Feedback After Interviews

rover2000

I'm not shy. It seems however well I prepare I never seem to answer their questions right.
I really don't know what employers want. I will work on selling myself more.
I also need to work on my nerves.
Comments about being smartly dressed don't help by the way. Although I am now tempted to cut my hair really short, dye it pink, pierce both my eyebrows and wear ripped jeans.
I agree with the comment about only getting jobs that no one wants. Ones that are badly paid, or its such a horrible place to work that everyone's leaving. Or you find out its a zero hours contract and they want your training to come out of your first pay packet.

wapow

Hi Rover, did you review the example answer I typed out for your third question?

J_i_m

Little_Vics wrote: »

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.

I think you hit on a very important factor there, in my recent experience the quality of the panel makes a big difference to how I feel during the interview. If the panel itself is personable and makes you feel welcomed then a comfortable atmosphere is generated. I believe that offers a good opportunity for the candidates true personality to shine through the nerves. I always find it far easier to perform with a good panel who put you at ease because it's much more like having a normal conversation.

However on the flip side, when the panel seems almost as nervous and awkrard as I myself feel due to the nerves, haven't been very welcoming, haven't offered me a drink, haven't made an effort to put me at ease etc.. then building any kind of rapport becomes ten times harder.

The onus is ofcourse on the candidate to perform, but people often forget that the quality of the pane is also important.

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 think this happens far more often than is openly admitted, and it completely flys in the face of equal opportunity. But's it's also very difficult to police and even harder to prove suspicion of unfair practice.

I do believe that there is a culture out there of giving jobs to friends, or via some other prejudicial reason. I have no doubt that there will be many managers who behave entirely professionally and do their recruitment process as impartially as practically possible, but even so, even with the best of intentions unfair practice often creeps in.

noelphobic

melysion wrote: »

Well, I've never been asked so pfft. God only knows what I'd say for a "work related" weakness though - the very question puts you on the back foot. I sure as hell wouldn't admit to my actual weakness.

What is your actual weakness? If you want to share, that is!

I've been to 2 interviews recently and not been asked this question. The answer I have prepared is that I have a tendency to take my work home but have realised this isn't good so have found ways to de-stress and turn off eg by going for walks.

Not sure this is a good one or not but I know the theory is that you 'admit' to a weakness but explain how you address it.

I have more trouble saying what my strengths are and fell down at the first hurdle on my recent interview. The first question was why I wanted the job and what strengths I would bring to it. I waffled - I tend to either waffle or freeze in job interviews, which is why I don't have a good batting average!

noelphobic

Woolwich_Kim wrote: »

Best way to build your confidence is to keep appying and going for interviews. If you're applying for similar jobs then chances are the questions will be similar and you will get better each time - practice makes perfect.

All interviews are good practice even if you don't want the job (You can always turn the job down).

I think this is a good idea in theory but I find interviews so excruciating that I don't think I could cope with going through that ordeal for a job I'm really not interested in.

I think if I did this I would probably be more relaxed because there wouldn't be much riding on the interview. I would probably do better and possibly get offered a job that I don't really want!

noelphobic

Little_Vics wrote: »

I have no idea if this will help or not, but when I recruit I already know by interview stage that the person will be able to do the job by their application form. What I'm looking for is someone who will fit with the team - and I would hate people to pretend to be someone they are not to give that impression to me.

If you are confident, happy, friendly, then you are most of the way there. You just need to get yourself to that point by researching the job and company (don't forget to check out twitter!), and ensuring you're prepared enough to relax.

Hope that makes sense and helps a little.

I think most of the first paragraph applied to me for the job I went for this week. Plus I'm already volunteering for the organisation and know and get on with both of the interviewers.However, I managed to make a complete mess of the interview so will be very (pleasantly) surprised if I get the job, sadly.

mattcanary

wapow wrote: »

I have to mention that some of what you say is not helpful at all and is a very narrow minded way of looking at things.

Firstly, what are you looking for on the application form? What is your criteria for recruiting someone based off their application form alone?

Secondly, you state that someone should be confident, friendly and happy. Grifters are confident and happy and friendly. So in essense youre giving up roles to fraudsters? That's just an example but have you ever considered looking beyond that?

Some people are very happy, confident and friendly. But sometimes this doesn't translate well into an interview. Mindset changes and they are tripping over their words and struggle or end up going blank. This doesn't mean they are not capable of doing the job or fitting in with the team does it? How could it? There are many factors involved that's why Im not a fan of recruiters not am I a fan of people who look for what is obvious but cannot think deep enough to see what is really going on.

To be honest, recruiters are just human beings. Just as job candidates are.

Different recruiters will obviously be looking for different things. Humans are very different, after all!

I think it is pretty obvious you should demonstrate you are confident, and reasonably happy. No-one wants to work with a miserable sod. And if you are not confident, then that is not going to help you in the job, either.

It is quite clear that vics has stated that the application form will tell her to a large degree whether someone is likely to be able to do the job. That is what she is looking for in an application form, eg: qualifications, previous jobs that would indicate that. Perhaps the application form asks candidates to go into examples of times they have done various things too.

One thing I wouldn't agree with is that you should necessarily look at Twitter before the interview. Can't really see that you get much useful, meaningful information from that.

mattcanary

wapow wrote: »

I endeavour to create rapport with as many customers as I can and find myself building a close relationship with a large number of individuals. My rapport building skills are in constant check as everybody is different and this helps me understand how to approach and engage potential customers on a personal basis. I use this knowledge to create trust amongst my customers and use this to create opportunities for the business by recommending products and services and generating sales.


As a second example you could add the following to show how you handle problems to resolution.


I take ownership of their problems and I show them I am willing to take on their problems as my own by bringing them to resolution. I take joy that they feel re-assured in my abilities and they put their trust and confidence in me. I can then use this to create opportunities for the business by turning sales for the benefit of them and the business as a whole. They take my recommendations seriously and this I feel is how a personal relationship should be with a potential client.

Personally, I think Rover's answer is better. It is specific,down to earth and personal. I think it is a bloody good answer, really. Rather thann talking about a hypothetical situation.

I suppose it only goes to show that different interviewers will want different things, really

mattcanary

wapow wrote: »

What you have done in your second post is describe the motions you would take as a representative of a company. You follow procedure as in the book etc etc.

Your first post is what you describe as the motions that go through your head.

These two things are very different as in the second post you sound professional but in the first post it is personal. This is the difference im pointing out and you've also done a fair job about not commenting on what is most disconcerting which is that you look for someone overly obvious in their confidence and are friendly and happy in the interview.

How do you deal with someone who is struggling with their confidence in the interview? What motions go through your head?

From your first post you made it sound like you would not consider this type of individual for a job because they do not meet your criteria of the obvious - confidence.

Don;t agree. The second answer is a more detailed description but the first answer still applies also.
As Vics has said most of the info is obtained from the application form, interviewers are probably looking for the way in which similar answers are presented by the candidate.

mattcanary

J_i_m wrote: »

I think you hit on a very important factor there, in my recent experience the quality of the panel makes a big difference to how I feel during the interview. If the panel itself is personable and makes you feel welcomed then a comfortable atmosphere is generated. I believe that offers a good opportunity for the candidates true personality to shine through the nerves. I always find it far easier to perform with a good panel who put you at ease because it's much more like having a normal conversation.

However on the flip side, when the panel seems almost as nervous and awkrard as I myself feel due to the nerves, haven't been very welcoming, haven't offered me a drink, haven't made an effort to put me at ease etc.. then building any kind of rapport becomes ten times harder.

The onus is ofcourse on the candidate to perform, but people often forget that the quality of the pane is also important.



I think this happens far more often than is openly admitted, and it completely flys in the face of equal opportunity. But's it's also very difficult to police and even harder to prove suspicion of unfair practice.

I do believe that there is a culture out there of giving jobs to friends, or via some other prejudicial reason. I have no doubt that there will be many managers who behave entirely professionally and do their recruitment process as impartially as practically possible, but even so, even with the best of intentions unfair practice often creeps in.

I think it's understandable that interviewers are often influenced by application forms and have a cnadidate in mind for the job even before the interview starts. It's only natural.
I don;t think it's the case that in all cases, all applicants shortlisted for an interview have similar credentials on paper at all. And in thses cases, an opinion will form as to who should get the job before the interviews are held.

Of course, if the ideal candidate in the application stage, flopped badly at the interview for whatever reason, the interviewer's opinion will definitely change then!