Understanding the Interview Process

donfers

Many jobseekers out there don't have a lot of cash. If they are called for interview they often have to pay for a bus or train to get to the site where the interview will take place. They maybe need to spend additional money on taxi's to and from the interview location as well as possible expenses on stuff like lunch, new shoes or whatever. The ironic thing is that this money is often only refunded to those people who are interviewing for high-ranking positions and are usually hardly in need of the cash.

Is is true that employers are nowadays rarely offering to cover expenses for the jobseekers?

I recall being called myself for an interview not so long ago. I looked at the job spec and I thought that although I met some of the qualifications I didn't have everything the employer was looking for, but since they called me for interview I said to myself I'd give it a shot. I figured they'd hardly call me to interview unless I had some kind of shot at getting the job. About 5 minutes into the interview I knew the job wasn't for me and the job spec had been fairly misleading. On top of all that the job spec hadn't mentioned that the job was purely to cover for a woman who was leaving on maternity leave.

Are the people who decide you merit an interview generally the same people who decide if you will get the gig or not? (I hope so because otherwise the miscommunications could leave the jobseeker in the lurch i.e. the person who called you for interview spotted something in your CV that s/he believed would make you an ideal candidate whereas the interviewer or decision-maker perhaps perhaps couldn't give a damn about that, had overlooked it and was focused on other areas).

Do the HR people consciously invite people to interview who they know have little or no chance of getting the job i.e. forgive me for hypothesising but imagine to justify their own existence they need to have a certain amount of meetings/interviews per week/position, let's say they are set a target of interviewing 12 people for a particular position - then is it possible that after finding 5 or 6 candidates who have exactly the qualifications/experience they desire, they then proceed to call another 5-6 candidates who have bits and pieces of what they desire for the position but these candidates will essentially be wasting their time no matter how well they interview and are just being called to meet some kind of internal bureaucratic target by a certain deadline? If this is the case then I feel it is wrong. Do not call a person for interview unless s/he has a genuine chance at the job and don't justify the decision to call a person with almost zero chance of getting the job by saying "well they could give the best interview in the history of the world with Obamaesque inspirational speeches, powerpoint presentations with a 100 point plan to turn the department around and a 40 page sonnet in tribute to the CEO and we would have considered them for second interview". The jobseeker is short on cash and morale already, don't waste his/her time.

Is it common practise to call people for interview even though they are unlikely to get the job or do not have experience in some of the skills the job requires? If so, why call them? I speculated already, I may be wrong but I'd like the answer.

Also what can the jobseeker do if s/he arrives for the interview and discovers that some details about the job were not revealed to him/her? i.e. it is just maternity cover or the job focuses primarily on a particular skill (the area where you are lacking) and the other stuff in the job spec isn't really of importance (the stuff you believed got you the interview)?

I mean I have never personally walked out midinterview but I did kind of have an internal rueful smile to myself at an interview when it was not revealed to me it was for maternity leave until I arrived on site (and the 2 interviewees seemed deadset on say the project management aspect of the job to the point where the other 10 bullet points on the job spec didn't matter, I ask myself why was I called for interview if project management skills are the be all and end all and I am not as experienced in that as I am in the other 10 skills required, it just strikes me as completely unprofessional on their part to hang me on that - if it was so crucial then why call me in the first place as my CV made no reference to project managment skills). Is there any avenue a jobseeker can go down in terms of reporting/complaining about an employer/recruiter who has presented a misleading job spec and perhaps got you to interview under false pretenses?

I apologise if this post seems a little bitter, it's just I sympathise so much with the many people going through this process and the last thing they need or deserve is to be screwed over. I'd appreciate any feedback on the various points raised in this rambling post - sometimes it could be just bitterness or paranoia on the part of the jobseeker that they didn't get the job and they are just lashing out and refusing to accept they simply weren't the best qualified candidate, so if your first instinct is to jump into this thread and just say "just take it on the chin and move on" then don't bother, I realise that already, I am just seeking to shine a light on any potential abuses in the recruitment and interviewing process and to debate if they do exist, then what can be done about them? It's something that is rarely discussed or highlighted in the media as there is perhaps a kind of omerta or code of silence from the hr people and they are hardly likely to engage in the self-destructive process of questioning the integrity of how the interviewing/recruitment process is sometimes quite simply dishonorable. Is that the case? Does anyone have a detailed insight into how it works (and sometimes fails the jobseeker) or am I just waffling a load of nonsense?

dvpower

donfers wrote: »

Is is true that employers are nowadays rarely offering to cover expenses for the jobseekers?

I don't think it was ever common, unless the job was abroad or some other unusual circumstance.

donfers wrote: »

Are the people who decide you merit an interview generally the same people who decide if you will get the gig or not?

In my experience, they're not. Often, you get one person drawing up a job spec, with a lot of 'nice to haves' on it, a HR person who mightn't understand what the requirements are trying to match a CV with the spec and putting all sorts of unsuitable candidates through to first interview, and then an interviewer going through the motions of conducting the interview.

If you're going for an interview you should compare your own skills with the job spec and try and figure out whats important and what's not. I know for some technical jobs they tend to list a whole pile of required skills - most of them aren't deal makers or deal breakers, but some are - I'm inclined to pretty much disregard anything in the bottom half of the list (unless I have it).

donfers wrote: »

Do the HR people consciously invite people to interview who they know have little or no chance of getting the job

I doubt it (that they consciously do it, why would they?). It depends on the role, but I've seen (in tech environments) where they just wouldn't understand the requirements themselves very well.

donfers wrote: »

Also what can the jobseeker do if s/he arrives for the interview and discovers that some details about the job were not revealed to him/her? i.e. it is just maternity cover or the job focuses primarily on a particular skill (the area where you are lacking) and the other stuff in the job spec isn't really of importance (the stuff you believed got you the interview)?

If they don't tell you something simple like the tenure of the job, that's pretty unforgivable (but I'm not sure you can do anything about it). Getting the skillsets wrong is more complicated.

Mr. Loverman

donfers wrote: »

Is is true that employers are nowadays rarely offering to cover expenses for the jobseekers?

Why should the employer cover your interview expenses?

It is not their problem you cannot afford to buy a suit or pay the bus fare.

I don't mean to sound harsh, I am just pointing out reality.

donfers wrote: »

Are the people who decide you merit an interview generally the same people who decide if you will get the gig or not?

It is impossible to say for sure. Every company is different.

In my experience the HR person will recommend people for interview, but the decision maker has the final decision who gets called for interview.

donfers wrote: »

Do the HR people consciously invite people to interview who they know have little or no chance of getting the job

No, most managers and HR people are too busy to waste their time on useless applicants.

donfers wrote: »

Is it common practise to call people for interview even though they are unlikely to get the job or do not have experience in some of the skills the job requires?

If there is something about your CV which catches their eye, they will call you for interview.

What I will say is this:

If you do not get the job it is your own fault. Do not look for excuses to blame the employer. You either didn't do a good interview or the employer realised you aren't suitable.

donfers

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Why should the employer cover your interview expenses?

It is not their problem you cannot afford to buy a suit or pay the bus fare.

I don't mean to sound harsh, I am just pointing out reality.





It is impossible to say for sure. Every company is different.

In my experience the HR person will recommend people for interview, but the decision maker has the final decision who gets called for interview.




No, most managers and HR people are too busy to waste their time on useless applicants.




If there is something about your CV which catches their eye, they will call you for interview.

What I will say is this:

If you do not get the job it is your own fault. Do not look for excuses to blame the employer. You either didn't do a good interview or the employer realised you aren't suitable.

I never said the employee SHOULD cover the expenses in my post

I did say however that if you just want to post blame the employee then save your breath, I already realise that most of time that is correct.

Please read my post again

...I am just trying to understand the process and although yes, of course it is the employee's fault s/he didn't get the job most of the time, that is not always the case, politics and bureaucracy and incompetency on the part of the employer can come into play. Furthermore having working alongside hr people in the past I have noticed there are as many incompetent people, working in that sector, as any other, if not more and obviously as a result of that problems can arise for the jobseeker, to suggest it's always the jobseekers fault if s/he doesn't get the gig is utter nonsense but predictable and typical of a certain mindset in this country.

I just think one area that lacks real transparency is the hiring process and yes, believe it or not, jobseekers have been treated shabbily at times.

As I said I am just trying to examine any potential failures, miscommunications, oversights or abuses in the hiring process but if it makes you feel better to state it is always the jobseekers fault then go ahead - although I have already acknowledged that is often the case, it is not the discussion I was seeking here. In my initial post I specifically asked that those type of dismissive dogmatic responses were really not worth posting here. This discussion is about the validity and integrity of the hiring process rather than the ability of the jobseeker but as I predicted in my initial post it didn't take long for someone to rush to the jugular of the jobseeker and while most of the time the jobseeker should accept responsibility for not getting the job, IT IS NOT A UNIVERSAL TRUTH THAT IT IS ALWAYS HIS/HER FAULT - are you seriously suggesting the best qualified person ALWAYS gets the job?????.

In any case that isn't the crux of this debate....I prefer to focus on when the hiring/recruitment process is abused in some way e.g. not informing jobseeker that job is to cover maternity leave, misleading description of job duties or pay, disrespectful or ignorant interviewing techniques, interviewing someone purely to fill a quota etc etc

If you think the hiring process is incorruptible and infallible then that's your perogative. I disagree and I'd prefer to focus the discussion on anybody who can critically analyse the process and highlight any imperfections therein and how best to reform it.

Mr. Loverman

I think we just have a different mentality. I never blame other people for my failures, even if there is some exceptional circumstance which put me at an unfair disadvantage.

If I don't get the job it's because they don't want me.