A strange interview

colazombie

Thanks! Just finished my jobsearch, got several firm offers after 3-4 weeks of searching. Glad you were all worried about me. I try

Great news! What job offers have you received? Have you decided which one to accept?

NBLondon

How the interview goes, can sometimes tell you quite a bit about the corporate culture. A lot of places have to use a standard script /scenarios for every candidate - partly to pre-empt any accusations of bias or discrimination. Which makes it very artificial and as the OP says - if you've read the books, you can come up with the standard answers. Which in turn makes it very difficult for a recruiting manager to distinguish between similar and potentially equally competent candidates. If the HR person on the panel seems to be dominant - that might be a clue that the corporate culture is very process-driven and doing it by the book counts even when that's not the best way. Some organisations and roles don't want mavericks - they'd rather have someone who delivers 90%, 90% of the time than the higher-risk option of someone who could deliver 115% but with only a 63% chance of success.


On the other hand - there are places where technical capability is less important than how well you fit into the existing team. If there are more questions about how you get on with people or how you socialise than about how you would approach Task X; that tells you that either a) almost anyone could do the job in question or b) you wouldn't have got to the interview unless it was already clear that you were competent. If you're that sort of person - great. If you're not - you'll struggle when everybody else is.

Xikams

NBLondon wrote: »

A lot of places have to use a standard script /scenarios for every candidate - partly to pre-empt any accusations of bias or discrimination. Which makes it very artificial and as the OP says - if you've read the books, you can come up with the standard answers. Which in turn makes it very difficult for a recruiting manager to distinguish between similar and potentially equally competent candidates.

Yes, most recruiters will use standard directed questions towards the interviewee. This is perfectly normal and the STAR approach is a very simple strategy to overcoming them. When the question begins as "Give an example..." this is when to use STAR. You don't need to read books; although you have to structure your reply, you do have the opportunity to be honest.

NBLondon wrote: »

If the HR person on the panel seems to be dominant - that might be a clue that the corporate culture is very process-driven and doing it by the book counts even when that's not the best way..

I would certainly deny this. My experience has shown that passive people are drawn to process, while dominant men and women will be drawn to on-demand decisions. You will find many examples of this in both small and large companies. The stronger will also be far more likely to reject their own corporate process.

colazombie wrote: »

Have you decided which one to accept?

Yes and no..

NYM wrote: »

I do hope you won't be offended, but your first paragraph is poorly written and the remainder of your post is incomprehensible.

I don't know what to say. Take English classes? They're free in some places.

Sncjw wrote: »

Maybe recruiters aren't hiring you because your picking at them with what's wrong. They wouldn't like someone first day in job to be like this and that is wrong despite the company running that way.
You waffle on too Much I was completely lost half way through.

Why not just set your own business up as maybe giving interviewers some skills in interviewing given that you know so much about them.

You're here to be baby-patted your head and to be told it's all okay. Not only have I already been hired and have further offers, but this is the kind of thing that I am talking about when it comes to "catastrophic advice". I really do appreciate how important it is to get work now and would lament with the rest of you at how needlessly complex it has become, but the truth is that individuals need answers.

Given that companies are in another tune with the demands of employees, that they expect now to offer luxury rather than work as a luxury, the candidate must also refer likewise. It's not just hard work and scraping away at stains on your knees anymore. Companies will expect to you be lavished; some will bring you on trips and take photographs and post them on the internet.

That's how far you have to sell yourself. You don't just sell yourself at the individual interview, you sell yourself forever. And your initial response at this is how they will react.

Detroit

Xikams wrote: »

Thanks! Just finished my jobsearch, got several firm offers after 3-4 weeks of searching. Glad you were all worried about me. I try!


Maybe you should apply for a job.


It's reasonable when you are using something called twisted logic, which you excelled in employing within each of your examples.


Given that the advice offered here has not only been a) not requested but given anyway (I gave most of it in my previous thread, and my advice was better) and b) so spectacularly bad that I would like to submit my second unique theory here: that all job advice is bad advice.

I think the standard of advice here is simply appalling. I'm employed within several days of jobseeking and the people here are lining up to run and fall over themselves in attempt to see who is the most pathetic. You're all giving around the most catastrophic job advice to each other. In a way, it's worked for me quite well.


I wouldn't have the patience to have you as a manager, in that case.


Now you're talking. But I think this numptys-r-us community here isn't really advanced enough for that.

In your previous thread you stated you had submitted hundreds of applications, had numerous interviews, including second interviews, but were not up to scratch. Yet you now believe your own advice on job seeking to be better than that of others.
This suggests a level of unconscious incompetence.

You state the advice you've received is appalling, but give no examples.
You theorise that all job advice is bad advice, yet offer no evidence to support this.
You are critical of the views of others with extensive knowledge and experience within the field, and resort to discourtesy and name calling rather than presenting a valid alternative perspective.

These are traits that would be undesirable in most places or work. Perhaps they were not so evident in your successful interview.

I would be (mildly) interested to know how you get on once employed.

What roles have you been offered?

Xikams

Detroit wrote: »

In your previous thread you stated you had submitted hundreds of applications, had numerous interviews, including second interviews, but were not up to scratch. Yet you now believe your own advice on job seeking to be better than that of others.
This suggests a level of unconscious incompetence.

I have navigated the minefield of employment without contacts to become a working man in a month on my own. In many aspects, I find the competence barrier to not be on my side, but the side of the recruiter. For instance:

- Their interview skills, themselves, are lacking ie. poor with details, often late, reliant on strict questions, difficulty in interaction.

- They are not clear/do not seem to know what they want. (This can sometimes become clear in the second interview.)

- Their company is in substantial difficulty with its deployment of hiring and cannot effectively deal with its personal needs upon new or prospective staff.

Hiring is not a one way street. It's fair, appreciable and reasonable to expect some failures upon the way. It is a game of attack as well as defense.

Detroit wrote: »

You state the advice you've received is appalling, but give no examples.You theorise that all job advice is bad advice, yet offer no evidence to support this

It's not only appalling, but totally disingenuous and desperate, and is designed to be in tolerant towards criticism over nothing else. Therefore, there's no point mentioning it.

Detroit wrote: »

You are critical of the views of others with extensive knowledge and experience within the field, and resort to discourtesy and name calling rather than presenting a valid alternative perspective. These are traits that would be undesirable in most places or work. Perhaps they were not so evident in your successful interview.

Just because someone is well experienced in an industry, it doesn't mean to say that they are going to be capable of offering a perspective which works for the candidate. They may have never had to fight for a job; they may know nothing at all about unemployment, nor does it prove their competency as a recruiter. And if you're looking for name-calling, I've been the subject of that recently, and never responded back.

Detroit wrote: »

I would be (mildly) interested to know how you get on once employed

Hopefully gone soon if my other application pulls through. Business is business, as they say.

Detroit wrote: »

What roles have you been offered?

.

Detroit

The people who have responded on this thread who sit on selection panels are able to give the panels perspective. Surely it is helpful to you as a candidate to gain insight into what interviewers are seeking?
Their knowledge of unemployment or competing for jobs isn't really relevant, as they don't need this to advise on the qualities and behaviours a panel would be looking for.

You use the term 'recruiter', but there is a difference between recruitment (attracting people to work for your company) and selection (choosing which of a group of people who want to work for you to employ)

It sounds as though the interviews you attended were selection, and therefore designed as a tool for the employer, rather than to meet your needs as a candidate.

The recruitment aspect will have occurred in the advert and job pack, which presumably were fit for purpose as they attracted you to apply.

While good selection interviews do offer candidates a greater insight into the company, this is not their primary purpose. They are a test of your suitability.

Obviously an interview is not without flaws, the greatest being it advantages those who have good interpersonal skills. However, knowing this, the serious job seeker is wise to hone these skills.

In your previous thread you asked the opinion of the forum, as you were failing to be selected at interview.
People have offered the benefit of their professional experience in an attempt to help you, and it is not to your credit that you then insult them.

robatwork

Wow, your two main threads in this forum have taken passive-aggressive to a whole new level.

Do you really expect people to take time to pass on their (in some cases very extensive) knowledge and advice when you clearly hold us all in contempt?

colazombie

Thanks! Just finished my jobsearch, got several firm offers after 3-4 weeks of searching.

Xikams - would you share with us what job offers you received, i'm just curious.

What decision did you make in accepting offer? When do you start your new job?

NBLondon

Xikams wrote: »

I would certainly deny this. My experience has shown that passive people are drawn to process, while dominant men and women will be drawn to on-demand decisions. You will find many examples of this in both small and large companies. The stronger will also be far more likely to reject their own corporate process.

You've slightly missed the point there X... If the HR person is the one dominant in the interview (not necessarily a dominant individual) then what does that tell you about the corporate culture? You're right - there are people who like to hide behind the process instead of making a decision and taking responsibility and if that's the primary culture of the organisation - would you fit? Probably not... Me, I'd live with it for the salary but not long-term.


It's an unfortunate reality of "does your face fit?" There's also the possibility of being perceived as a threat to those already in place. I was once turned down as a new graduate with feedback of "You're obviously going to be good at this but you're cleverer than any of the existing team and wouldn't fit in." Nice of him to be honest about it!


I once politely cut short a (second) interview because one of the panel insisted on asking how I would sell something - when it was a training manager role. There's always an element of selling yourself or your ideas once you get above drone level but that suggested to me that the culture required you to do so on a regular basis and I didn't want to do that.


Hopefully - you have now found somewhere that does fit your style. I'm suspecting a start-up where quick decisions are valued