What is employers' problem

motorguy

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?

Having read your subsequent responses here, clearly you have an attitude problem thats being picked up in interview.

Xikams

paddyrg wrote: »

Take a step back, realise there's something wrong, and use your creative reasoning/ problem solving skills to address it. If those skills are as sharp as you claim, you'll be able to put aside the personal feelings about the situation and instead start using the interviews as a chance to work out what works better and doesn't.

Yeah, you're right. This first round hasn't gone great, but it's given me a lot of insight. It's definitely taught me that different companies have very different attitudes/ethics. But they're not leaving me with any leads to go on, speculating isn't reliable, I guess all that's left to do is brainstorm.

theoretica wrote: »

I would say that you aren't seeing your landscape for what it is - at present whoever is interviewing has the real power over you. When you find a job one of the interviewers will probably become your line manager and again power over you. If you can't be a good team member for a female boss (in her opinion) you are severely restricting your job opportunities.

This depends. Many times, HR has nothing to do with you after the recruitment process. The recruiter may never even see you again. Or they may be on a different team or located in a different office. This is extremely frustrating because not only do you miss out on a taste of what it is to work for/with them, but it also shows later on the line that they like to throw up barriers when it comes to problems ie. "that's not my department" and generally lack confidence or competence.

Women will be more likely to obfuscate than men, and will be poorer at it. And they do, they will usually - if not always - depend on a man to make decisions. I also find with women that they struggle with empathy, and are more easily influenced and manipulated. Admittedly these examples are not universal and my experience is purely anecdotal.

theoretica wrote: »

You say you find agency recruiters comparatively more interested in ability than presentation. I wonder if this is because of the difference between finding someone who can do a job for a short period and choosing a colleague to work with for a permanent role.

Well yes, maybe, I mean agencies have both temp and permanent departments. Temping is very balls-to-the-wall, they sometimes don't even bother with an interview if it's a short assignment because their brand has already been sold to the client. Permanent jobs are always harder to get. Direct interviews with employers have a very different tempo or rhythm to how they ask questions, they tend to be more unpredictable and harder to work with in conversations. Also depending on the agency-client relationship, like a small struggling agency recruiting for a powerful brand, even temp job can be just too hard to get and a waste of time.

robatwork wrote: »

Much as you come across as a fairly horrible individual, you obviously have an intellect and are able to write coherent and grammatically correct postings.

Maybe I can get a job writing why-oh-why columns for the Express or the Daily Mail. I'd really enjoy that, if there's anybody out there hiring for someone to blame migrants/politicians/younger generation then I'm your man. I personally call this "2nd Line Lament Administrator".

daytona0 wrote: »

I look at a post like that and see a mix between waffle and insults.

You only get what you give

motorguy wrote: »

Having read your subsequent responses here, clearly you have an attitude problem thats being picked up in interview.

I keep repeating that my posts here are not reflective of my real world self. When I send my CV across to agency or company whoever, they actually ask me to come in so they can meet me in person so they can validate what is written on that document, because words in their form are not reliable as indication of a person's emotional or moral ability. This is called an interview.

Now, if you're going to believe that my posts here describe me, in any real way, then you are saying to me that you are happy to believe what I write. Well, I'm sorry to lie to you so long. But, the truth is...... I'm Batman. I know, you thought Batman never existed, but here he is.. right now. I am Batman. I fight crime. I also have a Batcave, and a Batmobile. It's a 1.4 Peugot with expired tax and third party insurance. I can't even afford real bat-gloves anymore, so I have to go to Lidl and buy kitchen gloves, then paint them black. Things have been hard ever since Wonder Woman stole all my credit cards and ran off with her transvestite Brazilian boyfriend.

Tiddlywinks

Xikams wrote: »

Women will be more likely to obfuscate than men, and will be poorer at it. And they do, they will usually - if not always - depend on a man to make decisions. I also find with women that they struggle with empathy, and are more easily influenced and manipulated. Admittedly these examples are not universal and my experience is purely anecdotal.

Speaking of 'obfuscation', I'd say the majority of text you've written on this thread fits that definition.

Decision making - seriously? How much experience do you have in the real work. You know, the one where women are law enforcement officers, surgeons, judges, accountants, cabinet ministers etc etc.

As to struggling with empathy - oh the irony in that statement.

Xikams wrote: »

I keep repeating that my posts here are not reflective of my real world self. When I send my CV across to agency or company whoever, they actually ask me to come in so they can meet me in person so they can validate what is written on that document, because words in their form are not reliable as indication of a person's emotional or moral ability. This is called an interview.

Your posts aren't reflective of your real self? Really? They seem pretty extreme to me from your musings here - are you saying they're not really your beliefs?

I'd say if you DO really believe this misogynistic stuff then you'll be giving off vibes that the interviewer will pick up on.

Vibes that will make someone uncomfortable and less likely to want you in their organisation.

theoretica

Xikams wrote: »

I also find with women that they struggle with empathy, and are more easily influenced and manipulated. Admittedly these examples are not universal and my experience is purely anecdotal.

Yet your masculine manipulation has so far failed to influence any of these women interviewers into giving you a job.

[Deleted User]

Here have a look at this
https://www.coburgbanks.co.uk/blog/candidate-tips/7-signs-of-a-bad-job-interview/?omhide=true&dm_i=1ICR,49LES,JU4TFS,FL4PR,1

(though I felt I've gone on to get number 3 relative while in employment) so I'd admit, it is quite useful.

TBagpuss

Originally Posted by Xikams
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.


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.

I can pretty much guarantee that your misogyny and sexist attitude comes across when you are interviewed, particularly when you are interviewed by a woman or by a panel including a woman or women.

Speaking as an employer, (and a woman) I can assure you that I do no rely on my male colleagues to make decisions.Although neither I, nor my male colleagues, would employ a candidate who showed that they had those attitudes.

And like most women, I have enough experience of sexism to be able to spot it pretty easily, even when the person tries to hide it.

I've read your post saying that your posts here don;'t recognise your real world persona.I'm not entirely clear what you mean.

If you mean you do not really believe that women are less competent, easier to manipulate, and dependent on men for decision making then it seem utterly pointless for you to post that you do, if you have any real interest in advice about your interviews.
If you mean that you do not openly express those views in public then your problem is most likely that you do not hide your sexist attitudes as well as your think you do, and potential employers are choosing not to subject themselves and their staff to that kind of attitude.

I agree with previous posters that the sorts of things you put in your first post, about turning up appropriately dressed, on time and having researched the company are pretty much the basic requirements for an interview. They don't entitle you to a job.

I also agree that giving specific, relevant examples of ways in which you have dealt with issues in the past, is much more likely to be effective than simply using cliched words and phrases. Even if you believe them, you may find you do better by tying to provide examples which illustrate your abilities.

Xikams

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

As to struggling with empathy - oh the irony in that statement.

Well, I'm not exactly a "feeling" person. But all people and animals have feelings, and feeling them can sometimes me hard. I just tend to go with hard evidence, I admit it's primitive; the human body is already pre-programmed with instinct and intuition. This does not make learning a redundant task however. My strategy and sale is my intelligence and wisdom.

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Your posts aren't reflective of your real self? Really? They seem pretty extreme to me from your musings here - are you saying they're not really your beliefs?

You continue to evade your opportunity to talk about jobs like an adult and insist on promoting your colourful, immature self-righteousness. It just seems that the denial of your speculative, superficial and childish attempt of psychology on a person you have never met is infuriating to you. Stop having a problem with an honest jobseeker.

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

I'd say if you DO really believe this misogynistic stuff then you'll be giving off vibes that the interviewer will pick up on.

It just seems like you want to test me, well fine. It is not belief, but observation. Women will be shallow, unprepared, cowardly, emotional, and unable, while the men are far more likely to be accurate, descriptive, stable, and directive in identifying and solving problems, of any kind, in any way. I have found a relivable success when I treat women like children.

During my interviews, they will read from a script, insert script words in conversation, and rely on constant scripting. They will often concentrate more on their relationship to emotions than the job itself. And the power I have over them as a man is obvious. They will walk and move in certain ways towards me because I am a man. They will repeat my words back to me; sometimes whole phrases. It's like I can almost see their father in front of their face, and I have to 'fit in' there. They are looking to be told what to do, by a man.

My experience, repeat, is anecdotal, and the core problem is one disguised by class, not gender. (We blame India for their caste system, for instance - but fail to appreciate their emulation.) In the early days of my adulthood, I despised how women were treated as objects - but as I grow older, I understand that this is their source of pleasure, and not only do women want to be treated like objects, but they will certainly demand as such. It will always be a "man's world". To think otherwise is either a) lies or b) insanity.

If you really want to get underneath and 'know' me, then: if you think I am being reprehensible already - this is what I *count as nice. I have never met you and have no opinion of you in any way, or any others really. You should not try to get to 'know' me, I'm here to talk about work, not dating. Unless you want me to date you, you should not talk to me that way.

It's interesting because companies insist on the 'human touch' a lot, and become robotic when you feed back to them. They're rarely open or honest when the spotlight is on you, and they really wrap themselves up in gloss or lunge for the door when you ask for feedback. So after you can decipher the advert, you have to decipher the interviewer and there's an encrypted company behind it, and it's just so incredibly aggravating. I know somewhere, there's a handle on a door behind the packaging, but it's just finding out where it is.

pupgrum

OP sounds like a real piece of work. No wonder he keeps getting rejected.

Tiddlywinks

OP - your posts are making less sense as the thread goes on.

What exactly are you hoping to learn here?

What are you hoping to accomplish?

toniq

Op have you seen the movie American Psycho, You come across just like the main character.