Employment gaps shouldn't matter should they?

k12479

donnajunkie said:
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.

You seem to just be arguing for the sake of it, or perhaps due to your own bad experiences.

For anyone interested in improving their chances of employment, there is some useful information in this thread and efforts are far better spent on improving interview skills than on pondering the unfairness of it all.

od244051

I have hidden gaps on CV as just list the month and year that I started and left that job. For example, I list job A 9/2004-4/2011 then Job B 5/2011- date.
In that example, I have left a job on the first month of April then didn't start until end of May.

Had period of 8 months were I was temping and with gaps with no work inbetween. Think I was working for 5,5 months of that - this was 12 years ago. Then 2 weeks of that period, I was on holiday, which was booked and paid for when I was still working. Most of the time off not working was when I came back from holiday as had to start again with looking for jobs.

AW618

donnajunkie 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.

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.

No, it isn't wrong, it is a reasonable assumption,  as in most cases it is true.  You will find exceptions, as you will in anything, but in terms of using limited time efficiently, it is a reasonable thing to assume in recruitment.

AW618

od244051 said:

I have hidden gaps on CV as just list the month and year that I started and left that job. For example, I list job A 9/2004-4/2011 then Job B 5/2011- date.
In that example, I have left a job on the first month of April then didn't start until end of May.

Had period of 8 months were I was temping and with gaps with no work inbetween. Think I was working for 5,5 months of that - this was 12 years ago. Then 2 weeks of that period, I was on holiday, which was booked and paid for when I was still working. Most of the time off not working was when I came back from holiday as had to start again with looking for jobs.

A couple of weeks is not a gap you have to explain.  I always try and take at least two weeks off if I change jobs if I can.  I would say "I just took some time off" is a perfectly reasonable explanation for anything under a month.

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

AW618 said:

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.

OK getting fired is worse than not getting a job, but I can't think of a mistake I could make that would be considered a sackable offence. Likewise I can't think of a mistake I'd make that would have something too bad happen to someone else. The worst that would happen from me doing a bad job of something is making my company look stupid, but they do a good job of that without any input from me.

Well, that certainly sounds like a very unstressful job to me.

AW618

Planet_Switzerland said:

Dakta said:

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.

That's what I'm finding, I was never the best at interviews to begin with but I've been trying to leave my job for 2.5 years and have had 29 unsuccessful interviews in that time so it just makes me feel like I'm going to fail every interview and be stuck in my job forever. Lots of my colleagues, past and present, tell me I'm really good at my job and are amazed at how I'm finding it such a struggle to get a new job.

Can you not get promoted somehow by your existing company, if they think you are doing such a great job?

74jax

AW618 said:

Planet_Switzerland said:

Dakta said:

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.

That's what I'm finding, I was never the best at interviews to begin with but I've been trying to leave my job for 2.5 years and have had 29 unsuccessful interviews in that time so it just makes me feel like I'm going to fail every interview and be stuck in my job forever. Lots of my colleagues, past and present, tell me I'm really good at my job and are amazed at how I'm finding it such a struggle to get a new job.

Can you not get promoted somehow by your existing company, if they think you are doing such a great job?

I'm guessing if it's open knowledge he's applying and going for interviews then his company will be looking at others to promote. 

Smodlet

Back in the day, I used to think exactly the way donnajunkie seems to from her posts.  Time passed, I read a whole load of stuff on this thread and realised that no-one is entitled to a job, no matter what skills they may have or how clever they may think they are:  Employers have it all their own way.  Short of getting into the T.A.R.D.I.S. and going back to the early 1970s, that ain't changing any time soon.

I can only agree with all the posts which say performance at interview indicates potential performance in job.  Who is going to hire someone who failed at interview stage over someone who acquitted themselves well?  It is completely unreasonable to imagine that would ever happen.

donnajunkie

Smodlet said:

Back in the day, I used to think exactly the way donnajunkie seems to from her posts.  Time passed, I read a whole load of stuff on this thread and realised that no-one is entitled to a job, no matter what skills they may have or how clever they may think they are:  Employers have it all their own way.  Short of getting into the T.A.R.D.I.S. and going back to the early 1970s, that ain't changing any time soon.

I can only agree with all the posts which say performance at interview indicates potential performance in job.  Who is going to hire someone who failed at interview stage over someone who acquitted themselves well?  It is completely unreasonable to imagine that would ever happen.

Yes no one is entitled to a job. That does not mean its right to take the wee wee. I know its the reality.
yes of course they are not going to hire someone who fails in interview but there's no need to set people up to fail. I know of a company where you had failed before you even got there just because you didnt phone in advance to ask what the interview would involve.

Smodlet

Then I imagine you should have googled to find out what their interview process was.