This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Interviewed last Friday at Shell, found out today I came a close second. The deciding factor being that I was a little over qualified. The job was a contract to financial year end so 2.5 months. Given my record, the reason given (amongst a couple of others) doesn't make too much sense and I'm feeling a little buttered up by this reason.
Like all of us I want a little constructive criticism and wondered if anyone has tips as to how they can take a little more, than nothing, from their failed interviews.
Like all of us I want a little constructive criticism and wondered if anyone has tips as to how they can take a little more, than nothing, from their failed interviews.
In reply to Fishmate:
I'd been out of work for a little over two months and was crawling the walls. Applied for a bit of temp data entry stuff as part of the 2011 census project in Trafford Park. Aced the data entry test (actually heard the supervisor say to another 'um, thats a very high speed - you won't see many that high' and had a 99.8% accuracy rate). Very short set of interview questions which I thought went very well. Numerical tests and comprehension tests went perfect. A further battery of tests all went really well. Enhanced CBR check necessary, but I've got no problems with that.
9 miles away, a great opportunity to bike in and out every day and burn off some lard. Low effort / minimal stress job I could have done standing on my head, would have given me a few months to get off the dole and get back into the swing of work.
Didn't get it. Racking my brains as to why. I'm wondering if I was a little over qualified too, and maybe should have dumbed down my CV a bit.
Anyhoo, bollocks to them. I landed a bit of temp work as a financial analyst with Bupa in Salford.
I'd been out of work for a little over two months and was crawling the walls. Applied for a bit of temp data entry stuff as part of the 2011 census project in Trafford Park. Aced the data entry test (actually heard the supervisor say to another 'um, thats a very high speed - you won't see many that high' and had a 99.8% accuracy rate). Very short set of interview questions which I thought went very well. Numerical tests and comprehension tests went perfect. A further battery of tests all went really well. Enhanced CBR check necessary, but I've got no problems with that.
9 miles away, a great opportunity to bike in and out every day and burn off some lard. Low effort / minimal stress job I could have done standing on my head, would have given me a few months to get off the dole and get back into the swing of work.
Didn't get it. Racking my brains as to why. I'm wondering if I was a little over qualified too, and maybe should have dumbed down my CV a bit.
Anyhoo, bollocks to them. I landed a bit of temp work as a financial analyst with Bupa in Salford.
In reply to Fishmate:
In answer to your question though, I've found that each failed interview makes me a feel a little less nervous the next time.
In answer to your question though, I've found that each failed interview makes me a feel a little less nervous the next time.
In reply to Fishmate:
I went fora graduate job with Shell years ago, had three interviews, the third in the Hague. The day after the Hague job I got a call from them explaining why I hadn't got the job. Given this call was at 8.30 am having arrived home at 2am the night before this was quite irritating, however the feedback was seriously useful, and directly helped me get what would become my first grad job.
To the other posters I think its a very good idea to ask for specific feed back from interviews, it hones your technique a treat. Also saw this very sensible article the other day:
http://jobs.telegraph.co.uk/interview-questions.aspx
I went fora graduate job with Shell years ago, had three interviews, the third in the Hague. The day after the Hague job I got a call from them explaining why I hadn't got the job. Given this call was at 8.30 am having arrived home at 2am the night before this was quite irritating, however the feedback was seriously useful, and directly helped me get what would become my first grad job.
To the other posters I think its a very good idea to ask for specific feed back from interviews, it hones your technique a treat. Also saw this very sensible article the other day:
http://jobs.telegraph.co.uk/interview-questions.aspx
In reply to Fishmate:
your always well within your rights to get in contact with your interviewer and ask questions about why they thought you came up short. whether you get the truth out of them is another thing altogether.
i work in account management/recruitment and it amazes me the amount of bullshit excuses i hear people give when on the phone to someone who has failed an interview/come a close second(always a good one).
truthfully though when recruiting for a job i am always cautious about using people who are over qualified for a job. i dont want to shell out loads in training/recruitment costs for someone who will possibly get bored or a better offer two weeks down the line. more often than not i will sway towards someone from a similar background or pay bracket.
maybe its just that i am cynical in my view of people but often it is hard to understand peoples reasons for going for a job and i hate to hear that its simply down to the fact that "i need a job"!
your always well within your rights to get in contact with your interviewer and ask questions about why they thought you came up short. whether you get the truth out of them is another thing altogether.
i work in account management/recruitment and it amazes me the amount of bullshit excuses i hear people give when on the phone to someone who has failed an interview/come a close second(always a good one).
truthfully though when recruiting for a job i am always cautious about using people who are over qualified for a job. i dont want to shell out loads in training/recruitment costs for someone who will possibly get bored or a better offer two weeks down the line. more often than not i will sway towards someone from a similar background or pay bracket.
maybe its just that i am cynical in my view of people but often it is hard to understand peoples reasons for going for a job and i hate to hear that its simply down to the fact that "i need a job"!
In reply to Fishmate:
The thing is, if there's only one job and there's more than one candidate who could do it, then somehow they have to decide who gets it, and it isn't necessarily the person who would be best at the job or even the one who interviewed best. I've been on interview panels where each interviewer had a different opinion on who should get the job, so that in the end it was the interviewer with the most dominant personality who got the final say. In another situation they may choose the person who is most likely to get on with the rest of the team, who again may not be the most accomplished but just happens to have the right sense of humour/flexibility/discipline/whatever to fill the personality gap.
The reason they give the unsuccessful candidates for allocating the job elsewhere is often fairly arbitrary, given that their primary concern is to recruit, not to let people down gently. I've known unsuccessful candidates ring up and ask for feedback as to why they didn't get the job, too, although that's always seemed like flogging a dead horse to me.
The thing is, if there's only one job and there's more than one candidate who could do it, then somehow they have to decide who gets it, and it isn't necessarily the person who would be best at the job or even the one who interviewed best. I've been on interview panels where each interviewer had a different opinion on who should get the job, so that in the end it was the interviewer with the most dominant personality who got the final say. In another situation they may choose the person who is most likely to get on with the rest of the team, who again may not be the most accomplished but just happens to have the right sense of humour/flexibility/discipline/whatever to fill the personality gap.
The reason they give the unsuccessful candidates for allocating the job elsewhere is often fairly arbitrary, given that their primary concern is to recruit, not to let people down gently. I've known unsuccessful candidates ring up and ask for feedback as to why they didn't get the job, too, although that's always seemed like flogging a dead horse to me.
In reply to tom290483:
Though that can leave some people in an annoying no mans land, if the jobs they are qualified for are few and far between, and for the jobs that are available they get rejected as over qualified.
I found this especially the case with recruitment consultants - they seemed incredibly eager to push me toward jobs I was grossly under-experienced for (and so the potential employer obviously turned me down), and were entirely unwilling to put me forward for cases where I might have had a chance at interview. It was bloody frustrating I can tell you!
> (In reply to Fishmate)
>
> truthfully though when recruiting for a job i am always cautious about using people who are over qualified for a job. i dont want to shell out loads in training/recruitment costs for someone who will possibly get bored or a better offer two weeks down the line. more often than not i will sway towards someone from a similar background or pay bracket.
>
>
> truthfully though when recruiting for a job i am always cautious about using people who are over qualified for a job. i dont want to shell out loads in training/recruitment costs for someone who will possibly get bored or a better offer two weeks down the line. more often than not i will sway towards someone from a similar background or pay bracket.
>
Though that can leave some people in an annoying no mans land, if the jobs they are qualified for are few and far between, and for the jobs that are available they get rejected as over qualified.
I found this especially the case with recruitment consultants - they seemed incredibly eager to push me toward jobs I was grossly under-experienced for (and so the potential employer obviously turned me down), and were entirely unwilling to put me forward for cases where I might have had a chance at interview. It was bloody frustrating I can tell you!
In reply to tom290483:
I understand this and would be perfectly happy to accept being 2nd best now and again. It does seem a shame that for many people, learning the process and then making that process as short as possible is the way ahead. Surely engaging in the principle that the process offers is the way to get better results both personally and professionally rather than taking the easy way. I.e. it requires the interviewer to understand more fully what they have learnt, therefore a plus for them and also for the failed candidate. A win win I beleive.
It seems a little backward to do otherwise, especially for Fishy today, however I do understand why some do. Problem is, that they teach others who have no framework of knowledge to help them decide otherwise and it becomes the norm.
I understand this and would be perfectly happy to accept being 2nd best now and again. It does seem a shame that for many people, learning the process and then making that process as short as possible is the way ahead. Surely engaging in the principle that the process offers is the way to get better results both personally and professionally rather than taking the easy way. I.e. it requires the interviewer to understand more fully what they have learnt, therefore a plus for them and also for the failed candidate. A win win I beleive.
It seems a little backward to do otherwise, especially for Fishy today, however I do understand why some do. Problem is, that they teach others who have no framework of knowledge to help them decide otherwise and it becomes the norm.
In reply to blondel:
That describes the process. Engaging in the principle surely makes the individual better at that task?
I wouldn't want letting down in any manner. I didn't get the job, the fact I failed is not going to be made better by a stranger in that sense alone. However if I have spent much time researching company X and genuinely show beyond doubt that I can and want to do the job, then a morsel of respect and acknowledgement of that effort is little to give. They learn, I learn. simple
> (In reply to Fishmate)
>
> given that their primary concern is to recruit, not to let people down >gently.
>
> given that their primary concern is to recruit, not to let people down >gently.
That describes the process. Engaging in the principle surely makes the individual better at that task?
I wouldn't want letting down in any manner. I didn't get the job, the fact I failed is not going to be made better by a stranger in that sense alone. However if I have spent much time researching company X and genuinely show beyond doubt that I can and want to do the job, then a morsel of respect and acknowledgement of that effort is little to give. They learn, I learn. simple
In reply to Fishmate:
better than some of the reasons I've been given:-
1: You're not right for our organisation/
2: They didn't like you're tie.
3: YOu're face just didn't fit.
4: You've not got an NVQ Level 1 in Data inputting.
5: We gave the job to our managers son instead.
better than some of the reasons I've been given:-
1: You're not right for our organisation/
2: They didn't like you're tie.
3: YOu're face just didn't fit.
4: You've not got an NVQ Level 1 in Data inputting.
5: We gave the job to our managers son instead.
In reply to Fishmate:
Could you explain what that means? I can't make any sense of it!
> (In reply to tom290483)
> Surely engaging in the principle that the process offers is the way to get better results both personally and professionally
> Surely engaging in the principle that the process offers is the way to get better results both personally and professionally
Could you explain what that means? I can't make any sense of it!
In reply to Steve John B:
Sure, I probably could have padded that out. Principle as in a norm of procedure. Companies I have worked that get my respect, deal with any aspect of business as a learning opportunity. A founding principle of any business is to be as profitable and as efficient as it can be (I'm sure you know).
If we treat recruitment as quickly and as chore-like as possible, then we fail to maximise the opportunity the recruitment process provides. Being able to explain why someone failed, benefits the recruitment process itself and the interviewers ability to understand the process and helps them to be able to work within it more confidently and efficiently.
For example, many managers reasign responsibility rather than explain honestly why someone has been relieved of it. Being unable to provide constructive criticism has a negative effect on the employee, the manager and ultimately the team they are in. Therefore offering constructive criticism to failed interviewees is good practice. There is no emotional tie or relationship on any level. This in turn helps the interviewer be more constructively open with their staff.
Hope that makes sense.............. late
Sure, I probably could have padded that out. Principle as in a norm of procedure. Companies I have worked that get my respect, deal with any aspect of business as a learning opportunity. A founding principle of any business is to be as profitable and as efficient as it can be (I'm sure you know).
If we treat recruitment as quickly and as chore-like as possible, then we fail to maximise the opportunity the recruitment process provides. Being able to explain why someone failed, benefits the recruitment process itself and the interviewers ability to understand the process and helps them to be able to work within it more confidently and efficiently.
For example, many managers reasign responsibility rather than explain honestly why someone has been relieved of it. Being unable to provide constructive criticism has a negative effect on the employee, the manager and ultimately the team they are in. Therefore offering constructive criticism to failed interviewees is good practice. There is no emotional tie or relationship on any level. This in turn helps the interviewer be more constructively open with their staff.
Hope that makes sense.............. late
In reply to Fishmate:
I agree with you completely: it would be great if we all treated each other properly, and took the time to think about our actions and how they impact on others, and businesses would work a lot more efficiently if every employer and employee troubled to maximise every opportunity for growth and understanding ...
<ducks flying pig and runs for cover>
I agree with you completely: it would be great if we all treated each other properly, and took the time to think about our actions and how they impact on others, and businesses would work a lot more efficiently if every employer and employee troubled to maximise every opportunity for growth and understanding ...
<ducks flying pig and runs for cover>
In reply to Fishmate:
thoroughly agree. Being told 'employees are our most precious asset', yet being treated like a disposable part isn't pleasant.
> (In reply to Steve John B)
thoroughly agree. Being told 'employees are our most precious asset', yet being treated like a disposable part isn't pleasant.
In reply to Fishmate: Some years ago I had an interview for a teaching job where I didn't get the job. I had a phonecall from the chairman of the school governors (who was on the interview panel) to say that I hadn't got the job but that they thought I had interviewed very well and it had been a difficult decision. He offered me a face to face feedback session, which I took. The person who they sent to give me the feedback started out with the comment "Well, you didn't interview very well"! When I pointed out that that wasn't what the chairman of governors had told me, he was unable to explain why he was now telling me a different story! I knew why I hadn't got the job, it was because I was there to make up numbers so that the other candidate, a friend of the headteacher, could get the job.
In reply to Fishmate: I've just had this happen to me for a job I was at 2nd interview with, I waited for over a month (over the Christmas period) despite being told by the organisation that a decision would be communicated by the 24th.
I was eventually told over 4wks after the interview that I was not being offered the job as they felt I was not 'quite right' for the role. Quite right? What does that mean?
My legs were too short? My eyes were the wrong colour?
I've asked for more detail as to why I wasn't successful and as you say given the amount of work and research I had done in preparation for the interview it would be nice to be shown the repect of being given a proper reason as to why I wasn't offered the role.
In my case though I do wonder whether I wasn't offered it because it was a fairly senior role and I have a young child at home. ......
Cx
I was eventually told over 4wks after the interview that I was not being offered the job as they felt I was not 'quite right' for the role. Quite right? What does that mean?
My legs were too short? My eyes were the wrong colour?
I've asked for more detail as to why I wasn't successful and as you say given the amount of work and research I had done in preparation for the interview it would be nice to be shown the repect of being given a proper reason as to why I wasn't offered the role.
In my case though I do wonder whether I wasn't offered it because it was a fairly senior role and I have a young child at home. ......
Cx
In reply to Fishmate:
I've had three interviews recently where I've got to the last couple (one job had 170 people apply for it) and then been told I'm over qualified and they think I'll get bored. It's a right pain in the arse as due to my industry not really existing any more I have 4 years of quite specific but not directly applicable experience. Seems to mean senior positions look over me at the minute and the more junior positions think I'm overqualified.
I'm thinking I may have to broach the subject in interview going forward as by the time they've made the decision it's too late.
> Interviewed last Friday at Shell, found out today I came a close second. The deciding factor being that I was a little over qualified. The job was a contract to financial year end so 2.5 months. Given my record, the reason given (amongst a couple of others) doesn't make too much sense and I'm feeling a little buttered up by this reason.
>
> Like all of us I want a little constructive criticism and wondered if anyone has tips as to how they can take a little more, than nothing, from their failed interviews.
>
> Like all of us I want a little constructive criticism and wondered if anyone has tips as to how they can take a little more, than nothing, from their failed interviews.
I've had three interviews recently where I've got to the last couple (one job had 170 people apply for it) and then been told I'm over qualified and they think I'll get bored. It's a right pain in the arse as due to my industry not really existing any more I have 4 years of quite specific but not directly applicable experience. Seems to mean senior positions look over me at the minute and the more junior positions think I'm overqualified.
I'm thinking I may have to broach the subject in interview going forward as by the time they've made the decision it's too late.
In reply to Fishmate:
I once went to a company tour / recruitment day put on by a certain oil services company for my college class, where their HR Manager let something slip I'm guessing she shouldn't have.
During the questions session at the end, one of the guys in my class asked a question I hadn't even considered before; "what is your policy on age limits for these roles?". The guy asking was someone in their 40s just out of the Navy and retraining for a career in the oil industry.
The HR Manager then immediately and very cheerily announced that they didn't recruit anyone new over the age of 28, as anyone above that age was considered 'too old to be trained'.
She then noticed the reason for the stunned silence; three quarters of my class were over the age of 30…. She then very quickly backtracked saying that each application was 'taken on its merits' etc etc… but by this time it was obvious this was just a bit of face saving.
One of the Operations Managers for the company looked at her in disgust as some very experienced offshore workers in my class got up and walked out, he clearly didn't agree with his company HR policy on age.
I don't know about employment law, but is that sort of thing legal? Even if it is, it was a big eye opener as to how some HR departments work.
I once went to a company tour / recruitment day put on by a certain oil services company for my college class, where their HR Manager let something slip I'm guessing she shouldn't have.
During the questions session at the end, one of the guys in my class asked a question I hadn't even considered before; "what is your policy on age limits for these roles?". The guy asking was someone in their 40s just out of the Navy and retraining for a career in the oil industry.
The HR Manager then immediately and very cheerily announced that they didn't recruit anyone new over the age of 28, as anyone above that age was considered 'too old to be trained'.
She then noticed the reason for the stunned silence; three quarters of my class were over the age of 30…. She then very quickly backtracked saying that each application was 'taken on its merits' etc etc… but by this time it was obvious this was just a bit of face saving.
One of the Operations Managers for the company looked at her in disgust as some very experienced offshore workers in my class got up and walked out, he clearly didn't agree with his company HR policy on age.
I don't know about employment law, but is that sort of thing legal? Even if it is, it was a big eye opener as to how some HR departments work.
In reply to Mither Tap:
Completely illegal, certainly now since age discrimination law has come in. Not sure when this came in though so it depends on when this happened.
Completely illegal, certainly now since age discrimination law has come in. Not sure when this came in though so it depends on when this happened.
In reply to Mither Tap:
Good job there were no recording devices. A statement like that could land Shell in a massive amount of trouble given that it is now illegal to discriminate on age. It is also rather sad that the unfounded belief that old dogs can't learn new tricks is still prevalent in the work place.
When all the baby boomers pop their clogs and non of the youngsters currently unemployed have no experience, this country is going to be stuffed!
> The HR Manager then immediately and very cheerily announced that they didn't recruit anyone new over the age of 28, as anyone above that age was considered 'too old to be trained'.
Good job there were no recording devices. A statement like that could land Shell in a massive amount of trouble given that it is now illegal to discriminate on age. It is also rather sad that the unfounded belief that old dogs can't learn new tricks is still prevalent in the work place.
When all the baby boomers pop their clogs and non of the youngsters currently unemployed have no experience, this country is going to be stuffed!
In reply to Fishmate:
in my experience, a fair few places never give feedback in writing/emails, only by phone...what are they scared of?
and the amount of places that can't even be bothered to say an application has been unsuccessful is ridiculous. How long does it take to send a form email to a list? Winkers
in my experience, a fair few places never give feedback in writing/emails, only by phone...what are they scared of?
and the amount of places that can't even be bothered to say an application has been unsuccessful is ridiculous. How long does it take to send a form email to a list? Winkers
In reply to terryturbojr:
A good idea Terry and food for thought. It wont take much to express that sentiment and turn it into a good selling point.
btw, I heard more on my interview this morning. There was the obligatory, "you may get bored". Isn't that my business and my issue to deal with? Isn't it also highly presumptuous to assume that even if I do get bored that this will become a negative aspect for the employer. My CV and references show that if I agree to a contract I stay the length and give 100%. Perhaps by approaching the over-qualified aspect this way, it may open the interviewers mind a little more or alleviate their concern at least?
> (In reply to Fishmate)
> [...]
> I'm thinking I may have to broach the subject in interview going forward as by the time they've made the decision it's too late.
> [...]
> I'm thinking I may have to broach the subject in interview going forward as by the time they've made the decision it's too late.
A good idea Terry and food for thought. It wont take much to express that sentiment and turn it into a good selling point.
btw, I heard more on my interview this morning. There was the obligatory, "you may get bored". Isn't that my business and my issue to deal with? Isn't it also highly presumptuous to assume that even if I do get bored that this will become a negative aspect for the employer. My CV and references show that if I agree to a contract I stay the length and give 100%. Perhaps by approaching the over-qualified aspect this way, it may open the interviewers mind a little more or alleviate their concern at least?
In reply to EeeByGum:
exactly!
and furthermore, all these companies routinely keep people in a job for 40 years.....oh wait....
> (In reply to Mither Tap)
>
>
> When all the baby boomers pop their clogs and non of the youngsters currently unemployed have no experience, this country is going to be stuffed!
exactly!
and furthermore, all these companies routinely keep people in a job for 40 years.....oh wait....
In reply to mozzer:
Interesting tale Mither and unfortunately beleiveable.
As for illegality, poppycock. I respect your faith in the system Mozzer, but how could you possibly prove such a discrimination if it happened during a 1-1 or 3-1 interview. Unlikely at best. Even if the victim was head and shoulders above other candidates the interviewing panel only have to say that the candidate clearly didn't perform to their ability.
The law is more to do with 'arse covering' than reality in my experience and I've seen this from both sides.
> (In reply to Mither Tap)
>
> Completely illegal, certainly now since age discrimination law has come in. Not sure when this came in though so it depends on when this happened.
>
> Completely illegal, certainly now since age discrimination law has come in. Not sure when this came in though so it depends on when this happened.
Interesting tale Mither and unfortunately beleiveable.
As for illegality, poppycock. I respect your faith in the system Mozzer, but how could you possibly prove such a discrimination if it happened during a 1-1 or 3-1 interview. Unlikely at best. Even if the victim was head and shoulders above other candidates the interviewing panel only have to say that the candidate clearly didn't perform to their ability.
The law is more to do with 'arse covering' than reality in my experience and I've seen this from both sides.
In reply to Fishmate:
Oh, sure - I'm not saying that it wouldnt happen now at all, I'm sure age discrimination happens (in fact seen it twice) but I was just meaning it is now illegal.
Proving it would be very tricky though - these HR people know how to cover their backs... I don't have much faith in the system doing the right thing at all!
Oh, sure - I'm not saying that it wouldnt happen now at all, I'm sure age discrimination happens (in fact seen it twice) but I was just meaning it is now illegal.
Proving it would be very tricky though - these HR people know how to cover their backs... I don't have much faith in the system doing the right thing at all!
In reply to blondel:
It serves to make things easier in the long run and puts employees and subsequently employers in a stronger position. If people work under me, whether they like it or not I tell them that I want them to be in a stronger position when our time finishes together. They see this advantage and it costs me little, plus I have staff that grow rather than stagnate under me. Outside of my remit this is of course a little harder, but obstacles always report to someone and that someone can always be persuaded by a good clear argument. Information and knowledge is power, if staff don't want it then I enlighten them. If they still don't want it then I help them move on. Fair exchange
It serves to make things easier in the long run and puts employees and subsequently employers in a stronger position. If people work under me, whether they like it or not I tell them that I want them to be in a stronger position when our time finishes together. They see this advantage and it costs me little, plus I have staff that grow rather than stagnate under me. Outside of my remit this is of course a little harder, but obstacles always report to someone and that someone can always be persuaded by a good clear argument. Information and knowledge is power, if staff don't want it then I enlighten them. If they still don't want it then I help them move on. Fair exchange
In reply to mozzer:
and unfortunately, the only option here is to learn about what you don't like to help you deal with it more effectively. A couple of good ideas have sprung up on this thread already.
and unfortunately, the only option here is to learn about what you don't like to help you deal with it more effectively. A couple of good ideas have sprung up on this thread already.
In reply to Fishmate:
it would be very difficult to prove in most cases although i think a few cases have succeeded, probably works better when inside a company around redundancies where it is easier to make a case based on performance reviews etc eg Miriam O'Reilly at the BBC.
> The law is more to do with 'arse covering' than reality in my experience and I've seen this from both sides.
it would be very difficult to prove in most cases although i think a few cases have succeeded, probably works better when inside a company around redundancies where it is easier to make a case based on performance reviews etc eg Miriam O'Reilly at the BBC.
In reply to Fishmate:
Good on you, we need more people like you.
Good on you, we need more people like you.
In reply to thin bob:
Thx Bob, the key is that I am selfish. If I set my stall out this way, I end each day at peace rather having to acknowledge I'd rather not be doing the work I do or bringing negativity home. By finding principles I apply to climbing or anything I love doing, for example, I make my professional life rewarding. I'm too old too moan and whine and feel sh*te about my lot.
Thx Bob, the key is that I am selfish. If I set my stall out this way, I end each day at peace rather having to acknowledge I'd rather not be doing the work I do or bringing negativity home. By finding principles I apply to climbing or anything I love doing, for example, I make my professional life rewarding. I'm too old too moan and whine and feel sh*te about my lot.
In reply to Fishmate:
As has been said earlier a decision to choose one interviewee over another may be arbitrary. I remember one manager once discussing the recruitment of a new receptionist, "they all seemed perfectly capable of doing the job so I just fell back on the old rule of hiring the one with the biggest tits". No one is going to ever explain that to a disappointed applicant. Similarly if the reasons were negative ones, say the interviewer just thought you weren't a very pleasant person or seemed dishonest, they're not going to explain that either. If pressed they'll just make something up.
Probably best to get over your disappointment learn what you can from the interview itself and move on.
As has been said earlier a decision to choose one interviewee over another may be arbitrary. I remember one manager once discussing the recruitment of a new receptionist, "they all seemed perfectly capable of doing the job so I just fell back on the old rule of hiring the one with the biggest tits". No one is going to ever explain that to a disappointed applicant. Similarly if the reasons were negative ones, say the interviewer just thought you weren't a very pleasant person or seemed dishonest, they're not going to explain that either. If pressed they'll just make something up.
Probably best to get over your disappointment learn what you can from the interview itself and move on.
In reply to Removed User:
Thanks Eric, I've learned and moved on, however was keen to explore the bigger picture somewhat.
Thanks Eric, I've learned and moved on, however was keen to explore the bigger picture somewhat.
In reply to Clears:
On the issue of the delay in notification....
It's almost certain that they were waiting on a first or second choice candidate to accept the position. Hence the delays - we never tell any of our applicants they have failed until the first choice applicants have signed. That way we have people to fall back on. Take solace in the fact that they kept you waiting; this usually implies that you weren't dismissed outright but simply didn't end up at the top of the list.
On the issue of the delay in notification....
It's almost certain that they were waiting on a first or second choice candidate to accept the position. Hence the delays - we never tell any of our applicants they have failed until the first choice applicants have signed. That way we have people to fall back on. Take solace in the fact that they kept you waiting; this usually implies that you weren't dismissed outright but simply didn't end up at the top of the list.
In reply to Removed User:
Agreed, it is rarely based on 'direct merit' and often goes to the person they feel they can work best with etc.
As for the feedback, it was for a 2 1/2month contract role, few organisations are going to be worried about giving feedback for that, and probably didn't even take the interviews too seriously.
> (In reply to Removed UserFishmate)
>
> As has been said earlier a decision to choose one interviewee over another may be arbitrary. I remember one manager once discussing the recruitment of a new receptionist, "they all seemed perfectly capable of doing the job so I just fell back on the old rule of hiring the one with the biggest tits". No one is going to ever explain that to a disappointed applicant. Similarly if the reasons were negative ones, say the interviewer just thought you weren't a very pleasant person or seemed dishonest, they're not going to explain that either. If pressed they'll just make something up.
>
>
> As has been said earlier a decision to choose one interviewee over another may be arbitrary. I remember one manager once discussing the recruitment of a new receptionist, "they all seemed perfectly capable of doing the job so I just fell back on the old rule of hiring the one with the biggest tits". No one is going to ever explain that to a disappointed applicant. Similarly if the reasons were negative ones, say the interviewer just thought you weren't a very pleasant person or seemed dishonest, they're not going to explain that either. If pressed they'll just make something up.
>
Agreed, it is rarely based on 'direct merit' and often goes to the person they feel they can work best with etc.
As for the feedback, it was for a 2 1/2month contract role, few organisations are going to be worried about giving feedback for that, and probably didn't even take the interviews too seriously.
In reply to thin bob:
Litigation, tribunals, etc. With good reason, given that the candidate has little to lose after being rejected. It is the same reason that many companies no longer give references, or give ones that are so bland as to be pointless, i.e. X worked here from A to B, in such and such a role. Any interview feedback would be similarly bland and meaningless for cya reasons.
If a candidate has been to an interview yes. But just for an application, which may have been made quite frivolously - not going to happen.
> what are they scared of?
Litigation, tribunals, etc. With good reason, given that the candidate has little to lose after being rejected. It is the same reason that many companies no longer give references, or give ones that are so bland as to be pointless, i.e. X worked here from A to B, in such and such a role. Any interview feedback would be similarly bland and meaningless for cya reasons.
> and the amount of places that can't even be bothered to say an application has been unsuccessful is ridiculous. How long does it take to send a form email to a list? Winkers
If a candidate has been to an interview yes. But just for an application, which may have been made quite frivolously - not going to happen.
In reply to ClimberEd:
Agreed
Surely dependant on the remit?
>and probably didn't even take the interviews too seriously.
Having worked for a number of the largest companies, I'm confident in saying that they don't employ people with such an attitude or certainly don't aim to. Smaller companies, maybe.
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
>
> Agreed, it is rarely based on 'direct merit' and often goes to the person they feel they can work best with etc.
> [...]
>
>
> Agreed, it is rarely based on 'direct merit' and often goes to the person they feel they can work best with etc.
Agreed
>
> As for the feedback, it was for a 2 1/2month contract role, few organisations are going to be worried about giving feedback for that.
> As for the feedback, it was for a 2 1/2month contract role, few organisations are going to be worried about giving feedback for that.
Surely dependant on the remit?
>and probably didn't even take the interviews too seriously.
Having worked for a number of the largest companies, I'm confident in saying that they don't employ people with such an attitude or certainly don't aim to. Smaller companies, maybe.
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
All euphemisms for
6: We've read your posts on UKC and we think you're a little bit racist.
> better than some of the reasons I've been given:-
>
> 1: You're not right for our organisation/
> 2: They didn't like you're tie.
> 3: YOu're face just didn't fit.
> 4: You've not got an NVQ Level 1 in Data inputting.
> 5: We gave the job to our managers son instead.
>
> 1: You're not right for our organisation/
> 2: They didn't like you're tie.
> 3: YOu're face just didn't fit.
> 4: You've not got an NVQ Level 1 in Data inputting.
> 5: We gave the job to our managers son instead.
All euphemisms for
6: We've read your posts on UKC and we think you're a little bit racist.
In reply to David Martin:
Agreed or possibly the role has been withdrawn as it is a new position and maybe they decided not to go ahead with it. Yep I get that, although dragging it out over Christmas was a tad cruel after they had expressly stated that a decision would be communicated by the 24th which was actually two weeks after the interview date so one would assume plenty of time for first second and third candidates to decline!!
Cx
> (In reply to Clears)
>
> On the issue of the delay in notification....
>
> On the issue of the delay in notification....
Agreed or possibly the role has been withdrawn as it is a new position and maybe they decided not to go ahead with it. Yep I get that, although dragging it out over Christmas was a tad cruel after they had expressly stated that a decision would be communicated by the 24th which was actually two weeks after the interview date so one would assume plenty of time for first second and third candidates to decline!!
Cx
In reply to Removed User:
There is also the reverse effect, where employers, particularly but far from exclusively from small companies or departments, will not employ young women if they can possibly avoid it, for fear of being caught by the dreaded maternity leave "scam". When a manager has had 3 women out of a staff of 12 on maternity leave, one of them returning for a few months on limited duties and short hours only to get pregnant again, they tend to be pretty shy of taking on potential similar candidates. Obviously they are not going to tell you the real reason for their decision, given that it is illegal.
I read recently that this is widespread in Germany, where young female graduates are openly referred to as "wombs in waiting". The only surprise in this was that it was openly admitted.
> As has been said earlier a decision to choose one interviewee over another may be arbitrary. I remember one manager once discussing the recruitment of a new receptionist, "they all seemed perfectly capable of doing the job so I just fell back on the old rule of hiring the one with the biggest tits". No one is going to ever explain that to a disappointed applicant. ..... If pressed they'll just make something up.
There is also the reverse effect, where employers, particularly but far from exclusively from small companies or departments, will not employ young women if they can possibly avoid it, for fear of being caught by the dreaded maternity leave "scam". When a manager has had 3 women out of a staff of 12 on maternity leave, one of them returning for a few months on limited duties and short hours only to get pregnant again, they tend to be pretty shy of taking on potential similar candidates. Obviously they are not going to tell you the real reason for their decision, given that it is illegal.
I read recently that this is widespread in Germany, where young female graduates are openly referred to as "wombs in waiting". The only surprise in this was that it was openly admitted.
In reply to Fishmate:
It should be illegal to reject a candidate based on "over qualification" IMHO.
It should be illegal to reject a candidate based on "over qualification" IMHO.
In reply to SARS: Perhaps it will be more palatable to just say, "You haven't got the job as I don't like you"?
In reply to Fishmate:
Best one I ever was told was about an interview I attended for a management position in an Oil & Gas service company. I had the right set of skills, more than enough experience and qualifications.
The interviewer was a bloke (director) and the head of HR. The head of HR didn't know that a friend of mine was working as a temp in her office.
I didn't get the job because I 'looked like a lesbo'.
Best one I ever was told was about an interview I attended for a management position in an Oil & Gas service company. I had the right set of skills, more than enough experience and qualifications.
The interviewer was a bloke (director) and the head of HR. The head of HR didn't know that a friend of mine was working as a temp in her office.
I didn't get the job because I 'looked like a lesbo'.
I've been on the other side of the table; quite a few times in large organisation. Interviewing or during assessment centres. Generally after a day of interviews we spend a further 2 hours discussing the candidates (for a quota of 12 candidates per day), assessing how we have each scored them, and the strength and weaknesses we noted during the day.
The assessment is as much about behaviours, attitudes, and how you interact with the other candidates, as it is about qualifications. The latter only get you through the door, if they were the be all and end all then we wouldn’t need to interview would we?
For all candidates we always make sure we have positive feedback on where they have done well, and where there are learning opportunities. So ask for feedback on this type of information, take it on board, and I'm sure before long you’ll find yourself in employment.
Good luck.
The assessment is as much about behaviours, attitudes, and how you interact with the other candidates, as it is about qualifications. The latter only get you through the door, if they were the be all and end all then we wouldn’t need to interview would we?
For all candidates we always make sure we have positive feedback on where they have done well, and where there are learning opportunities. So ask for feedback on this type of information, take it on board, and I'm sure before long you’ll find yourself in employment.
Good luck.
In reply to Simon4:
i hear what your saying, but come on, most applicants aren't going to run off crying to a tribunal.
Similarly, most people don't apply for a job frivolously; why should we be tarred with a barely existant brush?
i hear what your saying, but come on, most applicants aren't going to run off crying to a tribunal.
Similarly, most people don't apply for a job frivolously; why should we be tarred with a barely existant brush?
In reply to thin bob:
"Actually we were wrong. Our most important asset is cash. Employees came in 9th, just below Tippex."
> (In reply to Fishmate)
> [...]
>
>
> thoroughly agree. Being told 'employees are our most precious asset', yet being treated like a disposable part isn't pleasant.
> [...]
>
>
> thoroughly agree. Being told 'employees are our most precious asset', yet being treated like a disposable part isn't pleasant.
"Actually we were wrong. Our most important asset is cash. Employees came in 9th, just below Tippex."
In reply to J0:
Genius
> (In reply to Fishmate)
>
>
>
> I didn't get the job because I 'looked like a lesbo'.
> I didn't get the job because I 'looked like a lesbo'.
Genius
In reply to Niall:
Nice one!
No 10 was a tie between those little round bits of confetti from the hole punches and blunt pencils.
> (In reply to thin bob)
> [...]
>
> "Actually we were wrong. Our most important asset is cash. Employees came in 9th, just below Tippex."
> [...]
>
> "Actually we were wrong. Our most important asset is cash. Employees came in 9th, just below Tippex."
Nice one!
No 10 was a tie between those little round bits of confetti from the hole punches and blunt pencils.
In reply to Niall:
Well if you are going to quote an old joke (or rather Dilbert cartoon), quote it right ... It was carbon paper
Dogbert thinks, then mutters .. "But we don't use carbon paper any more"
The other joke is that the bloke who wrote the Dilbert cartoons got to be a bit of a star for corporate events in the US. He claimed that all he had to do to get an riotous laugh was to rush dramatically into the conference room, throw his arms wide and shout out at the top of his voice :
"People are our greatest asset"
Worked every time.
> "Actually we were wrong. Our most important asset is cash. Employees came in 9th, just below Tippex."
Well if you are going to quote an old joke (or rather Dilbert cartoon), quote it right ... It was carbon paper
Dogbert thinks, then mutters .. "But we don't use carbon paper any more"
The other joke is that the bloke who wrote the Dilbert cartoons got to be a bit of a star for corporate events in the US. He claimed that all he had to do to get an riotous laugh was to rush dramatically into the conference room, throw his arms wide and shout out at the top of his voice :
"People are our greatest asset"
Worked every time.
In reply to J0:
Were you actually told this or heard it via someone else?
> (In reply to Fishmate)
> I didn't get the job because I 'looked like a lesbo'.
> I didn't get the job because I 'looked like a lesbo'.
Were you actually told this or heard it via someone else?
In reply to thin bob:
Good point. People who turn up for the pay check tend not to have CV's that attract many companies, especially in the current climate.
> (In reply to Simon4)
> Similarly, most people don't apply for a job frivolously; why should we be tarred with a barely existant brush?
> Similarly, most people don't apply for a job frivolously; why should we be tarred with a barely existant brush?
Good point. People who turn up for the pay check tend not to have CV's that attract many companies, especially in the current climate.
In reply to thin bob:
Its not the "most" its the fear of the "few" that has the HR bureaucrats quaking in their boots. Same as fear and exaggeration of "Elf & Safety" normally does more harm than even the most ludicrous rules that may actually exist. Normally the reaction is "no gain from giving feedback, only risk, so who needs it?", particularly from the extensive CYA front.
You'd be surprised, I've seen it from both sides, been furious from the most basic lack of courtesy even after going for interviews and been appalled at the poor quality and obvious inappropriateness of some candidates when I was one of the interviewers. I've also seen the good, the bad, and on one memorable occasion the really pretty ugly from interviewers who were colleagues of mine. The ugly was a manager who I had excellent reason to suspect was recruiting young women solely on the basis of their looks then if they joined, propositioning them quite aggressively. Some of them left within a week, some of them seemed to get promoted very rapidly far beyond their apparent merit, proving that the casting couch is far from unique to Holywood.
> (In reply to Simon4)
> most applicants aren't going to run off crying to a tribunal.
> most applicants aren't going to run off crying to a tribunal.
Its not the "most" its the fear of the "few" that has the HR bureaucrats quaking in their boots. Same as fear and exaggeration of "Elf & Safety" normally does more harm than even the most ludicrous rules that may actually exist. Normally the reaction is "no gain from giving feedback, only risk, so who needs it?", particularly from the extensive CYA front.
> Similarly, most people don't apply for a job frivolously; why should we be tarred with a barely existant brush?
You'd be surprised, I've seen it from both sides, been furious from the most basic lack of courtesy even after going for interviews and been appalled at the poor quality and obvious inappropriateness of some candidates when I was one of the interviewers. I've also seen the good, the bad, and on one memorable occasion the really pretty ugly from interviewers who were colleagues of mine. The ugly was a manager who I had excellent reason to suspect was recruiting young women solely on the basis of their looks then if they joined, propositioning them quite aggressively. Some of them left within a week, some of them seemed to get promoted very rapidly far beyond their apparent merit, proving that the casting couch is far from unique to Holywood.
In reply to Simon4:
Yeah, you're right...i just wish it wasn't so!
Yeah, you're right...i just wish it wasn't so!
In reply to thin bob: Actually in most of the recent interviews that I've taken part in, feedback has been given and quite quickly too. One senior manager turned to the candidate after about 20 mins when he was obviously floundering on technical issues, having done reasonably well on the "general" stuff and politely said "thanks for coming in, but its obvious that you won't be ready for this post for another year or two". In another case, the project leader phoned all candidates for about half an hour that evening.
On the other hand, I wouldn't like to be interviewed by me :
"Now Mr X, here are 3 SQL Server tables that are used in our current application, is there anything in particular that strikes you about them? - you sure you wouldn't like that coffee?"
On the other hand, I wouldn't like to be interviewed by me :
"Now Mr X, here are 3 SQL Server tables that are used in our current application, is there anything in particular that strikes you about them? - you sure you wouldn't like that coffee?"
In reply to Simon4:
another reason to extend paternity leave on full pay...
another reason to extend paternity leave on full pay...
In reply to karinh: So everybody else,i.e. single people and the childless can carry the passengers? Sorry, in the projects I'm involved in, people are expected to work, not get paid for making babies.
In reply to karinh: Nice pictures by the way. Atmospheric.
In reply to Simon4:
Thanks .
Just like childless people contribute to paid parental leave, today's children will contribute to the pensions of those childless people, I expect.
> (In reply to karinh) Nice pictures by the way. Atmospheric.
Thanks .
Just like childless people contribute to paid parental leave, today's children will contribute to the pensions of those childless people, I expect.
In reply to Fishmate:
HR girl who was an interviewer was giggling about it - the words came out of her mouth - in HR office post-interview unawares that the new temp was in fact, one of my mates...
> (In reply to J0)
> [...]
>
> Were you actually told this or heard it via someone else?
> [...]
>
> Were you actually told this or heard it via someone else?
HR girl who was an interviewer was giggling about it - the words came out of her mouth - in HR office post-interview unawares that the new temp was in fact, one of my mates...
In reply to Simon4: The tables are probably not properly normalized, and probably a good explanation for that is that a certain quirk of the application deems it so.
3rd Normal Form and all that eh? Ahh, hark back to the days of database design...
Arrrgh my brain hurts lol
3rd Normal Form and all that eh? Ahh, hark back to the days of database design...
Arrrgh my brain hurts lol
In reply to dionhughes:
Not normalised at all in fact. But could you spot the relevant points under interview stress?
Yes, the person who wrote it was a raving lunatic!
Well we do need another developer. No long-term sickness or weird personal problems that will suddenly interrupt your work? BTW, very simple rules regarding pay, no work, no pay. Not public sector special pleading here.
> The tables are probably not properly normalized
Not normalised at all in fact. But could you spot the relevant points under interview stress?
> and probably a good explanation for that is that a certain quirk of the application deems it so.
Yes, the person who wrote it was a raving lunatic!
> Arrrgh my brain hurts lol
Well we do need another developer. No long-term sickness or weird personal problems that will suddenly interrupt your work? BTW, very simple rules regarding pay, no work, no pay. Not public sector special pleading here.
In reply to karinh:
Don't mention it, they are the kind of shots I favour.
The triumph of hope over experience. Most childless people will get no pensions that they don't provide for themselves. If they can get one at all that is. Setting the certainty of (very high) current costs against the vague and unlikely promise of (probably pretty low) future payback. A bird in the hand and all that.
I'm afraid its a bit like ghosts.
Lady to Mark Twain : "Do you believe in ghosts?"
Mark Twain to Lady : "No maam, I've seen too many of them"
Reflects the likelihood of random children contributing to other people's pensions.
> Thanks .
Don't mention it, they are the kind of shots I favour.
> Just like childless people contribute to paid parental leave, today's children will contribute to the pensions of those childless people,
The triumph of hope over experience. Most childless people will get no pensions that they don't provide for themselves. If they can get one at all that is. Setting the certainty of (very high) current costs against the vague and unlikely promise of (probably pretty low) future payback. A bird in the hand and all that.
> I expect.
I'm afraid its a bit like ghosts.
Lady to Mark Twain : "Do you believe in ghosts?"
Mark Twain to Lady : "No maam, I've seen too many of them"
Reflects the likelihood of random children contributing to other people's pensions.
In reply to Simon4: But could you spot the relevant points under interview stress?
Probably not, but then again I never could talk the talk, only walk the walk. Doesn't come over in an interview situation too good. ;p
Yes, the person who wrote it was a raving lunatic!
Most programmers are, in fact.
Well we do need another developer. No long-term sickness or weird personal problems that will suddenly interrupt your work? BTW, very simple rules regarding pay, no work, no pay. Not public sector special pleading here.
If only I had the mental chastity to even contemplate another foray into SQL Query Statements, inner-outer joins and Table Normalisation, with Many to one relationships etc. etc. Nah, your alright Simon4, I think I'll settle for the life of a numpty and keep my sanity intact. Thanks for the kind offer though.
Probably not, but then again I never could talk the talk, only walk the walk. Doesn't come over in an interview situation too good. ;p
Yes, the person who wrote it was a raving lunatic!
Most programmers are, in fact.
Well we do need another developer. No long-term sickness or weird personal problems that will suddenly interrupt your work? BTW, very simple rules regarding pay, no work, no pay. Not public sector special pleading here.
If only I had the mental chastity to even contemplate another foray into SQL Query Statements, inner-outer joins and Table Normalisation, with Many to one relationships etc. etc. Nah, your alright Simon4, I think I'll settle for the life of a numpty and keep my sanity intact. Thanks for the kind offer though.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...