We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
What is employers' problem
Comments
-
Not if you are unemployed they are not! If you are unemployed, as the OP is, then they are about getting a job.
And even if you aren't unemployed, very few employers care, because there is a queue of people behind you willing to take the job if you don't (assuming you get offered it in the first place). So most employers aren't really vaguely interested in whether you will be happy to work there. Frankly, you have to be very, very good to call the shots at an interview in the way that the OP wants to. And there is no indication, despite their own belief, that the OP is that good. And clearly the people interviewing them aren't seeing it either.
Nonsense.
An interview is a two-way process. Just because you are looking for work, doesn;t mean you should be walked over, or be forced to do something that is totally unsuitable for you.
I am not saying of course that the job should be perfect for you, of course. Just singing from the same hymn-sheet, at least to some degree.0 -
And even if you aren't unemployed, very few employers care, because there is a queue of people behind you willing to take the job if you don't (assuming you get offered it in the first place). So most employers aren't really vaguely interested in whether you will be happy to work there. Frankly, you have to be very, very good to call the shots at an interview in the way that the OP wants to. And there is no indication, despite their own belief, that the OP is that good. And clearly the people interviewing them aren't seeing it either.
Employers probably won't care, if by that you mean changing themselves or the job to suit a particular candidate. However, for many jobs they would be foolish to pick a candidate they think would be unhappy - makes it more likely to need to recruit again soon. Though there will be jobs where the employer has decided that recruiting lots is easier or cheaper than trying to keep staff long term - probably the decision Sports Direct made about warehouse staff!But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,Had the whole of their cash in his care.
Lewis Carroll0 -
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?
You do need to use formal, professional language BUT it has to be believable and fit your appearance and personality. There is always a danger of looking like you're running off the stock phrases rather than having anything meaningful to say.
You need to talk around the buzz phrases and give examples of 'self motivation', 'creative solver' etc.
I mean, what the heck does 'creative solver' mean anyway? Buzz phrases mean different things to different people.
You need to make you answers personal and relevant to you and your actions.I'm not lashing out honey, I'm disagreeing. We can still be friends. :x
You need to learn to accept feedback for what it is - someone else's take on a situation. If that person feels you're lashing out then that is their perception of events... don't be so quick to dismiss it.
Perhaps your perception of your performance at interview is not shared by the interviewers.
You need to be open to the possibility that you are viewed as sarcastic, aggressive or whatever.
Being open to a possibility is not necessarily agreeing with it - it's just being open to seeing other angles.
In this thread you are just dismissing everything sent your way - even though you invited and should have expected a variety of responses. What you should be doing is viewing comments as an opportunity to see another angle.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.
You really do sound bitter - maybe you should reflect on that?I totally understand this, but this language gangbang has to end.
That term is OTT and could be offensive to some.- 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
Is that really your perception of customer service?
Bottom line - you need to exercise some self reflection and seek opportunities for honest feedback about your communication and inter-personal skills.:hello:0 -
Tiddlywinks wrote: »That term is OTT and could be offensive to some.
If you think that is offensive, you should read some of the OP's other posts. Some comments go past offensive and straight into misogyny and bigotry.
Overall, if the OP's posts are anything to go by, their failing to get offered a job is not much of a mystery.0 -
Tiddlywinks wrote: »That term is OTT and could be offensive to some.If you think that is offensive, you should read some of the OP's other posts. Some comments go past offensive and straight into misogyny and bigotry.
Overall, if the OP's posts are anything to go by, their failing to get offered a job is not much of a mystery.
Actually, I didn't say I found it offensive - I said it could be offensive to some... as in, a warning that such phrases may not be acceptable to some. Just a pointer for the OP to consider and not a reflection on my personal levels of tolerance.:hello:0 -
OP forget the cliches and concentrate on what you have actually delivered. That's relevant, obviously.0
-
OP forget the cliches and concentrate on what you have actually delivered. That's relevant, obviously.
This may be the problem. When I was recruiting for a large organisation, I was not interested in someone telling me they were motivated (to do what?) or an achiever or creative or whatever the latest meaningless phrases were. I was looking for examples of the skills that could be put to use for us. For example, if you say you are a leader, tell me exactly how you have exhibited leadership. If you say you work well under pressure, give an example to demonstrate this (but not one where you created the pressure by leaving something to the last minute).
I want to know what you have to offer that will benefit my company.
It may also be the case, as several people have stated, that you are just one of several good candidates but haven't been the best for those jobs.
Keep asking for feedback however- you may see a pattern.0 -
Yeah, the new UC is pretty tough on people, and it's good, it is much more motivating than before. In the old days they would just shrug and sign your dole book, these days they actually try to help. They will also help pay for things - like transport (my pushbike), courses which are relevant (level 2 in food safety when I was working for kitchens), that sort of thing. I find that I can always outmatch them anyway with jobs but they are much better. If you mention these things to your job coach you can get cash your way.
I disagree, they love talking about themselves, one guy spent nearly 10 minutes just talking about the company to me and I just sat "mmhmming" and taking notes. You can learn a lot that way.
Look, I've just spent a week walking around in the sun bending over backwards for companies, I got treated like rubbish, I am physically sore from it, next week will be another round of it, is that arrogance? Really? Really?????????? It's easy to blame the sucker who's knocking on doors and that they need to try harder. If that's all you got to say, don't say it.
Well you might have a point. I have terrible allergies in the summer, medication doesn't do anything, I don't have a car, it's very uncomfortable and exhausting. I try to change in public toilets, carry a towel or tissues, that kind of thing. I just try to do the best in the situation.
Well what I mean is that women are generally more irrational, narcissistic, and easier to manipulate. Generally they will be more favourable of men who act as leaders so they can be told what to do. They won't be so much interested in actual competence but prefer to be impressed by how things are sold to them, whereas men will look for the 'real' aspects of the candidate.
I know that sounds incredibly controversial, and you're not allowed to say things like that - you can face very serious consequences for saying something like that out loud in public. So I keep my mouth shut. The reality is that being Machiavellian is a very affordable way to think. There are real bigots out there, and real racists too, there's always an ethnic war going on somewhere - the last one in Europe was Yugoslavia, there are racist wars happening right now. Speaking of Greek, you might know of the Atomists in ancient Greece who wanted to strip everything down to its basic level. Is that what you mean?
I'm sorry, but you're not really making any kind of sense. I keep trying to explain that I am not using stock phrases and am being honest and human in my answers. If anything most of the stock phrases come from the employer from their advert and interview.
It's not only that either. When you research a company, you find that there is a huge layer of marketing which you have to punch through to see what they 'really' do. Often it can be very simple, but they insist on dressing themselves up to the point where it isn't clear or recognisable. And when they give stock answers to my questions, after I give them clear and bespoke answers, it becomes even harder to understand what they are on about.
Sometimes I get lucky and get through to a guy recruiter instead of a woman. This really makes me breathe a sigh of relief as they tend to be straight and upfront and don't rely so much on sales talk to describe the job or the company. I also find that women are much more likely to 'look to' men to fill in the blanks and provide a context to the jargon. Luckily I have two interviews next week which involve men instead of women.
No, I'm disagreeing with you, because you are wrong. Other people have been helpful. Also, I'm allowed to disagree with you if I want, and I'm right to disagree with you.
You know what, people expect honesty, then they complain when they get it.
I have never cared about the whole sex/gender wars thing in the workplace. When I explain that most of my recruiters are women, that's an observation rather than an opinion. The CEO or MD will usually be a man anyway. But I really prefer talking to guys as they are more likely to be CLEAR about the job and the company. And they will tend to describe things in practical, real-world terms, rather than being glossy or fluffy. This drops drastically though when it comes to agencies - women will be more 'practical' sometimes than the guys.
This is that Greek chap that keeps posting under different names isn't it?0 -
Do you have to [.quote.] the post? Don't you understand how annoying that is?This is that Greek chap that keeps posting under different names isn't it?
Also, there was recently some discussion if Socrates really existed, and if he was simply a character invention of Plato. I assume that's what you mean.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards