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!
A strange interview
Xikams
Posts: 41 Forumite
I have experienced two interviews which concern a client who works in turn for an agency. This agency, in some aspect, reaches another organisation. It's complicated, but after the diluge of definition, it is a job which essentially are for working in the American military.
Usually, interviewers are fairly incompetent. They are busy, fake, fail to ask the right questions, don't seem interested in the people that they are recruiting, they're under pressure, they don't care. They are flawed people, they fail to put their shine into themselves, they seem more like followers than leaders or recruiters, without imagination or creativity in their strategy.
Another annoying and irritating factor is that the employer recruiter will be laden down with competency tests and questions. In some instances, they will not only rely on them, but hide behind them. The further the test is offered in the interview, the weaker the interview is. It gives away their weakness as a recruiter and displays the company is a let down to work for because they should have entered these tests into the discussion in the first place.
But the interview I had was not normal. For a start, the first manager was an expert. I'll elaborate.
Normally interviewers are very keen about manufactured answers to their manufactured questions. This is extremely important for most interview interactions. I'd even go further, to say that jobs are no longer jobs, but the post-modern job, where most if not all of it simply depends on illusion. The more fake you are, better to get the job.
However, he seemed to be very relaxed and no-nonsense. He was apt at extracting my salestalk. In a way, he prepared and expected it. He threw away my pointless abjectives, which most interviewers feast upon. And I gave up bothering to be fake, it was an easy guard to let up because I hate it, and it's so exhausting to do so anyway.
He gave me some competency tests. They were extremely easy. I not only beat them with ease, but elaborated on them, and suggested improvements. But note: although the test itself was fairly elementary; the paper was clearly cheap, and the administrator had failed to scribble out what was clearly rubbed-out remarks of the right answers. They were clearly obvious.
He acted surprised when I mentioned that the answers had already been circled/deleted/defined. But that can't be right. A rich organisation that essentially offers services to a world-class military, but they were using paper that they forgot to scrub out the answers on? What planet?
It's the second interview you need to be interested in though. Because I met the supervisor, and the manager again, and I was immediately washed in discussion. There were no immediate questions, apparently, but they were able to get completely under my skin. They offered me berries, and I went for them, and they undercut me somewhere, and I had nowhere to go but - be honest.
You CANNOT be honest in a commercial interview. Interviewers hate honesty. The most successful strategy in jobseeking is to be liberal and carefree with the truth. Don't chant slogans like "the lies will catch up with you" I wish I was a BETTER liar, I would earn more with ease. So will you. If you want to earn more in your company, learn how to lie.
However this was not the case in this second interview. After passing another round of competency tests without a hitch, I was again broken down to be honest - completely honest. Not "salestalk etc" but totally honest. I actually talked about the bad side of me, as well as the good. They got the best out they good in the interview and they were extremely good at it.
I don't care anymore that companies want honesty. From this experience, they don't and never have. Most want marketing, sales, and the "wow factor" without having any interest in the candidate. This was probably the first time ever I have experienced real interest in my personality and as a human.
So that's it. This was the most important interview I've ever had, and I have had many interviews. They opened my eyes to a different world where people were treated as people, not as subjects to pre-determined HR questions, and at the same time you could tell they were very competent at eliminating the poor candidates, the cheats, the waste-of-times. So what do you think? I don't think these people are very serious about my interview. But you?
Usually, interviewers are fairly incompetent. They are busy, fake, fail to ask the right questions, don't seem interested in the people that they are recruiting, they're under pressure, they don't care. They are flawed people, they fail to put their shine into themselves, they seem more like followers than leaders or recruiters, without imagination or creativity in their strategy.
Another annoying and irritating factor is that the employer recruiter will be laden down with competency tests and questions. In some instances, they will not only rely on them, but hide behind them. The further the test is offered in the interview, the weaker the interview is. It gives away their weakness as a recruiter and displays the company is a let down to work for because they should have entered these tests into the discussion in the first place.
But the interview I had was not normal. For a start, the first manager was an expert. I'll elaborate.
Normally interviewers are very keen about manufactured answers to their manufactured questions. This is extremely important for most interview interactions. I'd even go further, to say that jobs are no longer jobs, but the post-modern job, where most if not all of it simply depends on illusion. The more fake you are, better to get the job.
However, he seemed to be very relaxed and no-nonsense. He was apt at extracting my salestalk. In a way, he prepared and expected it. He threw away my pointless abjectives, which most interviewers feast upon. And I gave up bothering to be fake, it was an easy guard to let up because I hate it, and it's so exhausting to do so anyway.
He gave me some competency tests. They were extremely easy. I not only beat them with ease, but elaborated on them, and suggested improvements. But note: although the test itself was fairly elementary; the paper was clearly cheap, and the administrator had failed to scribble out what was clearly rubbed-out remarks of the right answers. They were clearly obvious.
He acted surprised when I mentioned that the answers had already been circled/deleted/defined. But that can't be right. A rich organisation that essentially offers services to a world-class military, but they were using paper that they forgot to scrub out the answers on? What planet?
It's the second interview you need to be interested in though. Because I met the supervisor, and the manager again, and I was immediately washed in discussion. There were no immediate questions, apparently, but they were able to get completely under my skin. They offered me berries, and I went for them, and they undercut me somewhere, and I had nowhere to go but - be honest.
You CANNOT be honest in a commercial interview. Interviewers hate honesty. The most successful strategy in jobseeking is to be liberal and carefree with the truth. Don't chant slogans like "the lies will catch up with you" I wish I was a BETTER liar, I would earn more with ease. So will you. If you want to earn more in your company, learn how to lie.
However this was not the case in this second interview. After passing another round of competency tests without a hitch, I was again broken down to be honest - completely honest. Not "salestalk etc" but totally honest. I actually talked about the bad side of me, as well as the good. They got the best out they good in the interview and they were extremely good at it.
I don't care anymore that companies want honesty. From this experience, they don't and never have. Most want marketing, sales, and the "wow factor" without having any interest in the candidate. This was probably the first time ever I have experienced real interest in my personality and as a human.
So that's it. This was the most important interview I've ever had, and I have had many interviews. They opened my eyes to a different world where people were treated as people, not as subjects to pre-determined HR questions, and at the same time you could tell they were very competent at eliminating the poor candidates, the cheats, the waste-of-times. So what do you think? I don't think these people are very serious about my interview. But you?
0
Comments
-
0 -
Originally Posted by shortcrust
"Contact the Ministry of Fairness....If sufficient evidence of unfairness is discovered you’ll get an apology, a permanent contract with backdated benefits, a ‘Let’s Make it Fair!’ tshirt and mug, and those guilty of unfairness will be sent on a Fairness Awareness course."0 -
Sounds like a vetting as much as anything. People tend to behave consistently, so owning up about the pre-filled test shows you're less likely to self-serve etc. Formulaic questions get formulaic answers, but by leaving the buzzwords behind they can see if you're a suitable fit.0
-
No women interviewers to treat as children this time then? Couldn't show the poor dears where they were going wrong? Never mind, I'm sure this panel are now far wiser as to where their interviewing skills have been letting them down all this time.All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.
Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.0 -
As an ex recruiter quite often interviewees are pretty incompetent too
But - the interviewers are asking the questions and setting the tests that they regard as important for the job they are looking to recruit for. Whatever your views them's the rules. So you can either have a think about how to fit yourself into those rules or accept that it isn't going to work for you.
To be honest, given all your posts on this you don't strike me as someone who is really serious about actually getting employment. Which will, undoubtedly, come across to interviewers who have seen a whole bunch of applicants like you0 -
I feel this a lot, often being treated as if I was an idiot in the primary stages of the interview, then seeing them hold their foreheads with a hand when it was clearly plain I wasn't a complete idiot.As an ex recruiter quite often interviewees are pretty incompetent too
As I've had so many second interviews, often conducted by the same person or a measure of them, it brushes off on me how other candidates must be presenting themselves. First of all, they must get a LOT of timewasters. So that explains the walls of sales-talk they put up. But after you climb over that, they also test you. So after you pass that, they put up another round of walls for you to climb over. And after you climb over that, you're expected to go back home and twiddle your thumbs until you get a phone call.
Could it be at LEAST described that process X will be required? Instead of dressing up the roles and responsibilities. So that it would same time for both jobseekers and employers. Then you could filter out the good from the bad easier instead of wasting time for both parties. That's how I feel about it, of course it's probably more complicated and contains more implications.But - the interviewers are asking the questions and setting the tests that they regard as important for the job they are looking to recruit for.
No, they're not. This has happened to me too many times. They will work from a surgery of scripts and in some interviews I hardly ever get any say. It's like, why bother? I might as well do this online and just type it in.
And that's not about you (you have the experience after all) but there's been too many occasions in which I just can't even get my personality across. It's so important, I have to look for gaps to try and insert it. Otherwise why not build a robot and do the job that way.
Yes, you're right again. Working out what those conditions and variables are, exactly, is not an easy task. Recruiters have tended to enforce a powerful barrier to what they are exactly trying to get me agree with. Cave-diving through what they say is an unhappy task.Whatever your views them's the rules. So you can either have a think about how to fit yourself into those rules or accept that it isn't going to work for you.
Well judging from my posts, you can see that I am a person who is enjoying the song and dance ofTo be honest, given all your posts on this you don't strike me as someone who is really serious about actually getting employment.
- building the CV
- forward the application
- pass the initial conversation
- build a relationship with recruiter
- pass the telephone interview
- go to site
- go through another interview
- pass their personality test
- pass the competency review
- another week
- get invited to a THIRD interview
- more tests
- more discussions
- "oh by the way, we have to make in-depth security tests" etc or some other bother
- told to wait another THREE weeks
- btw its entry level wage
- btw we've many applicants, you'd be lucky if we got back to you
Can you see where I am coming from? It's really unfair. I got interview offers every working day of this week, and turning up just seems like a waste of time because they can't even decide what the exact role is "We want a specialist. But a multi-tasker. And a people person. But someone who works on their own. And a reliable subordinate. But also a leader. And someone who likes routine. But you've also got to be flexible." And if I didn't write about work, why bother posting here?0 -
Pretty sureAre you absolutely sure that was the reason?
otherwise I wouldn't get the second interview with the same person makes you wonder if tomtontom has anything but insults
It's funny you should bring that up. I was supposed to meet with a I suppose semi-supervisor on site, but she called in sick. Then I had to drag myself to the correct location, and all the junior staff there were women, but luckily the management were men. Yes, that day, there were more sausages wagging in the air than a tornado on a German meat deli competition, and I was so happy. Stop attacking me personally.No women interviewers to treat as children this time then?0 -
Honestly, fella - you are doing and thinking this wrong
Yes they are setting the rules. Just because it doesn't fit in with how you perceive it should be doesn't mean they aren't. As an example I, sometimes, these days, help with interviewing volunteers at a charity where I am, also, a volunteer. We have a set of questions that we ask all applicants - personally, I am not keen on it but that's how we roll. We score people on their answers to these questions
Now you'd, most likely, poo poo that but that's how we work and recruit. So, yes, we are setting the rules and I suspect that that is how a lot of organisations work.
Okay, I might have been a bit harsh about you not really wanting a job - but what I see is someone who is a bit too much about themselves and not enough about the organisation and how you may fit into it. In the end you are getting loads of interviews and not being successful - now, either, you are very very unlucky or there is something that you are doing wrong.
Do you know anyone who is a recruiter or works for say an agency. Might be worth getting them to run through a mock interview with you and ask for their feedback. You may be surprised!0 -
Not at all. Each company has its own legion and freedom in itself to conduct itself, however it wants. It's a competitive market, you have to not only market yourself, but as a marketable person, and be prepared to fly their flag. I see a real problem with many people with that - they don't want to go that extra length for a company. But that's what you've got to do. It's really important.Now you'd, most likely, poo poo that but that's how we work and recruit. So, yes, we are setting the rules and I suspect that that is how a lot of organisations work.
Every time I've got feedback, the result was I was too quiet and not assertive enough. And it really annoyed me in my first/second week that I was researching companies and then, during the interview, they weren't interested at all. They just wanted "the right person". They couldn't define it, they couldn't explain it, but that was what they wanted, and they wanted it ASAP. In one interview (a company which is offering me their third interview for me next week) they said they needed people right now. But they couldn't work out to me what they needed. In the end, I ended up reiterating to them everything they said, and they called it a day.Okay, I might have been a bit harsh about you not really wanting a job - but what I see is someone who is a bit too much about themselves and not enough about the organisation and how you may fit into it.
You can only work on what I've said and I appreciate that it can't be easy to discuss or even advise a person in this situation. Perhaps I'm not even looking for advice. There are international forums out there which I use almost constantly and they also offer real advice, but I may be not looking for it here. A discussion is fine.
This is poor talk and I hope you do not offer this to your volunteers. Companies no longer expect workers - they expect daters. They want someone who is prepared to indulge and foster an intimate relationship. Ethos, belief, morals. It's very specific: that's how high the bar is. You can't just hire Joe Schlome anymore, and being able to do the job isn't enough; the recruiter, agency or consultancy can no longer be satisfied with that. You just thrill them, wonder them, "wow!" them. They don't want a worker - they want a movie. All the goods as cheap as they can get. So selling yourself low is a big mistake.In the end you are getting loads of interviews and not being successful - now, either, you are very very unlucky or there is something that you are doing wrong.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards