Employment gaps shouldn't matter should they?

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

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.

We all know they dont care. However it does go towards backing up my stance that alot of what happens in an interview is unfair. I agree more will get through it ok than dont but it still serves the purpose i suggest of reducing the list. The issue is its by flawed, unfair methods.

theoretica

Planet_Switzerland said:

 When you need your car fixing, you don't ring up mechanics and say "Tell me about a time when you had a disagreement with a colleague and what steps did you take to resolve it?" because you know their ability to answer that question has no bearing on their ability to fix your car. If that was the criteria people did use when picking a mechanic then people who are great at answering those questions but know nothing about cars will start opening garages and do a shoddy job of fixing peoples cars.

To recruit the way I choose mechanics would be by recommendation - calling the managers of the candidates I am thinking of shortlisting and asking if they would recommend them.  I wonder how many candidates would not feel able to apply if this was the known recruitment method.

donnajunkie

theoretica said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

 When you need your car fixing, you don't ring up mechanics and say "Tell me about a time when you had a disagreement with a colleague and what steps did you take to resolve it?" because you know their ability to answer that question has no bearing on their ability to fix your car. If that was the criteria people did use when picking a mechanic then people who are great at answering those questions but know nothing about cars will start opening garages and do a shoddy job of fixing peoples cars.

To recruit the way I choose mechanics would be by recommendation - calling the managers of the candidates I am thinking of shortlisting and asking if they would recommend them.  I wonder how many candidates would not feel able to apply if this was the known recruitment method.

Problems with that are they may not have got on with the manager. Also being concerned of their own reputation the manager may hesitate in recommending some people even though they would be ok.

AW618

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

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.

We all know they dont care. However it does go towards backing up my stance that alot of what happens in an interview is unfair. I agree more will get through it ok than dont but it still serves the purpose i suggest of reducing the list. The issue is its by flawed, unfair methods.

Please tell me why it is unfair to find the best person.  You simply refuse to address any of the points I have repeatedly made telling you why these questions allow them to chosoe a more suitable individual, instead  repeating again and again that it is "just being good at interviews".  it isn't.  It is at the very least being good at relating to other people, showing basic sense and thinking on your feet and if those things are not important in the jobs you are applying for, then I don't know what jobs those could be.

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

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.

I don't think I am a rare case. When you need your car fixing, you don't ring up mechanics and say "Tell me about a time when you had a disagreement with a colleague and what steps did you take to resolve it?" because you know their ability to answer that question has no bearing on their ability to fix your car. If that was the criteria people did use when picking a mechanic then people who are great at answering those questions but know nothing about cars will start opening garages and do a shoddy job of fixing peoples cars.

No, you don't.  You know why?  Because you only have to deal with them once for a short period.
If you want to employ a mechanic, though, finding out whether he is likely to turn your workplace into a seething pit of resentment and conflict is a good idea, as it will clearly interfere with the ability of your business to fix cars.
I mean, surely you can see that, can't you?

Smodlet

The interview process is supposed to be easy... For the interviewers.  Why should they make it "easy" for the applicants?  Maybe the job is not easy and they want to find someone who does not need to be guided through the whole process.

The fact remains, employers want to find someone they think will do well in the job as quickly and cheaply as possible; they do not necessarily need to find "the best" candidate, just one who is good enough for their purposes.  Why should they care if 200 people apply for one vacancy?  They are not going to interview more than ten or a dozen, are they?  Any more would be a waste of their time and, more importantly, money.

To anyone who thinks the process is unfair, there are ways to improve your skills such as online tutorials and mock interviews, among other things.  You could even try asking someone you know who has interviewing experience to give you a mock interview and instant feedback.  If nothing else, it might make you a little less nervous if you have had recent experience of being in that sort of atmosphere.

You just have to believe there is something better out there and keep on looking until you find it or settle for what you already have.  Apologies for stating the obvious.

Andrea_jardin

I think also that getting to interview stage is an achievement is in itself, many don't get past first base.

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

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.

I don't think I am a rare case. When you need your car fixing, you don't ring up mechanics and say "Tell me about a time when you had a disagreement with a colleague and what steps did you take to resolve it?" because you know their ability to answer that question has no bearing on their ability to fix your car. If that was the criteria people did use when picking a mechanic then people who are great at answering those questions but know nothing about cars will start opening garages and do a shoddy job of fixing peoples cars.

No, you don't.  You know why?  Because you only have to deal with them once for a short period.
If you want to employ a mechanic, though, finding out whether he is likely to turn your workplace into a seething pit of resentment and conflict is a good idea, as it will clearly interfere with the ability of your business to fix cars.
I mean, surely you can see that, can't you?

I don't think there are that many people out there who will turn your workplace into a seething put of resentment and conflict. I do however think those people tend to be ones who have no problem getting through interviews. 

Look, I get that an employer needs to meet a candidate before giving them the job and that they want to get an idea of whether they can do the job and whether they'll get along with others. In reality your typical job interview questions don't tell you either of those, they just tell you whether someones good at interviews or not. I've been the other side of the fence myself, it told me nothing about what the candidate would be like at their job.

You keep saying this, no matter how many times it is explained to you that it tells you far more than that.  Why are you so convinced that being able to think and adapt or prepare are no use in any job?  

Let's turn it round,  in what way are you "bad at interviews"?  Tell me why and I will try and explain why that makes you a  less desirable employee.

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

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.

We all know they dont care. However it does go towards backing up my stance that alot of what happens in an interview is unfair. I agree more will get through it ok than dont but it still serves the purpose i suggest of reducing the list. The issue is its by flawed, unfair methods.

Please tell me why it is unfair to find the best person.  You simply refuse to address any of the points I have repeatedly made telling you why these questions allow them to chosoe a more suitable individual, instead  repeating again and again that it is "just being good at interviews".  it isn't.  It is at the very least being good at relating to other people, showing basic sense and thinking on your feet and if those things are not important in the jobs you are applying for, then I don't know what jobs those could be.

Because those aspects are just about using a lazy way to shorten the list to make their job easier. The aspects that are relevant are what is used to identify suitable candidates, the rest is to shorten the list. If i was a maths teacher going for a job they could ask me a load of questions about english which would require thinking on my feet etc and i may well get most correct. If you think me getting a load of english questions correct tells them that i would be a good maths teacher then thats your prerogative.

donnajunkie

Smodlet said:

The interview process is supposed to be easy... For the interviewers.  Why should they make it "easy" for the applicants?  Maybe the job is not easy and they want to find someone who does not need to be guided through the whole process.

The fact remains, employers want to find someone they think will do well in the job as quickly and cheaply as possible; they do not necessarily need to find "the best" candidate, just one who is good enough for their purposes.  Why should they care if 200 people apply for one vacancy?  They are not going to interview more than ten or a dozen, are they?  Any more would be a waste of their time and, more importantly, money.

To anyone who thinks the process is unfair, there are ways to improve your skills such as online tutorials and mock interviews, among other things.  You could even try asking someone you know who has interviewing experience to give you a mock interview and instant feedback.  If nothing else, it might make you a little less nervous if you have had recent experience of being in that sort of atmosphere.

You just have to believe there is something better out there and keep on looking until you find it or settle for what you already have.  Apologies for stating the obvious.

It should only be as tough as it needs to be to find out the needed information. Its not meant to be a form of torture.
and yeah you can practice interviews but its a skill and some just arent good at it like some wont be good at bricklaying no matter how many bricklaying courses they do.