Employment gaps shouldn't matter should they?

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

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.

No, that is a basic, simple fact that everybody knows.  Being able to think on your feet and react makes you a better teacher than someone who can't do that.  Most interviewees will be "able to do the job", you want the one that can go beyond performing  the basics adequately. 
Why do you refuse to accept that having these common, transferable skills can make someone a better employee?  This is not difficult, but you just repeat yourself over and over again.  Listen to what people say to you, think, and react.  That might make you better at interviews.

You don't seem to think anything asked could be unreasonable or seen as setting people up. i say this because you can fall back on the default of it tests how well they think on their feet. They are questions where you cant know what sort of answer they are looking for. Fair questions are those where you can use your common sense and knowledge to form a good answer. I will give you another example of a set up question that you no doubt see as thinking on your feet. A person i know got asked what their favourite swear word is. Now you have no idea whether they want you to say one or whether they want you to come across as sensible and say you dont swear.

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

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.

Does this mean if i prepared for and passed a driving test i would get offered an accountants job? And if i failed to prepare and failed the driving test i would be no good as an accountant even if i had a phd in accountancy?
they can get rid of the silly questions and if you do well that would show you prepared well.

No, of course it doesn't.  But if you have two accountants and one can drive and the other can't, and they are otherwise identical, you would hire the one who can drive if there is the slightest chance that their driving would ever be useful to the business, even to the extent of getting them there if public transport went on strike.  Why wouldn't you?

You can turn anything in your favour. You should be a politician.

donnajunkie

theoretica said:

donnajunkie said:

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.

From the employer's point of view doing the recruitment fast and easily is the recruiter doing their job well, so long as the person recruited is good.  Their job is to serve the business, not the candidates. Once the recruiter has established that they have several candidates who all have good job skills they need to choose between them - somehow.  They could simply pull a name out of a hat, but generally they look beyond the core job skills to other things which they think could be of advantage to the business.

In your example, if a school is choosing between several good maths teachers it makes complete sense to look at their English skills.  It is useful if the maths teacher could cover for English lessons if needed, it is good for students and school if all their teachers have good English.

I just meant questioning them on something they arent knowledgable of rather than focusing on what the job requires, knowledge of the subject, how they talk to kids, how they discipline kids, how they would deal with certain scenarios that can arise in the job. Then maybe ask a couple of questions related to hobbies to get an idea how personable they are.

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

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.

It may have it's uses, but it says nothing about their ability to do the job or even what they're like as a person. It may show they prepare, but I'm sure the people who give a weak answer have also prepared too.

I'd say 30 failed interviews in the last 2 years is evident enough that I'm bad at interviews. Last weeks interview said that I didn't give solid enough examples. Other interviews have been along the lines of not the right type of experience or better candidates generally speaking. Annoyingly some have implied I don't have experience that I do have, others are along the lines of you drive a red car but this job involves driving a blue car.

There have been other interviews where I've messed up on a presentation or a test. In my job I've presented to the management board, at conferences and company wide presentations, but I've never found any of them as intimidating as presenting at an interview. The way things have gone in recent years in my job together with the number of rejections I've had has made it worse. That's why I'm messing up the tests too, the last one I did is something I've done many times before.

So at the very least, you are poor under pressure.  Why not hire someone who is as good as you generally but better under pressure?  How can the company lose from that?
Incidentally, if they say you didn't have experience that you do have, they are probably covering up the fact that they didn't want you for some more personal reason which is something they are never going to say directly.  There is absolutely no advantage to them in doing so.

Some can handle pressure in all situations. Some cant handle pressure in any situation but i suspect most are a mixture.

AW618

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

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.

No, that is a basic, simple fact that everybody knows.  Being able to think on your feet and react makes you a better teacher than someone who can't do that.  Most interviewees will be "able to do the job", you want the one that can go beyond performing  the basics adequately. 
Why do you refuse to accept that having these common, transferable skills can make someone a better employee?  This is not difficult, but you just repeat yourself over and over again.  Listen to what people say to you, think, and react.  That might make you better at interviews.

You don't seem to think anything asked could be unreasonable or seen as setting people up. i say this because you can fall back on the default of it tests how well they think on their feet. They are questions where you cant know what sort of answer they are looking for. Fair questions are those where you can use your common sense and knowledge to form a good answer. I will give you another example of a set up question that you no doubt see as thinking on your feet. A person i know got asked what their favourite swear word is. Now you have no idea whether they want you to say one or whether they want you to come across as sensible and say you dont swear.

It's not about giving the right answer.  Sometimes there is no right answer.  It's about how you approach responding.  If you sit there sulking because you think you don't know what they want you to say, that says a tremendous amount about you compared to someone who says "I'm sorry, I've never really thought about that, I couldn't really tell you."
Can you honestly not see this?

theoretica

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

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.

No, that is a basic, simple fact that everybody knows.  Being able to think on your feet and react makes you a better teacher than someone who can't do that.  Most interviewees will be "able to do the job", you want the one that can go beyond performing  the basics adequately. 
Why do you refuse to accept that having these common, transferable skills can make someone a better employee?  This is not difficult, but you just repeat yourself over and over again.  Listen to what people say to you, think, and react.  That might make you better at interviews.

You don't seem to think anything asked could be unreasonable or seen as setting people up. i say this because you can fall back on the default of it tests how well they think on their feet. They are questions where you cant know what sort of answer they are looking for. Fair questions are those where you can use your common sense and knowledge to form a good answer. I will give you another example of a set up question that you no doubt see as thinking on your feet. A person i know got asked what their favourite swear word is. Now you have no idea whether they want you to say one or whether they want you to come across as sensible and say you dont swear.

I would agree with you - when interviewing for the sort of job where the employee would not be expected to deal with anything unexpected. That sort of job isn't what comes to my personal mind when I think of jobs or interviews.

k12479

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

A person i know got asked what their favourite swear word is. Now you have no idea whether they want you to say one or whether they want you to come across as sensible and say you dont swear.

It's not about giving the right answer.  Sometimes there is no right answer.  It's about how you approach responding.  If you sit there sulking because you think you don't know what they want you to say, that says a tremendous amount about you compared to someone who says "I'm sorry, I've never really thought about that, I couldn't really tell you."
Can you honestly not see this?

At first glance that's a poorly thought out example of the not-uncommon hypothetical question, but it's actually quite good.

If you don't want to get a job, say: "Dunno"
For abattoirs, construction sites and the like try: "B*stard"
For funeral directors, cabin crew, private bankers, etc. say: "I don't swear so I certainly don't have any favourites"
For professional jobs say: "It's not something I've ever really thought about, but I would say the F-word. It's short, to the point and, having different meanings depending on the context, is very versatile."

It's a question that shows thinking but also fit. If what they want to hear doesn't match up with what you want to say then it's an indication that you and the organisation may not be a good fit.

k12479

Planet_Switzerland said:
....perfectly good candidates that my boss hasn't wanted for all sorts of reasons like they're too old, too loud, too quiet and various other things that really don't matter. 

They all matter.

A 58-year old is unlikely to fit in well with colleagues and customers who are mostly 20-somethings.
A person that's too quiet may struggle in a role requiring assertiveness or in putting forward their views and ideas
A person that's too loud can be seen as disruptive and as someone who speaks without thinking first.

You are thinking "can they do the tasks this role entails", your boss is thinking "can they do this role, will they fit in the team and the organisation, do they have potential to progress, etc. etc."

Andrea_jardin

Planet_Switzerland said: Out of all the people we have given the job to, only one person remains and he's actively looking for a new job.

Sounds like an opportunity - care to share details?!

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

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.

It may have it's uses, but it says nothing about their ability to do the job or even what they're like as a person. It may show they prepare, but I'm sure the people who give a weak answer have also prepared too.

I'd say 30 failed interviews in the last 2 years is evident enough that I'm bad at interviews. Last weeks interview said that I didn't give solid enough examples. Other interviews have been along the lines of not the right type of experience or better candidates generally speaking. Annoyingly some have implied I don't have experience that I do have, others are along the lines of you drive a red car but this job involves driving a blue car.

There have been other interviews where I've messed up on a presentation or a test. In my job I've presented to the management board, at conferences and company wide presentations, but I've never found any of them as intimidating as presenting at an interview. The way things have gone in recent years in my job together with the number of rejections I've had has made it worse. That's why I'm messing up the tests too, the last one I did is something I've done many times before.

So at the very least, you are poor under pressure.  Why not hire someone who is as good as you generally but better under pressure?  How can the company lose from that?
Incidentally, if they say you didn't have experience that you do have, they are probably covering up the fact that they didn't want you for some more personal reason which is something they are never going to say directly.  There is absolutely no advantage to them in doing so.

It depends what sort of pressure, if I'm put under pressure in the job itself I'm fine. If they have a personal reason for not hiring me why wouldn't they say something like not a cultural fit? Not disagreeing, just seems an odd reason to give if it's personal when there are other legitimate reasons you could give.

Because "We thought he was dull as a brush" or "I just didn't like looking at him"  or "he bored me rigid" are not  things anyone is going to say.

None of these are things that would make me bad at my job. It's a notoriously boring profession so being boring would show you're suitable for it and I'm not a model so they way I look shouldn't matter either.

Firstly, for the one hundred and seventieth time, it's not just about "being able to do the job".
Secondly, the way you look shouldn't matter, but of course, it does.  This is absolutely nothing to do with the original question, of course, but comes from your tangent about the feedback you are getting,  It is a matter of fact that people considered to be fat, or short, or unattractive are far less likely to be offered a position than somebody tall, slim or attractive.  None of those people will ever be given that as the reason.  They will be given some made up reason that doesn't make the company look bad.  When receiving feedback that doesn't make sense your automatic assumption should be that whatever their reason really was, it is one they don't want to say.