Employment gaps shouldn't matter should they?

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:

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.

That really proves the point about interviews. There is absolutely no reason why an attractive person who does my occupation would make a better employee. 

That has nothing to do with interviews.

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

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?

Of course its about the right answer. They will have an idea of what they want to hear and what they dont want to hear. When people prepare for interviews they look into what is considered a good answer to certain questions. These answers may not necessarily be the truth in relation to you but you will give them to get the job.

Andrea_jardin

Planet_Switzerland said:

Andrea_jardin said:

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?!

Details about what? Obviously I'm not going to name him on a public forum.

The role that is becoming vacant.

AW618

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

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?

Of course its about the right answer. They will have an idea of what they want to hear and what they dont want to hear. When people prepare for interviews they look into what is considered a good answer to certain questions. These answers may not necessarily be the truth in relation to you but you will give them to get the job.

There is often not one right answer.  There are good answers and bad answers.  Answers that show a person is intelligent and thinks, and answers that show they are not.
You simply don't understand why you are being asked these questions.  I and others have tried to explain to you why it is, but you will not accept it.

k12479

donnajunkie said:
These answers may not necessarily be the truth in relation to you but you will give them to get the job.

Then you set yourself up to fail. If you and the organisation aren't compatible then you are likely to perform poorly, be unhappy and either quit or be let go.

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

Andrea_jardin said:

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?!

Details about what? Obviously I'm not going to name him on a public forum.

I believe the implication was that if this person leaves a job vacancy will arise, although why anyone would get excited about the possibility of a job vacancy for an unknown role at an unknown location is beyond me.

Andrea_jardin

AW618 said:

I believe the implication was that if this person leaves a job vacancy will arise

That's right. There are many jobseekers on this board, some of whom may be suitable. 

AW618

Andrea_jardin said:

AW618 said:

I believe the implication was that if this person leaves a job vacancy will arise

That's right. There are many jobseekers on this board, some of whom may be suitable. 

Sorry but that is almost as absurd as your stalking suggestion.  

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:

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.

That really proves the point about interviews. There is absolutely no reason why an attractive person who does my occupation would make a better employee. 

That has nothing to do with interviews.

It has everything to do with interviews. That's where your ability to do the job and work ethic count for nothing because you're too fat to be offered the job.

The discussion is about the kinds of questions that are asked at interviews.  If you now want to argue that there should be no face to face contact between employer and potential employee at all, that is an entirely different discussion.  Is that your contention?  It is fairly radical.

donnajunkie

k12479 said:

donnajunkie said:
These answers may not necessarily be the truth in relation to you but you will give them to get the job.

Then you set yourself up to fail. If you and the organisation aren't compatible then you are likely to perform poorly, be unhappy and either quit or be let go.

It depends what it is.