What is employers' problem

sangie595

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.
.

Uh huh. So... first of all it was YOU and not me complaining about employers not acting as you would wish them to. But actually, yes, I do live in a world where employers come to me and answer my questions. Although most of them are doing so in the hope that they don't get chosen.

But there you go again - "it's all about them". Of course it is. Because it is their job, they are interviewing for it and they can do as they damned well please because it is their job. If you haven't understood that then you haven't understood the slightest thing about interviews.

And when you get told something you don't like, you threaten people do you? Well good luck PMing me - the facility is disabled and always has been.

I suspect it is rather obvious by now why you can't get through the interviews, but the only person on the thread who can't see it is you.

cadon

Xikams wrote: »

experienced workers with common sense and a can-do attitude

Xikams wrote: »

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

You seem to be full of generic buzz words. I appreciate you're trying to help the interviewer find reasons to put you through, however spouting these kind of adjectives is actually really off-putting.

I expect all candidates to have common sense and - if you must put it that way - a "can do" attitude. You may as well condense all your descriptive language into "average human being, would quite like a job".

To give you an example of how to make it more specific, I wouldn't ever state "comfortable with targets" in my profile. However, I would summarise under my previous experience which targets I had to meet as part of my job. That gives weight to the notion that I can meet targets.

Xikams wrote: »

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%?

Personality is really important in the workplace. I've seen a company crumble after hiring one lunatic who forced all the good staff out. The right person for the job isn't just the person with the most relevant skills and experience, it's the person who has quite relevant skills and experience but who is the best fit with the existing team. People spend more time with their colleagues than their families these days, if they don't get on, it never ends well.

(As for "110%", not only is this another overused expression, it doesn't make any sense. You only have 100% to give. I find it hugely irritating and I suspect so do a lot of other interviewers.)

Xikams wrote: »

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

Xikams wrote: »

Well then they're stupid

Xikams wrote: »

The more narcissistic the better. Come to think of it, sounds like right up your street mate!

Lashing out at people who don't agree with you isn't a very likeable trait. I appreciate you're ranting after a difficult time, but to what extent does this anger and sense of entitlement surface in an interview? You need to work on how you come across.

I suggest you film or record yourself using a webcam or phone, then play it back and reflect on how you are coming across to others. There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance, and a fine line between enthusiasm and being downright irritating. Think about the language you used and if it would sound more likeable phrased in a slightly different way. Then have another go and reassess.

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.

I've always found the first round interview a two-way process - it's for the company to get a feel for whether they like you, and for you to get a feel for whether you like them. I've always asked lots of questions and been given the courtesy of honest answers. Are you asking specific, tailored questions which demonstrate an interest in that job and company? Or spouting questions as generic as your buzz words?

sangie595

And perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you quit your last job after a big bust up with your manager and HR? That sort of thing tends to put people off when the references come through.

[Deleted User]

Xikams wrote: »

while they get their needs met every time.

There is one big employer in my county they have advertised same roles 3 or 4 times since Feb alone - and not being funny but that is worrying enough. This is the same employer who will say you aren't good enough due to too many jobs thereby giving the terrible illusion they must take on long term job holders - pot kettle black not at all.

Afraid I'm not with the it's easier to get a job whilst employed, can't quite explain it.

Stick with it - quite get and enjoy your posts, I bet your turn for a job next week x

Xikams

cadon wrote: »

You seem to be full of generic buzz words. I appreciate you're trying to help the interviewer find reasons to put you through, however spouting these kind of adjectives is actually really off-putting.

Would it kill you to think that I actually BELIEVE in these words? ie. presentable, self-motivated, creative solver, diligent, always on time, etc. what words should I use instead?

In interviews I despise using generic statements and try to "sell the truth" as it were. My work history is not an Oxford fantasy, but neither have I been sitting on my backside. And anyway, after the number of tests I've been through, what do I need to prove to you??

cadon wrote: »

Lashing out at people who don't agree with you isn't a very likeable trait.

I'm not lashing out honey, I'm disagreeing. We can still be friends. :x

It's hit and miss with many companies if they want the 'robot' or the 'personal touch', and in my experience I find that recruiters want both, on a plate, yesterday, with references and mod cons all round. Also, you're very right that the company needs to get a feel for their employee. But instead of being questioned, probed, and stroked like a wet stray cat that just crawled in out of the window, why not just put it on their website what they REALLY want. And that would save everyone the whole shbang.

sangie595 wrote: »

And perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you quit your last job after a big bust up with your manager and HR? That sort of thing tends to put people off when the references come through.

Uh... hmmm.. ummm... (turns to psychiatist, talks, looks back) Yes. Yes, it does.

Deleted%20User wrote: »

There is one big employer in my county they have advertised same roles 3 or 4 times since Feb alone - and not being funny but that is worrying enough.

Hold on to your butts. There are employers out there, the same brand, the same location, the same job, and they are constantly advertising for the same job. People go in, people go out, and it's the same job, and there's no tolerance for people, and it's just plain nasty. There are always brands out there - not low end catering (Burger King, McDonald's, KFC) up to even more specialised fields where people are walking in and out in 2 months and less. Even specialist companies have the capacity (nudge if you know what I'm talking about) to treat employees like %£%.

Deleted%20User wrote: »

Stick with IT

Best advice. Can't give up!

theoretica

Xikams wrote: »

Wwhy not just put it on their website what they REALLY want. And that would save everyone the whole shbang.

You'd be surprised - well I was first time I was involved in recruitment - how many people either completely ignore the person specification and descriptions that were so carefully prepared, read them with very rose tinted glasses/read what they want them to say, or write a really carefully crafted application to try to make it look as though they meet the requirements when they really aren't even close and are wasting both their and the recruiters' time. Though to be fair, there probably are lots of people who do read properly and decide not to apply, but we never know about them.

Xikams

theoretica wrote: »

You'd be surprised - well I was first time I was involved in recruitment - how many people either completely ignore the person specification and descriptions that were so carefully prepared, read them with very rose tinted glasses/read what they want them to say, or write a really carefully crafted application to try to make it look as though they meet the requirements when they really aren't even close and are wasting both their and the recruiters' time. Though to be fair, there probably are lots of people who do read properly and decide not to apply, but we never know about them.

I totally understand this, but this language gangbang has to end. It's so frustrating, because the ad will say something like

- "Swift complaint resolution!"
Actual Job: Passing the buck here and there and here and there and here and there and

- Team Spirit attitude!
Actual Job: Work alone constantly, day after day, literally no feedback from anybody until a complaint arrives. And that's it.

- Pro-active approach to problems.
Actual job: Shout at customers/clients shouting at you, shout at them back, shout, let it all out, these are the things we can do without, enforce company policy above all else

- We love common sense people who self-organise and implement creative solutions! : D : D
Actual Job: YOU MADE A TEA FOR YOURSELF OUT OF YOUR SCHEDULED BREAK HOW DARE YOU NOT GO TO SUPERVISOR DISCIPLINARY RRRRRR

The fantastic majority DO NOT CARE about how you dress these jobs up - what matters is that you're in a job. Screw the week of training, as it's so poor anyway, if you hate staff, stop advertising them as permanent and put temporary contracts out. Both parties win that way.

mattcanary

hop3y wrote: »

Did you ask them for the reasons?

And the answer (if there is one), is likely to be worthless.

mattcanary

Xikams wrote: »

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.


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%?


: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!



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.


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.


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.

Or on their mobile phone in the case of one interview I experienced!
How rude - their mobile phone should be switched off when conducting an interview!

daytona0

The three possible reasons which spring to mind are:

1. Perhaps they want LESS EXPERIENCED people? You know, people who they can mould.

2. Perhaps you aren't coming across as good as you think.

3. Perhaps there is a stronger candidate?

If you are saying things like:

" Also can you pay back the money I spend on bus trips if you're not going to treat a jobseeker seriously?"

and

" 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"

then it comes across as a bit arsey. You got your shot and you get a better shot than a good number of employers, many of whom would give a lot to even have an interview!