Do company's perform token interviews?

AlphaMale 3OO

So that they can say they "advertised" the position externally and considered external candidates? Did an interview with a bank and it struck me how unchallenging the interview was. They rarely tried to ask me any sort of difficult questions, didnt explain anything more than I knew about the role and generally there was a sense of them just sitting there nodding their heads, despite me coming across as articulate as I could. Of course the vibe I got was one of apathy and for what was supposed to be quite a responsible position there was just one round of selection (this interview), hardly the way large banks conduct their recruitment? So it didnt surprise me when the recruiter called me and said that the feedback was that my "goals" which we hadn't even covered in the interview where not in line with what this particular bank could offer me, despite my qualification being exactly what was advertised. Id like to hear opinions. then again maybe im just trying to pick myself up after a kick in the teeth.

jesus_thats_gre

Without doubt. Also, some definately have exactly who they want for the job lined up before the interviews even start and just do the interviews to keep up appearances.

Ibjiba

Most certainly yes. Keeping up appearances is as important to a company as it is to a person..

BuffyBot

forbesii wrote:

So that they can say they "advertised" the position externally and considered external candidates? Did an interview with a bank and it struck me how unchallenging the interview was. They rarely tried to ask me any sort of difficult questions, didnt explain anything more than I knew about the role and generally there was a sense of them just sitting there nodding their heads, despite me coming across as articulate as I could. Of course the vibe I got was one of apathy and for what was supposed to be quite a responsible position there was just one round of selection (this interview), hardly the way large banks conduct their recruitment? So it didnt surprise me when the recruiter called me and said that the feedback was that my "goals" which we hadn't even covered in the interview where not in line with what this particular bank could offer me, despite my qualification being exactly what was advertised. Id like to hear opinions. then again maybe im just trying to pick myself up after a kick in the teeth.

On the flip side, it's easy to think that we've done better than we actually have. I've interviewed people before and in the follow up conversations I get a lot of "I thought I did really well" and I was (privately) going "eh, no, not really".

While I'm not saying it's the case here, the moral of the story is that sometimes we just don't do as well as we think. Plus, while your application may have been fine of paper, they may have decided that you weren't the person they needed - and/or maybe the chemistry just wasn't there.

AlphaMale 3OO

Without a doubt there was no chemistry. try as i might, it was like talking to 2 cardboard cut-outs. when it was time for me to ask questions I asked the first interviewer if she enjoyed her role. she shifted uncomfortably in her seat before awkwardly delivering a half-hearted line about how much she LOVED it. I asked the other interviewer what skills are required to succeed in the company. Again she looked awkwardly at the other interviewer as if she was never expecting this and simply replied "hard-work". I know when I fcuk up an interview and I didnt mess this up. My application was on the ball and the feedback was very positive bar the "goals in line" comment. I felt that they approached it half-heartedly almost as if it didnt matter and that they had predetermined the result. Add to this being left waiting in reception for a half hour after arrival and I dont see why they even bothered wasting my time.

flash harry

forbesii wrote:

Without a doubt there was no chemistry. try as i might, it was like talking to 2 cardboard cut-outs. when it was time for me to ask questions I asked the first interviewer if she enjoyed her role. she shifted uncomfortably in her seat before awkwardly delivering a half-hearted line about how much she LOVED it. I asked the other interviewer what skills are required to succeed in the company. Again she looked awkwardly at the other interviewer as if she was never expecting this and simply replied "hard-work". I know when I fcuk up an interview and I didnt mess this up. My application was on the ball and the feedback was very positive bar the "goals in line" comment. I felt that they approached it half-heartedly almost as if it didnt matter and that they had predetermined the result. Add to this being left waiting in reception for a half hour after arrival and I dont see why they even bothered wasting my time.

I dont think they do interviews for the sake of it in the private sector. In civil service they have to have open competition but private organisations have no obligation, why would you interview externally if you have someone internally? Not only is it a waste of time but promoting internally is seen as a positive thing by staff re career progression.....

I do think that interviewers have bad days; have met someone earlier in day who they've offered the job too but haven't had chance to cancel you/or offer hasnt actually been accepted etc. Completely wrong but I believe it happens......

py2006

Yea they definitely do.

I have been to a couple interviews were from the very start I could tell they were going though the motions.

On one interview the guy was clearly thinking about what he was going to have for his dinner that evening. I almost walked out.

flash harry

py2006 wrote:

Yea they definitely do.

I have been to a couple interviews were from the very start I could tell they were going though the motions.

On one interview the guy was clearly thinking about what he was going to have for his dinner that evening. I almost walked out.

Not trying to get into an argument but maybe he just thought you were not for the role???

What possible reason would they have to do this?

dame

It defnitely happens.

It's widespread in employing new teachers in rural schools. They'll have already decided that so-and-so's neice is getting the job but they have to interview.

nesf

BuffyBot wrote:

On the flip side, it's easy to think that we've done better than we actually have. I've interviewed people before and in the follow up conversations I get a lot of "I thought I did really well" and I was (privately) going "eh, no, not really".

While I'm not saying it's the case here, the moral of the story is that sometimes we just don't do as well as we think. Plus, while your application may have been fine of paper, they may have decided that you weren't the person they needed - and/or maybe the chemistry just wasn't there.

Most definitely true.


Going through the motions can happen but it's fairly unusual in the private sector from what I've heard.

syklops

Alot of companies are b**tards. They seem to forget that your a person trying to give it your all to get a start in life.

Im currently looking for a job and have lots of horror stories to tell.

Google, after keeping me waiting for 3 months, and putting me through 5 interviews, gave me the following feedback: "We dont think you are enthusiastic enough about technology". WTF? They couldnt figure that out after the first interview?

For a datacentre job, I was interviewed, and given good initial feedback, and they said they would let me know in a few days, and then they got back to me and said there was a dispute about how many they were hiring and would be back to me soon. 6 weeks later, still waiting.

Last week i had an interview with 2 cardboard cut outs, who didnt ask me any technical questions, couldn't tell me what the most common problems were, and said they would let me know in a day or 2. That was monday still nothing.

Then another company I apply to, say they are not happy with how much I have moved about job wise.

Do they honestly think that applicants can wait for weeks and weeks to get feedback, and do they really think that you come out of school, get exactly the job you want, and if you move around jobs its because your unreliable?

The dole is starting to look appealing. I now know why people turn to a life of crime. Its not because they dont want to work, its because getting one and keeping one is too much hassle.

rant over for now.

heyjude

Definitely they do. Been on the receiving end at least a couple of times, including in my case, one situation where it was apparent afterwards that no matter whether I had did handstands on the bosses desk, I had no chance, despite having greater experience than the person who eventually got the job.

Even more disappointing since it turned out later that they got the job by deception, but I won't go into that.

In another case, I was told no experience was necessary, they were looking for someone that could commit to the job for six months and they gave the job to guy on summer holiday from university ! I met the personnel officer some time later and he seemed genuinely embarassed, so it sounded as though it wasn't his decision.

Doug1234

They most certainly do. It can happen when there have been a number of applicants that apply for the job and one of them has unexpected experience which may complement the role. The problem often occurs due to the fact that a lot of people nowadays are a little "imaginative" with their CV's and it can be difficult to seperate fact from fiction. I have received CV's for people that are applying for admin jobs and they have "managed large international companies", were personally responsible for a 10% increase in sales of an international corporate (he was an accountant, so I'm not sure if this was an out of hours interest !!) and even had recommendations from several US Senators (who I doubt I would be able to call to verify). Their CV's bear no relation to the truth !

I don't know why people bother going so overboard with their CV's, because its generally obvious what they have done the minute they arrive at the interview (and this just annoys the interviewer as his time is being wasted) or the person gets the job and hasn't really got the experience / knowledge to do the job in which case I either have to train him (costing me money and time) or let him go (which means that I have to recruit again).

leeroybrown

If it's a financial and they run a pointless external interview then I'd suggest that good candidates they had already interviewed that day lived up to their excellent CVs and that it would take a miracle for another already reviewed candidate to trump them. In that case you can hardly blame them for being disinterested. Given that the other option of telling people to bugger off without interview (which will always create more complants/problems on average) it's a safe bet to complete the days running order.

To be honest I think that quite oftent the private sector should be more blunt about terminating interviews early given the idiot quota you often have to deal with at interview.

Also, i response to Doug1234's complain, I expect people to lie and push the truth and assume that they will. What disappoints me is how few know how to balance it correctly. People in general are idiots...

pow wow

They absolutely do, in the private sector and public sector. I've worked in both where line managers who were involved in interviews were required to interview a specific quota to prove they'd given it a shot to find someone externally, or to be able to justify why one candidate got the job if asked at any time in the future.

Often the quota would be 5 or more and so people were interviewed for the sake of making up the numbers. It happens.