Employment gaps shouldn't matter should they?

donnajunkie

Smodlet said:

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.

I suspect that its just an unfair method of making it easy to pick. They could have 50 all perfectly acceptable so how do they decide? Answer? They make the interview process tougher.

AW618

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

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.

I suspect that its just an unfair method of making it easy to pick. They could have 50 all perfectly acceptable so how do they decide? Answer? They make the interview process tougher.

You have just stated what is obviously the best way to find the best candidate as though it is some evil plan.
How on earth is it unfair to choose the best people?  They don't have to give everyone who could possibly do the job an equal chance, that would be insane.  Even if they get it wrong, and nothing you have said really indicates that anyone is, they are trying to cut down the candidates to find the best, not arbitrarily exclude people.  What would be their motivation in doing that rather than, as I have already said, just binning 30 of the 50 CVs?

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

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.

I suspect that its just an unfair method of making it easy to pick. They could have 50 all perfectly acceptable so how do they decide? Answer? They make the interview process tougher.

You have just stated what is obviously the best way to find the best candidate as though it is some evil plan.
How on earth is it unfair to choose the best people?  They don't have to give everyone who could possibly do the job an equal chance, that would be insane.  Even if they get it wrong, and nothing you have said really indicates that anyone is, they are trying to cut down the candidates to find the best, not arbitrarily exclude people.  What would be their motivation in doing that rather than, as I have already said, just binning 30 of the 50 CVs?

Its the methods used. There are a mllion and one things that have become expected and alot of it is nonesense. Even the way a person shakes hands is judged. They all add up to making many struggle in an interview. An interview should be designed to enable people to demonstrate their abilities as easily as possible.

k12479

Planet_Switzerland said:
Personally speaking, I have worked in various jobs for over 20 years now...My interview record on the other hand is abysmal.

Are you sure interview skills are the issue? Reading that it sounds like you might have had a lot of short term jobs and which you may have been overqualified/skilled for.

AW618

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

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.

I suspect that its just an unfair method of making it easy to pick. They could have 50 all perfectly acceptable so how do they decide? Answer? They make the interview process tougher.

You have just stated what is obviously the best way to find the best candidate as though it is some evil plan.
How on earth is it unfair to choose the best people?  They don't have to give everyone who could possibly do the job an equal chance, that would be insane.  Even if they get it wrong, and nothing you have said really indicates that anyone is, they are trying to cut down the candidates to find the best, not arbitrarily exclude people.  What would be their motivation in doing that rather than, as I have already said, just binning 30 of the 50 CVs?

Its the methods used. There are a mllion and one things that have become expected and alot of it is nonesense. Even the way a person shakes hands is judged. They all add up to making many struggle in an interview. An interview should be designed to enable people to demonstrate their abilities as easily as possible.

They are.  They do.  They are not only deciding if you can make a window but whether you will be conscientious, pleasant to work with, intelligent and self-reliant, to name a few of many things.  Why on earth do you think they shouldn't take these into account?  There is far more to being a good employee than "being able to do the job".  That might be enough to make you a satisfactory employee, but nobody sets out to hire satisfactory people, they set their sights a bit higher.  And most of the time it works for them.

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

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.

I suspect that its just an unfair method of making it easy to pick. They could have 50 all perfectly acceptable so how do they decide? Answer? They make the interview process tougher.

You have just stated what is obviously the best way to find the best candidate as though it is some evil plan.
How on earth is it unfair to choose the best people?  They don't have to give everyone who could possibly do the job an equal chance, that would be insane.  Even if they get it wrong, and nothing you have said really indicates that anyone is, they are trying to cut down the candidates to find the best, not arbitrarily exclude people.  What would be their motivation in doing that rather than, as I have already said, just binning 30 of the 50 CVs?

It isn't the best way to find the best candidate though. Maybe it's a good way if it's for a sales job or something similar where it's about your ability to talk the talk.

Personally speaking, I have worked in various jobs for over 20 years now and have been considered a good worker in the vast majority of them both in terms of ability to do the job and work ethic. I have received awards for my work, I was acknowledged by the MD in my last job for the great work I did on the first project I worked on there, I was employee of the month twice in a 6 month maternity cover job, I was offered a permanent job after 2 days in a 2 week temporary job because they'd never known anyone to pick up the job so quickly. 

My interview record on the other hand is abysmal. I've now had 30 failed interviews in the last 2.5 years, got feedback from the latest one today.

I've only had one job where they would probably say I was rubbish. The funny thing about that particular job was that I was offered the job there and then at the interview such was the impression I made.

I know the obvious thing to do is try and get better at interviews but that's easier said than done. But even if I do somehow manage to get better at interviews, it won't mean I'd be any better at my job.

It is usually the way to find the best candidate.  However many times you repeat your personal anecdotes they remain your personal anecdotes, and even if you are as good as you think you are and it really is just office poltics that your current employers don't trust you do the things you think you can do,  someone that good who is awful at interviews is rare enough that they don't care if they miss out on you.

Andrea_jardin

Planet_Switzerland said:

My interview record on the other hand is abysmal. I've now had 30 failed interviews in the last 2.5 years, got feedback from the latest one today.

And how many successful interviews?

I think on average the chance of getting an advertised job is less than 1% so 30 failed interviews is maybe not as bad as you think.

TELLIT01

The scenario questions can be 'interesting'.  I had a situation where the job would have involved managing a number of volunteers in an organisation.  I was asked how I would handle a situation where one of the volunteers was being extremely disruptive, refusing to accept a new way of working, but was a close friend of one of the directors of the organisation.  My response was that I would attempt to find out why they were acting in the way they were and turn their attitude around.  If that failed I would look to 'manage them out' with the approval of members of the management team above me.  The look of horror on the face of one of the interview panel suggested that wasn't the answer they wanted.  Despite this being the 3rd interview, and me having spent part of the day with person who's job I would be taking on (they were moving to another role), and seeing my name in that person's diary for a few weeks hence, I didn't get the job.  In hindsight not a bad thing as, if managers are scared to discipline staff because of who they know, they are pretty gutless.

Andrea_jardin

TELLIT01 said:

I was asked how I would handle a situation where one of the volunteers was being extremely disruptive, refusing to accept a new way of working, but was a close friend of one of the directors of the organisation.  My response was that I would attempt to find out why they were acting in the way they were and turn their attitude around.  If that failed I would look to 'manage them out' with the approval of members of the management team above me.  The look of horror on the face of one of the interview panel suggested that wasn't the answer they wanted. 

The answer is probably to find out where the new way of working came from, and suggest to your management team that you go back to the old way.

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Smodlet said:

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.

I suspect that its just an unfair method of making it easy to pick. They could have 50 all perfectly acceptable so how do they decide? Answer? They make the interview process tougher.

You have just stated what is obviously the best way to find the best candidate as though it is some evil plan.
How on earth is it unfair to choose the best people?  They don't have to give everyone who could possibly do the job an equal chance, that would be insane.  Even if they get it wrong, and nothing you have said really indicates that anyone is, they are trying to cut down the candidates to find the best, not arbitrarily exclude people.  What would be their motivation in doing that rather than, as I have already said, just binning 30 of the 50 CVs?

Its the methods used. There are a mllion and one things that have become expected and alot of it is nonesense. Even the way a person shakes hands is judged. They all add up to making many struggle in an interview. An interview should be designed to enable people to demonstrate their abilities as easily as possible.

They are.  They do.  They are not only deciding if you can make a window but whether you will be conscientious, pleasant to work with, intelligent and self-reliant, to name a few of many things.  Why on earth do you think they shouldn't take these into account?  There is far more to being a good employee than "being able to do the job".  That might be enough to make you a satisfactory employee, but nobody sets out to hire satisfactory people, they set their sights a bit higher.  And most of the time it works for them.

The silliness does not tell them that about you. It tells them whether you are good at interviews.