Employment gaps shouldn't matter should they?

Doshwaster

AW618 said:

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. 

I was once asked in an interview how I would solve a particular coding problem. My first answer was "I'd Google it" which the interviewer thought was a good answer - no point in spending ages trying to solve it yourself when there is an answer available in seconds. 

Also, you need to remember that the purpose of an interview isn't just to find out if you could do they job it is also for them to see if you are the sort of person that they want to work with (and equally whether you want to work there). The chances are that by time you get to a final interview then anyone on the shortlist would be able to do the job but they also need to know what sort of person you are. It's this aspect of the interview that some people struggle with - they have the skills but come across as someone who would be difficult to work with.

Andrea_jardin

Planet_Switzerland said: Working under pressure is something I've always been good at. In an old job one of the things we'd be rated on in our appraisal was our ability to work under pressure and my manager gave me the highest rating. When it comes to interviews though I'm the opposite.

What was the task you performed well under pressure on, and what's a good way for a potential new employer to replicate this? 

AW618

Doshwaster said:

AW618 said:

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. 

I was once asked in an interview how I would solve a particular coding problem. My first answer was "I'd Google it" which the interviewer thought was a good answer - no point in spending ages trying to solve it yourself when there is an answer available in seconds. 

Also, you need to remember that the purpose of an interview isn't just to find out if you could do they job it is also for them to see if you are the sort of person that they want to work with (and equally whether you want to work there). The chances are that by time you get to a final interview then anyone on the shortlist would be able to do the job but they also need to know what sort of person you are. It's this aspect of the interview that some people struggle with - they have the skills but come across as someone who would be difficult to work with.

I agree, but I am not sure why you are saying I need to remember that; I've been saying it repeatedly.

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

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.

I have to disagree with you there. Working under pressure is something I've always been good at. In an old job one of the things we'd be rated on in our appraisal was our ability to work under pressure and my manager gave me the highest rating. When it comes to interviews though I'm the opposite.

Well, I would say you are rare enough to be an exception, and in most things one tends to work to probabilities.  There are also different types and degrees of pressure.  What do you do in interviews that you don't do in work?  If the appraisal is referring to time pressures; that's not he same thing.

AW618

Andrea_jardin said:

Planet_Switzerland said: Working under pressure is something I've always been good at. In an old job one of the things we'd be rated on in our appraisal was our ability to work under pressure and my manager gave me the highest rating. When it comes to interviews though I'm the opposite.

What was the task you performed well under pressure on, and what's a good way for a potential new employer to replicate this? 

Why would a potential employer try and produce the exact situation that one individual didn't have a problem with?

Andrea_jardin

AW618 said: Why would a potential employer try and produce the exact situation that one individual didn't have a problem with?

If Employer 1 gives me a high rating for producing pivot tables under pressure, and Employer 2 has a shortage of employees who produce good pivot tables under pressure, then I am a solution to employer 2's problem, if I can prove my ability in it.

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

It's not to do with any particular task. I think its because I worry a lot more about making mistakes at an interview because it can be the difference between getting the job and not getting the job. 

So what happens when you are in a situation at work where a mistake could cause you to be fired, or cause something far worse than not getting a job to happen to someone else?
I mean if your job is not particularly stressful then they don't really need someone good under pressure, and I would say if it is never as stressful as an interview, then it certainly isn't stressful.

AW618

Andrea_jardin said:

AW618 said: Why would a potential employer try and produce the exact situation that one individual didn't have a problem with?

If Employer 1 gives me a high rating for producing pivot tables under pressure, and Employer 2 has a shortage of employees who produce good pivot tables under pressure, then I am a solution to employer 2's problem, if I can prove my ability in it.

The question is more why would they recreate the exact situation that didn't put pressure on him, rather than just recreating different situations that might generally put pressure on people.
Finding one thing that somebody can't do is more useful than finding 10 things they can.  You expect all your interviewees to have most of the qualities required in the job; they have already undergone both a self-selection in choosing to apply and a pre-selection on your part.

Dakta

Planet_Switzerland said:

It's not to do with any particular task. I think its because I worry a lot more about making mistakes at an interview because it can be the difference between getting the job and not getting the job. 

I can relate to this.I am not good at interviews, I find them stressful and I am not naturally geared towards being particularly good at interviewing, I know this and that doubles the stress and makes things generally inevitably messy.

That said I do deal with quite high stress incidents. These situations don't really fall apart because outside the interview room you can crack on with being an expert. Confidence through competence.

Interviews are still lousy, like.

donnajunkie

AW618 said:

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.

To assume if someone is bad at interviews that they will be bad in the job is wrong. And of course assuming someone will be good in the job because they are good at interviews is also wrong.