What is employers' problem

Guest101

Xikams wrote: »

This week I have had four interviews and have got another one this afternoon. Of those four interviews I have been turned down from two.

I'm always early, in a suit, have researched the company, prepped for interview, plenty of experience, plenty of qualifications.

It's not just this week but the last two/three weeks. I'm cross with this, about 100 applications, several interviews, gave it my best, jobs I have done forever, and apparently I'm not up to scratch.

Sorry, I don't believe it. I have good references, a strong background, there is no real reason why I'm not getting the job. And not only that, but it's not like they come to my flat either. I always have to go to them, do their tests, learn about their company, and it turns out to be a waste of time and money, while they get their needs met every time.

So employers, what do you REALLY want? You don't want experienced workers with common sense and a can-do attitude who take the time to learn about you, that's for sure. Also can you pay back the money I spend on bus trips if you're not going to treat a jobseeker seriously?

I think I know why you haven't got the job - I think it's your attitude; If you appear even remotely like you do here.

elsien

Xikams wrote: »

So employers, what do you REALLY want? You don't want experienced workers with common sense and a can-do attitude who take the time to learn about you, that's for sure.

As an example I have interviewed candidates with a strong background on paper, lots of transferable skills, very enthusiastic, had taken time to research the company and ask lots of relevant questions. However in person it can be very different when it becomes clear that regardless of their belief in themself and their transferable skills they had no idea what they were letting themselves in for. If I'd had several jobs going I may have taken a punt, but for just one job I'm going for the similarly motivated and experienced candidate who fully understands what is being asked of them so is less likely to walk out after a few weeks having decided it's not for them.

When there's more competition then candidates who in other circumstances would walk into a role can just miss out. It's unfortunate but that's how it is sometimes.
I wish you well of your other interviews.

ACG

Do you say you have a "can do attitude" in the interviews? That would put me off as its a bit 1990s.

I remember going for a job once with a bank, it was a job I did not have the experience or the qualifications for but knew I could do. I did not get the job but I called up for feedback, the feedback the bloke gave me helped me secure the next job I applied for which in turn then got me the job I had applied for but with a different bank.

We are not that long out of a recession, there are probably stll more people than jobs and so you are probably up against a fair bit of competition. Personally I would ask for feedback, have you also tried sending speculative CVs for the job you are after with companies not advertising? I know someone whos previous 3 jobs were all started in that way - they then got the jobs as there was no competition (and presumably came across well in the interview).

Nebulous2

It's possible to be too desperate, which puts off the interviewers. That's one of the reasons I think people in work often have an advantage over people who are currently unemployed.

Andrew_Ryan_89

What sector are you in?

Xikams

hop3y wrote: »

Did you ask them for the reasons?

They are never clear about it. Things like "We found a more suitable candidate" or "We didn't feel you were right for the team". I hate it, because I give them specific answers, and they turn around and get vague or don't even reply.

HappyMJ wrote: »

It could be personal too. Maybe they don't think you can fit into the team.

Well then they're stupid, because they are missing out on someone who is going to be fully committed, flexible with hours, sponge for a brain, comfortable with targets, ideas man, self-motivated, able to turn up on time, grown-up and ready to work. If they're not taking me into their team then maybe it's them with the problem.

See I don't get this. When I was at school, that was when personality was the problem. At work, yes, personalities can clash but isn't it more important to believe in the company ethic, achieve your goal and put in the 110%?

Wayne_O_Mac wrote: »

Maybe they can detect your arrogance?

:rotfl: I wish I WAS arrogant, it would get me places. You can get killer bonuses in sales these days. The more narcissistic the better. Come to think of it, sounds like right up your street mate!

FBaby wrote: »

In most interviews I conduct, the decision of who to offer the job to is not obvious because there are almost always at least two very good candidates, so the difference between the two is often minor.

I really appreciate that, choosing a candidate is a big decision in itself, and when I do these interviews, a lot of the time I think about how they are going to decide, what they are going to feel, and what their experience of hiring has been like. You can be swamped with candidates and be on a knife edge on it. So maybe that's something to learn ie. employers just want to get it over with.

sangie595 wrote: »

Seriously? You are complaining about having to go to them and take the interview? You might want to start here with the reason for not getting the job, if this is really your attitude.

Psh. Do you live in a world where employers come to your address, take your quizes, answer your questions for an hour and cross their fingers that they get chosen? Time and time again, it's all about them. I'm not getting out what I put in. So unless you want PMs of my callous-scarred feet and beaten shoes you can stop this bootstraps nonsense.

elsien wrote: »

As an example I have interviewed candidates with a strong background on paper, lots of transferable skills, very enthusiastic, had taken time to research the company and ask lots of relevant questions. However in person it can be very different when it becomes clear that regardless of their belief in themself and their transferable skills they had no idea what they were letting themselves in for.

That's very interesting, do you think that you advertised the position fairly and accurately? I have no doubt that you didn't, but if people that had no name to the role were going for the job, what could be improved?

I'm asking this because again I am going to interviews and finding that interviewers are usually - if not always - pre-occupied in some kind of way, usually concentration on relationships rather than the role itself. It's concerning that so many people who are not applicable to the job are on the other side of your table.

[Deleted User]

Maybe it's your aftershave

Mojisola

Xikams wrote: »

Well then they're stupid

If they're not taking me into their team then maybe it's them with the problem.

See I don't get this. When I was at school, that was when personality was the problem. At work, yes, personalities can clash but isn't it more important to believe in the company ethic, achieve your goal and put in the 110%?

:rotfl: I wish I WAS arrogant, it would get me places. You can get killer bonuses in sales these days. The more narcissistic the better. Come to think of it, sounds like right up your street mate!

That's very interesting, do you think that you advertised the position fairly and accurately? I have no doubt that you didn't, but if people that had no name to the role were going for the job, what could be improved?

I'm asking this because again I am going to interviews and finding that interviewers are usually - if not always - pre-occupied in some kind of way, usually concentration on relationships rather than the role itself. It's concerning that so many people who are not applicable to the job are on the other side of your table.

I'm beginning to see why other candidates are chosen instead of you.

Personality is very important when choosing a new team member - it's no good having someone who can do the job really well if they can't fit into the group of people they have to work with or will disrupt the current team.

It's no good selecting one new member of staff if you then have staff leaving because of your choice.

Xikams

ACG wrote: »

Do you say you have a "can do attitude" in the interviews? That would put me off as its a bit 1990s.

Haha not literally of course. I say that based on the job description; many have spin upon the "can do" kind of thing. The way I market myself is as a willing learner, which is essential as companies all have their own systems, as well as their approach to systems and how TLs/brass feel about it. It can all get very pedantic over the way you do an E-mail or put a file somewhere. So it's more about teamwork and just getting along with a process, or being brave enough to establish one if it hasn't already been.

ACG wrote: »

I remember going for a job once with a bank, it was a job I did not have the experience or the qualifications for but knew I could do. I did not get the job but I called up for feedback, the feedback the bloke gave me helped me secure the next job I applied for which in turn then got me the job I had applied for but with a different bank.

I've also had this experience with agencies - some of them are VERY helpful and nice, and even though you may not be the right candidate for that particular job, they will help you towards another. Thing about agencies is that they are not blind employers, if you treat them like friends they will treat you back (well sometimes).

Nebulous2 wrote: »

It's possible to be too desperate, which puts off the interviewers. That's one of the reasons I think people in work often have an advantage over people who are currently unemployed.

Yes, this is also something to learn. This is why I try to put any desperation energy into looking at the company ethics and seeing where you fit in. Having a job slightly helps but it's more about the kind of person you are putting yourself across too.

Sleazy wrote: »

Maybe it's your aftershave

Damn, this "Ganjes" brand has caused nothing but trouble. That'll teach me to go to that penny shop.

Mojisola wrote: »

Personality is very important when choosing a new team member - it's no good having someone who can do the job really well if they can't fit into the group of people they have to work with or will disrupt the current team.

Look, I'm sorry, but doesn't that go without saying? As a guy, I admit being clueless with emotions, but just want to fit in and do the job.

Come to think of it, ALL my interviewers have been women so far. And the entire HR team are all women. On the bottom end there are mostly men, and on the top end there are universally men. So maybe there's a trick to that.

theoretica

Xikams wrote: »

Psh. Do you live in a world where employers come to your address, take your quizes, answer your questions for an hour and cross their fingers that they get chosen? Time and time again, it's all about them. I'm not getting out what I put in. So unless you want PMs of my callous-scarred feet and beaten shoes you can stop this bootstraps nonsense.

For many jobs it is an employers' market at the moment - and you need a job more than they need your application. One job, dozens of applications, so yes it is about them. On the other hand you only need one job to repay the hunting and applications.

Probably each round of interviews had several people who could do the job, so having several interviews without getting a job can simply be down to the numbers. Something there isn't anything very specific choosing between good candidates but employers just need to make a choice.