Employment gaps shouldn't matter should they?

Andrea_jardin

donnajunkie said: I know of a company where you had failed before you even got there just because you didnt phone in advance to ask what the interview would involve.

That's interesting, almost like they have far too many applicants and have no idea how to distinguish them so they choose an arbitrary reason.

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

Smodlet said:

Back in the day, I used to think exactly the way donnajunkie seems to from her posts.  Time passed, I read a whole load of stuff on this thread and realised that no-one is entitled to a job, no matter what skills they may have or how clever they may think they are:  Employers have it all their own way.  Short of getting into the T.A.R.D.I.S. and going back to the early 1970s, that ain't changing any time soon.

I can only agree with all the posts which say performance at interview indicates potential performance in job.  Who is going to hire someone who failed at interview stage over someone who acquitted themselves well?  It is completely unreasonable to imagine that would ever happen.

Being good at interviews doesn't mean being good at the job. I once worked with someone who was completely useless at his job. One client was about to renew their contract but changed their mind and went to a competitor, citing him as the reason. Another client wanted to terminate their contract following a meeting with him, but legally they couldn't. He also sent one clients reports to another client which obviously didn't go down too well. Aside from his incompetence, he was a very strange person and made some people feel uncomfortable. Needless to say he didn't get through his probation and was gone after 3 months. The person who interviewed him told me afterwards that he seemed the best candidate by far at the interview.

As I have said several times now, it's a matter of balance of probability.  When you have to decide between two options you take the option that works out most often, knowing full well that there are times when it will be wrong.  There will just be fewer times when it is wrong than when it is right.

AW618

Andrea_jardin said:

donnajunkie said: I know of a company where you had failed before you even got there just because you didnt phone in advance to ask what the interview would involve.

That's interesting, almost like they have far too many applicants and have no idea how to distinguish them so they choose an arbitrary reason.

While I don't think that is a particularly sensible tactic, it is certainly not arbitrary.  Those who called in advance to ask what form the interview would take have shown an active initiative which those who didn't have not shown.

If you have far too many applicants you bin all the remaining CVs once you have found a handful of viable candidates, you don't invite them all to interview and waste everybody's time.

AW618

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

Back in the day, I used to think exactly the way donnajunkie seems to from her posts.  Time passed, I read a whole load of stuff on this thread and realised that no-one is entitled to a job, no matter what skills they may have or how clever they may think they are:  Employers have it all their own way.  Short of getting into the T.A.R.D.I.S. and going back to the early 1970s, that ain't changing any time soon.

I can only agree with all the posts which say performance at interview indicates potential performance in job.  Who is going to hire someone who failed at interview stage over someone who acquitted themselves well?  It is completely unreasonable to imagine that would ever happen.

Yes no one is entitled to a job. That does not mean its right to take the wee wee. I know its the reality.
yes of course they are not going to hire someone who fails in interview but there's no need to set people up to fail. I know of a company where you had failed before you even got there just because you didnt phone in advance to ask what the interview would involve.

If they actually do this, and I would question whether you have the situation absolutely correct, than the only thing that would be wrong about it is that they waste your (and their)  time by letting you turn up.  If this is what they choose to do and they told people before the interview not to bother coming after all, then that is entirely up to them.  They are not "setting anyone up to fail".  What on earth do you think would make companies waste their time inviting people to interviews and then "setting them up to fail"?

Spendless

I have had to adapt my CV to cover this because I have had several jobs that have ended on Dec 31st. If you put the year and then it's taken a while to get another job it looks like you could have had nearly 2 years out of work. Any jobs like that either have the date and/or the reason (redundancy/workplace closed down/company lost contract) on mine now.  

Undervalued

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

Back in the day, I used to think exactly the way donnajunkie seems to from her posts.  Time passed, I read a whole load of stuff on this thread and realised that no-one is entitled to a job, no matter what skills they may have or how clever they may think they are:  Employers have it all their own way.  Short of getting into the T.A.R.D.I.S. and going back to the early 1970s, that ain't changing any time soon.

I can only agree with all the posts which say performance at interview indicates potential performance in job.  Who is going to hire someone who failed at interview stage over someone who acquitted themselves well?  It is completely unreasonable to imagine that would ever happen.

Yes no one is entitled to a job. That does not mean its right to take the wee wee. I know its the reality.
yes of course they are not going to hire someone who fails in interview but there's no need to set people up to fail. I know of a company where you had failed before you even got there just because you didnt phone in advance to ask what the interview would involve.

If they actually do this, and I would question whether you have the situation absolutely correct, than the only thing that would be wrong about it is that they waste your (and their)  time by letting you turn up.  If this is what they choose to do and they told people before the interview not to bother coming after all, then that is entirely up to them.  They are not "setting anyone up to fail".  What on earth do you think would make companies waste their time inviting people to interviews and then "setting them up to fail"?

Sadly it is certainly the case that some organisations do invite people to interviews even when it is already cut and dried who will get the job. I suppose they could argue that it is possible the preferred candidate may unexpectedly pull out, but otherwise it is a charade and just putting on a pretence of doing the "right thing".

Otherwise, as I said many pages back, apart from a few legal restrictions (mainly unlawful discrimination) an employer can use whatever criteria they like in deciding who to employ.

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

Back in the day, I used to think exactly the way donnajunkie seems to from her posts.  Time passed, I read a whole load of stuff on this thread and realised that no-one is entitled to a job, no matter what skills they may have or how clever they may think they are:  Employers have it all their own way.  Short of getting into the T.A.R.D.I.S. and going back to the early 1970s, that ain't changing any time soon.

I can only agree with all the posts which say performance at interview indicates potential performance in job.  Who is going to hire someone who failed at interview stage over someone who acquitted themselves well?  It is completely unreasonable to imagine that would ever happen.

Yes no one is entitled to a job. That does not mean its right to take the wee wee. I know its the reality.
yes of course they are not going to hire someone who fails in interview but there's no need to set people up to fail. I know of a company where you had failed before you even got there just because you didnt phone in advance to ask what the interview would involve.

If they actually do this, and I would question whether you have the situation absolutely correct, than the only thing that would be wrong about it is that they waste your (and their)  time by letting you turn up.  If this is what they choose to do and they told people before the interview not to bother coming after all, then that is entirely up to them.  They are not "setting anyone up to fail".  What on earth do you think would make companies waste their time inviting people to interviews and then "setting them up to fail"?

I got the information from a training instructor who had been in charge of recruitment for the company in question. Its a big national company as well.

Andrea_jardin

donnajunkie said: I got the information from a training instructor who had been in charge of recruitment for the company in question. Its a big national company as well.

Sounds like a good person to know. Any tips he gave to you? That the rest of us can learn from?!

Smodlet

I am no authority but I have heard it is expensive to advertise vacancies and to recruit candidates ergo, it does not make much sense to "set people up to fail" at interviews when the purpose is to find someone to do a job, not to go on a power trip; I am not saying this never happens.

donnajunkie

Andrea_jardin said:

donnajunkie said: I got the information from a training instructor who had been in charge of recruitment for the company in question. Its a big national company as well.

Sounds like a good person to know. Any tips he gave to you? That the rest of us can learn from?!

I only knew them for the duration of the course.