Employment gaps shouldn't matter should they?

theoretica

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

Unfortunately when a gap is queried you cant answer with, i was unemployed you stupid (not nice word) idiot. Spending a period out of work doesnt suddenly make me become useless you daft (not nice word).

No, but they get an hour, maybe, to talk to you.  You can't find out all that much about a person in that time, and if they start to think that over a long period a lot of people have interviewed you and decided not to take you on, they might err on the side of caution, think those people might have seen something they didn't and go with somebody else.  I am not saying they are right to do this, but it is not illogical.

i just think sometimes people can ask silly questions, sometimes they can be horrible and sometimes its like they dont live in the real world. Just because someone hasnt spent their time out learning to speak japanese at college it doesnt make them worthless. Oh and dont waste a persons time inviting them for interview if a gap on their cv really bothers you that much because the chances are they were just struggling through life on benefits.

Well that's the thing - it's not necessarily that they were doing anything worse than that.  But why couldn't they get a job, if they were looking for one?  It is a reasonable question for an employer to ask themselves.  
The answer an interviewer is hoping for is one that shows you were not trying to get a job; not that you were doing somethnig "improving" with your time.

They should be preoccupied with finding out if you can do the job and not why you are bad at finding work. Well unless jobseeking skills are relevant the job you are applying for.

As I have said already, they have limited time to talk to you.  If numerous other interviewers have passed on you, then that is something that can reasonably be taken into account.  You would have had different conversations with them and revealed different things.

i think a lot of interview questions are lazy ways of reducing the list of potential candidates. you could have 50 applicants all capable of the job so how do you decide. i know, ask them what their weakness is and automatically rule out all that dont give a good answer.

Asking people what their weakness is weeds out the people who have not prepared a good answer to that question, which everyone expects.  If you don't have a reasonable answer to that interview question then the chances are you won't be very good at anything.

Yes but my point is they throw in a load of irrelevant questions designed to trip you up with the purpose of shortening the list. If they ask relevant questions and you dont give a good answer then it is valid to hold it against you. To be fair there are some employers that dont go in for all the nonesense and take a more down to earth common sense approach.

I really don't get where you are coming from.  They want to shorten the list by finding the right person.  If they ask a question you struggle to answer, it broadly shows that people who can answer it well have better "soft" skills than you. Even if it's an irrelevant factual question, you can learn a lot from somebody's response - someone who sits there sullenly feeling they have been  "caught out"  is likely to deal with all difficulties in that way, someone who says "Oh, I am afraid I don't know, I haven't come across that, what is the answer?" is likely to be a much better bet.
Interviewers want to find the best person for the job. There are bad interviewers, but even they are usually working to a plan even if you can't see what it is.

My point is asking things that dont matter only proves whether you are good at interviews. Failing to give a good answer relevant to the job can tell them you arent up to it. If you can do the job it will be fairly easy to give good answers connected to it. Therefore they create questions they know will trip up some people. Its a lazy and cruel way to shorten the list. Dealing with the pressures of an interview is not the same as dealing with the pressures of the job unless the job involves answering awkward questions all day.

Yes and no, they need some way of choosing between people they think can do the job and that often involves who they think will be best for the business - so as mentioned trying to avoid people who will leave soon and to find people who will fit into the existing team.  Many questions which are less directly related to the job do help decide whether the interviewers want to spend the next years working with that candidate.

donnajunkie

k12479 said:

donnajunkie said:
My point is asking things that dont matter only proves whether you are good at interviews....If you can do the job it will be fairly easy to give good answers connected to it.

I think you might be viewing the process a bit too narrowly. The conventional job application and interview process is hugely flawed, but that alternative methods aren't commonplace suggests there isn't really a better way of doing it, so far.

Secondly, whether someone 'can do' the job is not necessarily the top hiring priority. Whether someone 'fits' the organisation is often more important. Specifics of the role can be easily taught, attitude, ambition, social skills, initiative, etc. are much harder. The irritating "what are your weaknesses?" is one way to attempt to figure that out. Asking questions directly related to the job like "how do you make a pivot table in Excel?" tells hiring managers little about you as a person and whether you'd fit or not or your future potential in the business.

I think that can be done without setting people up. You can give example scenarios and ask what they would do as a way to find out what they are like and what kind of attitude they have. Also I think a good interviewer talks to a person in a normal way and puts them at ease. A bit of time talking in a good atmosphere will help you get an idea what the person is like.

AW618

donnajunkie said:

k12479 said:

donnajunkie said:
My point is asking things that dont matter only proves whether you are good at interviews....If you can do the job it will be fairly easy to give good answers connected to it.

I think you might be viewing the process a bit too narrowly. The conventional job application and interview process is hugely flawed, but that alternative methods aren't commonplace suggests there isn't really a better way of doing it, so far.

Secondly, whether someone 'can do' the job is not necessarily the top hiring priority. Whether someone 'fits' the organisation is often more important. Specifics of the role can be easily taught, attitude, ambition, social skills, initiative, etc. are much harder. The irritating "what are your weaknesses?" is one way to attempt to figure that out. Asking questions directly related to the job like "how do you make a pivot table in Excel?" tells hiring managers little about you as a person and whether you'd fit or not or your future potential in the business.

I think that can be done without setting people up. You can give example scenarios and ask what they would do as a way to find out what they are like and what kind of attitude they have. Also I think a good interviewer talks to a person in a normal way and puts them at ease. A bit of time talking in a good atmosphere will help you get an idea what the person is like.

Give an example of the kind of question you think "sets people up", and someone can probably tell you what that question is trying to achieve.  As I say with the weaknesses one it is whether you have prepared, as everyone knows that might be coming and if you don't have an answer it's because you havent bothered to spend five minutes googling for a decent one.

k12479

donnajunkie said:
I think that can be done without setting people up. You can give example scenarios and ask what they would do as a way to find out what they are like and what kind of attitude they have. Also I think a good interviewer talks to a person in a normal way and puts them at ease. A bit of time talking in a good atmosphere will help you get an idea what the person is like.

Scenarios are used, typically in case studies and role plays but these take a lot of time (and therefore money) so are normally used in later rounds and for higher level roles. For lower level roles and in shorter sittings, example scenarios are pretty meaningless as they just demonstrate a basic knowledge of a process or an approach, not an ability to actually do it or of experience in doing it.

As AW618 implies, "what are your weaknesses?" is not a set up, it's a really standard question, it just needs two or three examples prepared and in pretty much any interview one or two of them can be pulled out. The weakness isn't even really that important, unless it directly impacts upon the role, it's about a) having an answer and b) showing you've done something to improve upon the weakness.

As for 'a bit of time talking', don't forget that interviews have to be structured so candidates can be compared with some objectivity, hence the list of prepared questions, and that time is limited.

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

k12479 said:

donnajunkie said:
My point is asking things that dont matter only proves whether you are good at interviews....If you can do the job it will be fairly easy to give good answers connected to it.

I think you might be viewing the process a bit too narrowly. The conventional job application and interview process is hugely flawed, but that alternative methods aren't commonplace suggests there isn't really a better way of doing it, so far.

Secondly, whether someone 'can do' the job is not necessarily the top hiring priority. Whether someone 'fits' the organisation is often more important. Specifics of the role can be easily taught, attitude, ambition, social skills, initiative, etc. are much harder. The irritating "what are your weaknesses?" is one way to attempt to figure that out. Asking questions directly related to the job like "how do you make a pivot table in Excel?" tells hiring managers little about you as a person and whether you'd fit or not or your future potential in the business.

I think that can be done without setting people up. You can give example scenarios and ask what they would do as a way to find out what they are like and what kind of attitude they have. Also I think a good interviewer talks to a person in a normal way and puts them at ease. A bit of time talking in a good atmosphere will help you get an idea what the person is like.

Give an example of the kind of question you think "sets people up", and someone can probably tell you what that question is trying to achieve.  As I say with the weaknesses one it is whether you have prepared, as everyone knows that might be coming and if you don't have an answer it's because you havent bothered to spend five minutes googling for a decent one.

Well they can say its to find out if you prepared about any kind of question. If its irrelevant to the job and one people struggle with it means they could lose the chance of a job due to something nothing to do with the job. Yes you could google an answer but surely they will spot that a mile away.

donnajunkie

k12479 said:

donnajunkie said:
I think that can be done without setting people up. You can give example scenarios and ask what they would do as a way to find out what they are like and what kind of attitude they have. Also I think a good interviewer talks to a person in a normal way and puts them at ease. A bit of time talking in a good atmosphere will help you get an idea what the person is like.

Scenarios are used, typically in case studies and role plays but these take a lot of time (and therefore money) so are normally used in later rounds and for higher level roles. For lower level roles and in shorter sittings, example scenarios are pretty meaningless as they just demonstrate a basic knowledge of a process or an approach, not an ability to actually do it or of experience in doing it.

As AW618 implies, "what are your weaknesses?" is not a set up, it's a really standard question, it just needs two or three examples prepared and in pretty much any interview one or two of them can be pulled out. The weakness isn't even really that important, unless it directly impacts upon the role, it's about a) having an answer and b) showing you've done something to improve upon the weakness.

As for 'a bit of time talking', don't forget that interviews have to be structured so candidates can be compared with some objectivity, hence the list of prepared questions, and that time is limited.

Scenarios are very relevant. For example if you are a joiner you could be asked how you would go about making a certain type of window. If its a job in a shop it could be if a customer walks in a does this what would you do.

AW618

donnajunkie said:

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

k12479 said:

donnajunkie said:
My point is asking things that dont matter only proves whether you are good at interviews....If you can do the job it will be fairly easy to give good answers connected to it.

I think you might be viewing the process a bit too narrowly. The conventional job application and interview process is hugely flawed, but that alternative methods aren't commonplace suggests there isn't really a better way of doing it, so far.

Secondly, whether someone 'can do' the job is not necessarily the top hiring priority. Whether someone 'fits' the organisation is often more important. Specifics of the role can be easily taught, attitude, ambition, social skills, initiative, etc. are much harder. The irritating "what are your weaknesses?" is one way to attempt to figure that out. Asking questions directly related to the job like "how do you make a pivot table in Excel?" tells hiring managers little about you as a person and whether you'd fit or not or your future potential in the business.

I think that can be done without setting people up. You can give example scenarios and ask what they would do as a way to find out what they are like and what kind of attitude they have. Also I think a good interviewer talks to a person in a normal way and puts them at ease. A bit of time talking in a good atmosphere will help you get an idea what the person is like.

Give an example of the kind of question you think "sets people up", and someone can probably tell you what that question is trying to achieve.  As I say with the weaknesses one it is whether you have prepared, as everyone knows that might be coming and if you don't have an answer it's because you havent bothered to spend five minutes googling for a decent one.

Well they can say its to find out if you prepared about any kind of question. If its irrelevant to the job and one people struggle with it means they could lose the chance of a job due to something nothing to do with the job. Yes you could google an answer but surely they will spot that a mile away.

There are not many jobs where someone who has shown an ability to prepare is not preferable to someone who doesn't bother preparing for anything.  Of course that has something to do with what sort of employee you will be.
They don't care if you google an  answer.  They want  you to have googled for an answer.  It shows you've done some prep work. 

AW618

donnajunkie said:

k12479 said:

donnajunkie said:
I think that can be done without setting people up. You can give example scenarios and ask what they would do as a way to find out what they are like and what kind of attitude they have. Also I think a good interviewer talks to a person in a normal way and puts them at ease. A bit of time talking in a good atmosphere will help you get an idea what the person is like.

Scenarios are used, typically in case studies and role plays but these take a lot of time (and therefore money) so are normally used in later rounds and for higher level roles. For lower level roles and in shorter sittings, example scenarios are pretty meaningless as they just demonstrate a basic knowledge of a process or an approach, not an ability to actually do it or of experience in doing it.

As AW618 implies, "what are your weaknesses?" is not a set up, it's a really standard question, it just needs two or three examples prepared and in pretty much any interview one or two of them can be pulled out. The weakness isn't even really that important, unless it directly impacts upon the role, it's about a) having an answer and b) showing you've done something to improve upon the weakness.

As for 'a bit of time talking', don't forget that interviews have to be structured so candidates can be compared with some objectivity, hence the list of prepared questions, and that time is limited.

Scenarios are very relevant. For example if you are a joiner you could be asked how you would go about making a certain type of window. If its a job in a shop it could be if a customer walks in a does this what would you do.

All interviews will ask questions like this as well as others.  The questions you don't like are supplemental to finding out if you know how to make a window; they show the way you will react to work pressures, customers, colleagues and are relevant to everyone in all sorts of employment.
Why are you so against them?

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

donnajunkie said:

k12479 said:

donnajunkie said:
I think that can be done without setting people up. You can give example scenarios and ask what they would do as a way to find out what they are like and what kind of attitude they have. Also I think a good interviewer talks to a person in a normal way and puts them at ease. A bit of time talking in a good atmosphere will help you get an idea what the person is like.

Scenarios are used, typically in case studies and role plays but these take a lot of time (and therefore money) so are normally used in later rounds and for higher level roles. For lower level roles and in shorter sittings, example scenarios are pretty meaningless as they just demonstrate a basic knowledge of a process or an approach, not an ability to actually do it or of experience in doing it.

As AW618 implies, "what are your weaknesses?" is not a set up, it's a really standard question, it just needs two or three examples prepared and in pretty much any interview one or two of them can be pulled out. The weakness isn't even really that important, unless it directly impacts upon the role, it's about a) having an answer and b) showing you've done something to improve upon the weakness.

As for 'a bit of time talking', don't forget that interviews have to be structured so candidates can be compared with some objectivity, hence the list of prepared questions, and that time is limited.

Scenarios are very relevant. For example if you are a joiner you could be asked how you would go about making a certain type of window. If its a job in a shop it could be if a customer walks in a does this what would you do.

All interviews will ask questions like this as well as others.  The questions you don't like are supplemental to finding out if you know how to make a window; they show the way you will react to work pressures, customers, colleagues and are relevant to everyone in all sorts of employment.
Why are you so against them?

Because i think the only pressure they show the ability to deal with is the pressure of an interview. Work related questions can show what your knowledge is but also what you would be like. For example a bad customer scenario in a shop, if you said you would tell them to jeff off then that shows you have a poor attitude. Alternatively your answer while not too bad may show a need for some training. So you may get turned down if they dont want to train you.

AW618

How you cope with pressure is how you cope with pressure; it is better to hire someone who copes with pressure well than one who copes with it badly.  People who panic in interviews will panic in work.
I don't know why you keep on about work related questions; all interviews have work related questions and absolutely nobody says they shouldn't.  It is just you who is saying there should be no non work related questions (or at least what you see as non work related).
They probably will hire you if your answer shows a need for training, but only if there is nobody applying who is equally good and doesn't show a need for training.  A need for training is a negative.
Again, can you please give an example of a question you have been asked that you thought was just designed to catch you out, because so far you haven't.