Unfair interview questions

[Dave7]

Many rears ago when I was 25 (I'm 68 now) I was trying to "get into" sales i.e. as a salesman on the road.
In my first interview I walked in (with a belly full of nerves) to see a panel of 3. I shook hands and the first guy simply said "sorry but you are not suitable". I simply turned around and walk out...........I felt physically sick.

In my 2nd interview the guy was sooooo nice. He said "I'm not going to offer you the job but will give you some interview technique advice". I took it to heart and soon after got my first sales job.
Eventually I ended up as a national manager for a multi-national and then owned my own company.
I still thank that 2nd guy for his understanding of my situation and his kindly suggestions.

 

[LocalLad]

Many rears ago when I was 25 (I'm 68 now) I was trying to "get into" sales i.e. as a salesman on the road.
In my first interview I walked in (with a belly full of nerves) to see a panel of 3. I shook hands and the first guy simply said "sorry but you are not suitable". I simply turned around and walk out...........I felt physically sick.

In my 2nd interview the guy was sooooo nice. He said "I'm not going to offer you the job but will give you some interview technique advice". I took it to heart and soon after got my first sales job.
Eventually I ended up as a national manager for a multi-national and then owned my own company.
I still thank that 2nd guy for his understanding of my situation and his kindly suggestions.

When I've failed an interview (thankfully not too many times), I've always asked for feedback - it's invaluable.

When I went for a summer job first year of uni, I rang the recruiter and asked for feedback. We got chatting and he offered me another job in the business.

 

[User482]

[QUOTE 4014018, member: 76"]I went for an interview today, lots of questions, most of which I handled, two didn't go well. One because my experience probably wasn't up to it, which is absolutely fine and to be taken on the chin.

The other was 'the successful candidate will be expected to continue a current workstream with [a specific person] who works in [specific dept], can you tell us when you have had experience of dealing with [specific person]?' I sat there and was obviously confused, the second panel member asked if I would like clarification, which was basically the same question but a bit louder! I pointed out that I was an external candidate and didn't know this particular person, at which point the panel member just put a line through the answer feedback box, and the second panel member just wrote 'None'

I know the current Deputy Head of the department is going for this Head of Department job. I wonder if the 4 external candidates had their time wasted? Anyway, I have cancelled the leaving do and deleted my resignation letter [/QUOTE]

If the interview was competency based (as public sector recruitment tends to be) then all of the questions/ tests should be related to the published essential criteria for the post. It's difficult to imagine how that question could be justifiably related to a competency, so there are probably grounds for challenge.

 

[cd365]

I would have assumed that a candidate attending an interview would have already done enough research to know if mine was a company that they were happy to join. Otherwise the candidate will have been wasting my time in accepting an interview and their time by turning up.

There is more to being employed by a company than their glossy brochure, e.g. their working environment. Not all companies have a great online presence where you can find out full information either.

I went for an interview at another company where the whole office was deathly quiet and when you walked it it was like meerkat manor, there was no way I was going to join that company though the job was great. A good salary is not the most important thing to me.

 

[Dayvo]

There is more to being employed by a company than their glossy brochure, e.g. their working environment. Not all companies have a great online presence where you can find out full information either.

I went for an interview at another company where the whole office was deathly quiet and when you walked it it was like meerkat manor, there was no way I was going to join that company though the job was great. A good salary is not the most important thing to me.

Indeed!

And if they haven't got a secure bike parking area and showers, then it's a no brainer.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If the interview was competency based (as public sector recruitment tends to be) then all of the questions/ tests should be related to the published essential criteria for the post. It's difficult to imagine how that question could be justifiably related to a competency, so there are probably grounds for challenge.

Are you sure? IANAL but recruiting requires you to discriminate, legally, between one candidate and another. The law doesn't require a rational decision. The law doesn't require a decision that prefers the most competent candidate. The law doesn't require you ask everyone the same questions. Best practise on the other hand....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I would have assumed that a candidate attending an interview would have already done enough research to know if mine was a company that they were happy to join. Otherwise the candidate will have been wasting my time in accepting an interview and their time by turning up.

You're not just joining the company. You are probably joining the reporting line of at least one of the knobjockies doing the interviews. "Do I like these people enough to spend all day in their company?" is a good question to ask yourself.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Indeed!

And if they haven't got a secure bike parking area and showers, then it's a no brainer.

Damn right.

 

[jefmcg]

Are you sure? IANAL but recruiting requires you to discriminate, legally, between one candidate and another. The law doesn't require a rational decision. The law doesn't require a decision that prefers the most competent candidate. The law doesn't require you ask everyone the same questions. Best practise on the other hand....

It's organisational guideline, rules, whatever, not the "the law". You can see this a lot in science. Someone comes in on a short term post doc contract, they are good so the researcher scrapes the money together to keep them on. But to do so, they have to create a new position, and job description and requirements. They already have the perfect candidate but they are required to offer the job to the candidate who best meets the requirement, so they tailor the job ad to match that person. "Must be fluent in English, Romanian, Japanese and Klingon...."

 

[jefmcg]

I think my favourite bad interview was for a software development job. The interviewer booked a hotel room for the interview, but not a meeting room, a bedroom. Probably all the other candidates were male, but it was not a good idea to interview a woman in a room with a bed. He did offer to do the interview in the coffee shop, but still. It went from bad to worse, when he got to the bit that the code was undocumented, and he thought the previous developer who left on very bad terms might have left some software bombs in the code. I decided this would be a terrible gig, and wrapped up the interview early, telling the interviewer I wasn't the person for the job. Which, but the way, I wasn't . I would not have done a good job of tidying up that mess.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It's organisational guideline, rules, whatever, not the "the law". You can see this a lot in science. Someone comes in on a short term post doc contract, they are good so the researcher scrapes the money together to keep them on. But to do so, they have to create a new position, and job description and requirements. They already have the perfect candidate but they are required to offer the job to the candidate who best meets the requirement, so they tailor the job ad to match that person. "Must be fluent in English, Romanian, Japanese and Klingon...."

There's been a couple of posts suggesting a legal challenge to the decision. I questioning the basis, if any, of the challenge.

 

[jefmcg]

There's been a couple of posts suggesting a legal challenge to the decision. I questioning the basis, if any, of the challenge.

The quote you posted doesn't suggest a legal challenge to me, but a challenge within the organisation. He specifically mentioned it was only some interviews are competency based, so that doesn't suggest he thinks it's the law of the land.

Organisations that require the staff to select the most competent candidate also have avenues for appeal if you think that has not been done.

If the interview was competency based (as public sector recruitment tends to be) then all of the questions/ tests should be related to the published essential criteria for the post. It's difficult to imagine how that question could be justifiably related to a competency, so there are probably grounds for challenge.

 

[User482]

Are you sure? IANAL but recruiting requires you to discriminate, legally, between one candidate and another. The law doesn't require a rational decision. The law doesn't require a decision that prefers the most competent candidate. The law doesn't require you ask everyone the same questions. Best practise on the other hand....

I didn't mention the law...

 

[TheDoctor]

In an interview, I was once asked if I would move to Milton Keynes.
I may well have winced. Certainly my enthusiasm (such as it was) visibly declined.
And lo! No offer was forthcoming.
A bullet dodged, IMHO.

 

[swee'pea99]

In an interview, I was once asked if I would move to Milton Keynes.
I may well have winced. Certainly my enthusiasm (such as it was) visibly declined.
And lo! No offer was forthcoming.
A bullet dodged, IMHO.

I once asked whether Bracknell was as quiet as it seemed...whether there was anything at all to do of an evening. I was told there were a couple of pubs, but they were a bit on the quiet side and 'when we want a night out, we go to Reading.' I was offered a job, and really needed one at the time, but I declined.