end all?


This is where an interviewer should think about alternatives.

Little_Vics

But what alternatives? Can you expand on that?

[Deleted User]

I think the thing is not to get to down-hearted Rover over the feedback, definitely don't dwell on it, I'd take it with a pinch of salt, recently taken on job where I was once rejected, quite funny really the powers that be still a bit we don't know, I just formed somewhat of a bond with my now colleague who sat in on the previous interview/s who wouldn't let it drop when the job come up again, I've met some of the loveliest charmer of interviewers who oh my days turned out to be the worst! you'll get there for now try and enjoy the experience never forgetting it is a 2 way street you are seeing if you like them too so every bit as powerful as them x

rover2000

Do you allow for slight nerves at an interview? If someone wasn't slightly nervous when taken out of their comfort zone, I would perceive them as arrogant.
I was a bit nervous and got better as the interview progressed.

I do think that feedback isn't always honest though. When I was younger, I phoned for a job only to be told that they wanted a man as "women leave and have babies."
Don't imagine for one moment that people's prejudices don't come into play too.

As I said before, I got very contradictory feedback. If you are to work as a team, why must your answers be totally different from every one else's? Also if you can't hear someone why not ask them at the time to speak up?

I won't go into all the feedback but they also said they wanted a leader. It was an interview for a trainee position!!! So did they want a bossy, know it all for a trainee position?
Some of the feedback I got was baffling. Which made me ask if they had the right candidate.
Well I'll try to learn something from this. I sometimes wonder if they had already decided on someone before I got there.

Little_Vics

Yes I allow for slight nerves, but I think the onus is on the people conducting the interview to put the candidates at ease. I would expect people to become more relaxed.

Sadly sometimes people do decide on the best candidate before interview, which is hideously unfair. That's why a scoring system is good - it keeps it fair. Acas also recommend this.

I'm sorry you've not got this job. Maybe chalk it up to experience, have a beer/gin and crack on with the next application.

I also hope what I've said helps in someway rather than not. Sorry if it hasn't.

falko89

I have the same issue, I've been to countless interviews where you think you did OK for a shy person but you never get the job, I only seem to be able to land the jobs no one else wants.