My experience of recruiting new staff

googler

InsideInsurance wrote: »

My personal favourite that I have seen several time is people going on about their "attention to detale"

Oh, the irony ...

googler

TBagpuss wrote: »

And of course older job seekers may not realize how things have changed - I am sure that there are still people out there recommending sending a hand-written covering letter and a typed CV, to take just one basic example, or including marital status and date of birth on CVs.

Are you seriously suggesting you would reject a good-quality candidate just because their CV doesn't follow what you perceive as current trends?

Mojisola

Caroline_a wrote: »

Spelling errors are rarely overlooked - your CV is your sales document and if it isn't perfect at that stage, what hope for any other sort of work produced?

This was the first step we used when creating short lists for teaching positions at school. We would never appoint a primary teacher who couldn't manage to spell properly and yet there were always people who didn't bother checking their work (or did and missed the mistakes!)

donnajunkie

employers need to remember the government/jobcentres approach is quantity is better than quality. this means people are applying for anything just to ensure they satisfy the jobcentre.

justjohn

mattcanary wrote: »

Yes, many of the applicants didn't want the job (or at least didn't really have any interest in doing the job). That is what employers are faced with, under the sanctioning regime operated by the DWP. People apply for jobs so they don't get sanctioned.




However, on the other hand:


If the job is something like stacking shelves in a supermarket, I really cannot see the point in an employer wasting money and time on an in-depth application process

Or alternatively maybe there are more Muppets applying for low paid low end jobs. And you really don't want a Muppet stacking shelves lol

mattcanary

justjohn wrote: »

Or alternatively maybe there are more Muppets applying for low paid low end jobs. And you really don't want a Muppet stacking shelves lol

Well-educated people are often no good at routine jobs. They often require speed and manual dexterity.
So why would you design a complicated application process that only well educated people are likely to do well in?

justjohn

mattcanary wrote: »

So why would you design a complicated application process that only well educated people are likely to do well in?

there is a big difference between Complicated and a process that takes little bit of effort.

Johnnytwostep

poorlittlefish wrote: »

I have recently had to advertise for a new member of staff and was shocked at the applications that I received:


- One-word answers to competency-based questions
- Spelling mistakes in almost every application ("proffesional" being a favourite)
- Sentences that made no sense whatsoever
- Lowercase letters used throughout
- Words abbreviated as if they were being used in a text message rather than a job application
- "Glamour" photos on CVs
- Failing to apply by the stated method


I could go on. When there are so many candidates fighting for each vacancy I can't understand why anyone would put so little care into their application unless they are actively trying to avoid getting shortlisted.


When it came to interviewing there were candidates who were dressed very casually, who'd done absolutely no research about the company and hadn't thought to have any examples ready in relation to the competencies they knew we were looking for.


A good number of the applicants were unemployed, some for two or more years and frankly, I'm not surprised when they make such little effort. Is my experience of being a recruiter being repeated all over the country or was I just unlucky?!

just filling in their quota before going back to the pub

do_i_give_up

Shame you didn't put on the position you were advertising. Some people myself included apply for jobs, check spellings (annoying USA grammar corrections at time using spell check) to find you don't get an interview or feedback because you are over qualified, or they class you from their assumption you are a short term risk. An example i had myself just last week. I applied for a position, completed the online application, then an online test, then a telephone interview to be invited to an face to face interview. now taking into account the job position was 25 miles away in a city centre where expensive car park charges (in my opinion) are enforced. So i got up extra early, got suited and booted, arrived 30 minutes early paid £10.00 for parking (so all in all cost me me around £18.00 including fuel costs, which on JSA of £144.00 a fortnight) to be told that although i answered the CBI and conducted the telephone role play i didn't get the position due to the excuse of short term risk as totally unacceptable. On receiving this feedback i was upset and out of pocket (lets just say i went without food for 3 days to help fund this) I was asked what i had said to the question of long term goals. I replied honestly that in 5 - 10 years i would like to have my mortgage paid off, then remortgage and invest in property. Now if they are so narrow minded to think that after 5 years i would leave and be a property tycoon making millions, that is totally insane. Surely they should be able to see that even if i was able to do this i still needed to work as i would need to pay the remortgage! Why do employers ask these questions at interviews and only want an answer of ...I wish to be the manager/CEO of the company they are joining? Surely going through the stages should show commitment to the company?

BigAunty

Mojisola wrote: »

This was the first step we used when creating short lists for teaching positions at school. We would never appoint a primary teacher who couldn't manage to spell properly and yet there were always people who didn't bother checking their work (or did and missed the mistakes!)

I was once told by an interviewer that my CV was one of the few that didn't contain errors and that's why I was selected. The role required accurate data entry and reporting so that's probably why they were unforgiving.