Interviewer had not read my CV

LegacyUser

I had an interview yesterday and I was first interviewed by the technical lead. He had my CV in front of him and seemed to know it fairly well as he was asking me questions related to specific parts of my work experience. After that I was interviewed by a woman who I think was HR but I am not sure. She had my CV with her but one of the first things she said was "I haven't read your CV, I never read CV's". I answered her questions as best I could but I did get the impression from her body language that she wasn't that enamoured with me.
She made a big deal of the fact that I had been out of work for six months (which is not that long really I think) even though I told her I have been looking for work every day during that time and I have been for a good few interviews.
Also she got confused as to the reasons for my departure from my last two jobs (the first was because the company was on the verge of going bust and the second was because the work I was doing was too boring). I explained this to her but she still got the two mixed up. She was flicking between the pages of my CV in a flustered manner and seemed to be very scatty-brained. I was fairly p****d-off that she hadn't read my CV but I didn't indicate this to her in any way. I am still a bit annoyed about it now even though it has happened to me once before. The other time the interviewer made it less obvious as he asked me what college I went to (I knew he hadn't read my CV then). It was quite bizarre that the woman yesterday admitted it to me and seemed to be almost proud of it ("I never read CV's"). I have been for loads of interviews and been the victim of all kinds of ignorant behaviour (the interviewer looking out the window while I was talking, doodling on a notebook etc.) so I am not that surprised but still quite annoyed.
I think what may have happened is that the first interviewer may have said to her after he came out "such and such a guy is here for an interview. If you want to you can have chat with him". If she hadn't read my CV she should have said "No, I don't see the point as I haven't read his CV so I wouldn't know what to ask him".
I am not sure if I am still interested in the job if this is the kind of person they employ but I just wanted to know if I am turned down should I say this in an email of reply (that this person had not read my CV). They will probably say it sour grapes but if I was her boss I would want to know and I wouldn't be impressed. I got the feeling that she didn't like me and may not get the job because of this.
I just don't think it's right that she should get away with it as the interviewee is expected to prepare as diligently as possible before an interview (and I do) so why shouldn't the interviewer do the same?

Kinet1c

You need to ask yourself if you want to work for a company that hires people like this? or work with people like this?

davo10

If she doesn't read cvs and made a point of telling you she didn't read yours, then she is not interested in what is on the cv, whats on it is obviously not what is being assessed as that was done at your previous interview (what would be the point of two interviewers assessing the same points on cv in seperate interviews on the same day?).

She was assessing you, your personality, your responses to questions when situations arise that are out of your comfort zone, how you are likely to react when colleagues don't do what you expect them to do/don't do what you consider to be the norm etc. To be honest, it sounds like you weren't up to it and got bent out of shape by something as simple as being told that she hadn't read your cv. HR aren't interested in assessing how good you are going to be at your job, that's the technical leads responsibity when interviewing you, they are interested in how good you are going to be as an employee.

It is not for you to decide how an employer should prepare for an interview, it is for you to try and impress them, particularly as you have been looking for 6 months. Also, telling them you voluntarily left your previous two jobs, one because it was "boring" while at the same time informing them that you are motivated to find a new job by applying every day, would seem odd to many employers, it may suggest you are unreliable and prone to quitting if you are not happy with something.

I'm sure there was another thread similar to this a while back where an interview was being conducted by three people. During the interview one got up and left, the person being interviewed got so flustered about this that he/she bombed the rest of the interview and didn't get the job.

LegacyUser

davo10 wrote: »

If she doesn't read cvs and made a point of telling you she didn't read yours, then she is not interested in what is on the cv, that is obviously not what is being assessed as that was done at your previous interview (what would be the point of two interviewers assessing the same points in seperate interviews on the same day?).

She was assessing you, your personality, your responses to questions when situations arise that are out of your comfort zone, how you are likely to react when colleagues don't do what you expect them to do/don't do what you consider to be the norm etc. To be honest, it sounds like you weren't up to it and got bent out of shape by something as simple as being told that she hadn't read your cv. HR aren't interested in how good you are going to be at your job, that's the technical leads job, they are interested in how good you are going to be as an employee.

This should be a lesson learned for the next time.

No, you are completely wrong there. I didn't get "bent out of shape" as you put it. I answered all her questions well. She didn't ask me any of the things you listed above, just things that she would have known had she read my CV (how long did I work in the last job I was in etc.). A HR person should definitely read a CV as they can then see things like if took course and didn't finish them, if I was out of work for a couple of years doing nothing etc. You can actually tell a lot about someone's personality and what they would be like in the workplace from their CV.
Anyway, she printed off my CV and had it with her and was consulting it while I was in there so if as you say she wasn't interested in what was in it, why would she do that? I just thought it was quite ignorant, I've been for loads of other interviews with HR people and I can tell they have read my CV as they asked me about specific points on it.

davo10

ryan_00 wrote: »

No, you are completely wrong there. I didn't get "bent out of shape" as you put it. I answered all her questions well. She didn't ask me any of the things you listed above, just things that she would have known had she read my CV (how long did I work in the last job I was in etc.). A HR person should definitely read a CV as they can then see things like if took course and didn't finish them, if I was out of work for a couple of years doing nothing etc. You can actually tell a lot about someone's personality and what they would be like in the workplace from their CV.
Anyway, she printed off my CV and had it with her and was consulting it while I was in there so if as you say she wasn't interested in what was in it, why would she do that? I just thought it was quite ignorant, I've been for loads of other interviews with HR people and I can tell they have read my CV as they asked me about specific points on it.

Forget the cv, that is not what she was assessing, you know this because she told you so. You're cv had no importance in that interview, she was forming an opinion of you, your personality and try as you may have done to hide it, the annoyance you refer to in your OP may have been plain for her to see. Again, it is not for you to dictate how the interviewer prepares, it is their prerogative and it is their decision to give you a job, your decision is whether to accept it if offered.

LegacyUser

davo10 wrote: »

Forget the cv, that is not what she was assessing, you know this because she told you so. You're cv had no importance in that interview, she was forming an opinion of you, your personality and try as you may have done to hide it, the annoyance you refer to in your OP may have been plain for her to see. Again, it is not for you to dictate how the interviewer prepares, it is their prerogative and it is their decision to give you a job, your decision is whether to accept it if offered.

That must have been why she had it with her and kept looking through it so.

CatFromHue

On the positive side the technical lead, who I assume you'll be working with/for, was a good interviewer.

I'm an Engineer and most interviews I've had the HR person has taken the back seat and asked questions not related to my CV. They're not Engineers so don't have the back ground to communicate about more technical things and so would ask quite different questions which probably wouldn't have much to do with my CV.

I've never had someone say they haven't read my CV though.

smcgiff

It's up to the company how they wish to interview. She said she hadn't read your CV. Why would she say that?

There are two reasons for this that come to my mind.

1. To challenge you by disorientating you. See how you react in an unfamiliar position.

2. To get you to assume no prior knowledge and to give more full answers. This is a good technique.

Some people expect the interviewer to know their CV back to front. This will not always be the case.

Put it down to experience.

smcgiff

ryan_00 wrote: »

I explained this to her but she still got the two mixed up.

One other thing. The above may have been on purpose. HR have a number of techniques to find out if what is presented is correct. HR have learned how to challenge key areas.

Some may not challenge an interviewer if they made the above mistake if what they had said wasn't consistent with their CV to avoid that area. If you corrected her you did the right thing.

LegacyUser

I've got enough feedback so I don't really want the thread to drag on. I still think she was a bit of an idiot and I wouldn't credit her with enough intelligence to had deliberately to dis-orientate me. She seemed a bit devil-may-care and that's why she didn't read it. I was actually there after all so I think I am best-placed to judge.

Deenie123

OP, your feelings were probably written all over your face if you came out of it that unhappy. It sounds like you didn't get what was going on at all.

If someone in an interview said that they hadn't read my CV, firstly I'd give them the benefit of the doubt - things may be improving but I'd wager that most jobs get far more applications than can realistically be considered. Then, I'd engage in a positive manner with them. "I think I've covered a lot of the work experience (or whatever) with [interviewer 1], would you like me to go into more detail about this or I could give you a summary of my education and experience with [whatever else is on your CV]?". Honestly, just about anything would have been better than sitting there watching her flap through paperwork waiting on a question. Imagine if they had to leave you with a client who came to a meeting badly prepared? You'd make their client feel uncomfortable, rather than doing anything to ease the situation or assist them.

Dee01

From interviewing people I can tell you that a lot of what you get in CV's is rubbish. I would never say I hadn't read the CV but I would ask the interviewee to talk me through their CV (some haven't got a clue whats in the CV in the first place).

I have to agree with the other posters though, I really believe she was testing you. Your reactions, your coping mechanisms under pressure/stress, your ability to act off the cuff... etc.. You may feel differently, but from an outsiders perspective, that's what it screams.

Your 'technical lead' asked everything he needed to know regarding the job and CV. Its possible he fed the details of the interview back to the HR person who then did a 2nd interview type thing to assess different aspects of you as an employee.

On a side note, I would never ever say I left a job because it was boring - even if it was.

smcgiff

Hello OP,

A lot of the feedback you received here may not be what you wanted to hear, but it is coming from experience.

You may be entirely right about the HR person, but bear in mind what the above people have been saying.

Even if what you what you said is correct there is room for improvement such as having a better answer to leaving your job than boredom. It's hard to imagine getting any job with a reply like that. There are better ways to express it if that's what you want to say, such as not being challenged enough. A better answer, and while some might appreciate it others may still have doubts about fitting in.

Bootros Bootros

The boredom thing has to go. Work is often boring. You may think you are saying "I like interesting work" but it sounds like "routine work bores me and I leave when bored". You could phrase it as looking for more challenges.

LegacyUser

I didn't say I left the last job because it was boring (even though it was). I said I wasn't using the skills I learnt in college and I wanted to get a job where I was using those skills (like this one).
I don't actually think the interviewer was testing me by saying she hadn't read my CV, she didn't seem to be to be clever enough to do that to be honest. I just think she was careless and lazy. I was physically there so I think I am best placed to judge.

davo10

ryan_00 wrote: »

I didn't say I left the last job because it was boring (even though it was). I said I wasn't using the skills I learnt in college and I wanted to get a job where I was using those skills (like this one).
I don't actually think the interviewer was testing me by saying she hadn't read my CV, she didn't seem to be to be clever enough to do that to be honest. I just think she was careless and lazy. I was physically there so I think I am best placed to judge.

What a charmer, is it possible your arrogance and condescension comes across like a lighthouse at interview?

skallywag

I interview plenty of candidates myself and must say that I pay little attention to the CV itself during the actual interview. I will scan through it to get some bullet points to base our discussion around, but the interview itself is based largely on a spontaneous discussion with the candidate. From the HR interview perspective my colleagues will take even less interest in a CV.

All in all I see a good CV as your way to get your foot in the door, how you do from there on in is a different story.

Martin567

skallywag wrote: »

I interview plenty of candidates myself and must say that I pay little attention to the CV itself during the actual interview. I will scan through it to get some bullet points to base our discussion around, but the interview itself is based largely on a spontaneous discussion with the candidate. From the HR interview perspective my colleagues will take even less interest in a CV.

All in all I see a good CV as your way to get your foot in the door, how you do from there on in is a different story.

I would ask how effective do people really think interviews actually are? I would strongly take issue with some of the points made in this thread (not only the ones I quoted above). Some people will always perform well in interviews while others will always find them a struggle.

How much correlation is there between performance in interviews and subsequent performance in jobs? Unless the job being interviewed for involves doing presentations or is a sales role, the person who performs best in an interview might not be the best person for the job at all. Should a really confident person always be selected over someone who comes across as very nervous? I'm not sure if it occurs to some people that just because someone is nervous in an interview, that does not mean they will be nervous while doing the job. It depends on the nature of the job.

Several of the points made on this thread seem to me to be very arrogant and condescending. HR people who don't even look at a CV and who don't understand the technical demands of a role actually boast of this fact and still think they have an important part to play in the selection of a candidate. Exactly what skill do these people think they possess in making judgments on a person's ability to do a job based on nothing other than a brief conversation under very artificial circumstances? Playing games and other gimmicks in order to supposedly "test" candidates doesn't make me think any better of them.

Deenie123

Martin567 wrote: »

I would ask how effective do people really think interviews actually are? I would strongly take issue with some of the points made in this thread (not only the ones I quoted above). Some people will always perform well in interviews while others will always find them a struggle.

How much correlation is there between performance in interviews and subsequent performance in jobs? Unless the job being interviewed for involves doing presentations or is a sales role, the person who performs best in an interview might not be the best person for the job at all. Should a really confident person always be selected over someone who comes across as very nervous? I'm not sure if it occurs to some people that just because someone is nervous in an interview, that does not mean they will be nervous while doing the job. It depends on the nature of the job.

Several of the points made on this thread seem to me to be very arrogant and condescending. HR people who don't even look at a CV and who don't understand the technical demands of a role actually boast of this fact and still think they have an important part to play in the selection of a candidate. Exactly what skill do these people think they possess in making judgments on a person's ability to do a job based on nothing other than a brief conversation under very artificial circumstances? Playing games and other gimmicks in order to supposedly "test" candidates doesn't make me think any better of them.

I get what you're saying about someone from HR not having the technical knowledge to interview technical candidates... And I'm not sure where you're getting the nervous bit from, people are saying that the candidates are tested for their ability to think on their feet.

I would expect that most good candidates are a bit nervous going into an interview. But if you want to talk about "why not the nervous guy", I'll tell you about my own experience interviewing someone recently for a technical role. I wasn't asking about the technical end of it, more just a chat to suss the guy out a bit. However... I have all the technical skills required for the position he was being interviewed for! Anyway, nice guy and had all the technical skills, but he was so nervous that he just didn't have the life skills to fill the role. He'd be a liability if you left him with a client!

skallywag

Martin567 wrote: »

I would ask how effective do people really think interviews actually are?

Very good point.

Some people will naturally interview much better than others mainly due to their personality. I've often seen actual subsequent job performance having very little correlation to the impression made during interview.

For me the best indicator prior to actually hiring is a strong recommendation from someone with a good reputation in the industry.

Honestly, if "i haven't prepped for this interview" is supposed to be a new technique, it's not one I would be too impressed with either, especially if valuable time is wasted doing basic fact checks

Bootros Bootros

Deenie123 wrote: »

I get what you're saying about someone from HR not having the technical knowledge to interview technical candidates... And I'm not sure where you're getting the nervous bit from, people are saying that the candidates are tested for their ability to think on their feet.

I would expect that most good candidates are a bit nervous going into an interview. But if you want to talk about "why not the nervous guy", I'll tell you about my own experience interviewing someone recently for a technical role. I wasn't asking about the technical end of it, more just a chat to suss the guy out a bit. However... I have all the technical skills required for the position he was being interviewed for! Anyway, nice guy and had all the technical skills, but he was so nervous that he just didn't have the life skills to fill the role. He'd be a liability if you left him with a client!

Was it a client facing role?

In general I just ask technical questions of technical people and if they start to get nervous because it seems like it is not going well I tell them that it's going ok ( or "not everybody gets that").

You can have a fairly pleasant technical interview with people who aren't going to get the job. I probe until I find what people know. If it's clear they don't know the topic A then I don't ask them increasingly tough questions about A. No point. But they don't get the job. No need to keep turning the screw.

Bootros Bootros

skallywag wrote: »

Very good point.

Some people will naturally interview much better than others mainly due to their personality. I've often seen actual subsequent job performance having very little correlation to the impression made during interview.

For me the best indicator prior to actually hiring is a strong recommendation from someone with a good reputation in the industry.

Except references are asked for "after" the interview.

Jim2007

davo10 wrote: »

Forget the cv, that is not what she was assessing, you know this because she told you so. You're cv had no importance in that interview, she was forming an opinion of you, your personality and try as you may have done to hide it, the annoyance you refer to in your OP may have been plain for her to see.

On the contrary, she was being ill mannered and rude and that is not acceptable under any circumstances! Had she wanted to assess him as you are suggesting, she could have done without this behaviour and thus ensuring that should they decide to recruit him he would still thing favourable of them.

davo10

Jim2007 wrote: »

On the contrary, she was being ill mannered and rude and that is not acceptable under any circumstances! Had she wanted to assess him as you are suggesting, she could have done without this behaviour and thus ensuring that should they decide to recruit him he would still thing favourable of them.

Perhaps so but we have only the op's word for that and he doesn't exactly come across as someone capable of posting impartially. Others with experience of these matters have posted that when it comes to an interview with HR, the cv doesn't matter, the person being interviewed is what matters. After the op's last post, can you imagine that he sat there with a big smile, being as nice as pie through out that interview?

Jim2007

davo10 wrote: »

Perhaps so but we have only the op's word for that and he doesn't exactly come across as someone capable of posting impartially. Others with experience of these matters have posted that when it comes to an interview with HR, the cv doesn't matter, the person being interviewed is what matters. After the op's last post, can you imagine that he sat there with a big smile, being as nice as pie through out that interview?

It really does not matter how he behaves, it is her behaviour that is at issue.

skallywag

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

Except references are asked for "after" the interview.

I will always look for a reference (preferably from someone I know in the industry) up front. I don't mean an official written reference, but more a short email / call asking their opinion of the candidate.

davo10

Jim2007 wrote: »

It really does not matter how he behaves, it is her behaviour that is at issue.

Only if the issue is her not using the cv during the interview, this does not seem to be an issue to posters experienced in interviewing applicants. Again Jim2007, it's worth baring in mind that the technical lead had already gone through the cv with the OP.

I've never interviewed people, but I'm pretty sure I've never had an interview where my CV had really been read at all.

And if i were the one conducting interviews, I don't think I'd be bothered reading CVs either.


In this particular case you describe OP, it sounds like she already knew you were qualified to do the job based on the other chap already interviewing you, so why bother reading your CV to see what skills or experience you have? Sounds more like she was assessing you as a person.

Deenie123

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

Was it a client facing role?

In general I just ask technical questions of technical people and if they start to get nervous because it seems like it is not going well I tell them that it's going ok ( or "not everybody gets that").

You can have a fairly pleasant technical interview with people who aren't going to get the job. I probe until I find what people know. If it's clear they don't know the topic A then I don't ask them increasingly tough questions about A. No point. But they don't get the job. No need to keep turning the screw.

Sort of. It's a technical role where you have to work in a multidisciplinary team. Only sometimes meet the client, but if you are face to face with the client or on the phone to them it's often because something's gone wrong. There's such a degree of responsibility with the role that a client will be really unhappy if they feel you don't know what you're at. If the guy's standing there shaking like a leaf, the client's not exactly going to be inspired with confidence... Plus, if the person is that nervous in a friendly enough interview, what will they be like when they have someone else involved in the project fighting with them over something. They haven't a hope, which means they'll either be sued or the client will be fleeced.

As I said, it's a technical role. It really is. But if you don't have the ability to cope with the 5% of it that's client facing you could create absolute havoc. Nerves aren't an absolute no - it was a relatively junior position and if someone came in showing absolutely no signs of nerves whatsoever I'd be wondering why not? Are they so arrogant that they think they have it in the bag already? Arrogance is dangerous. Or do they just not want the job? Do they not care what impression they make. It's a funny one, but I wouldn't dismiss someone for having interview jitters. Being a nervous wreck in an interview leaves a bad lasting impression. I still feel exhausted when I think of this guy, I spent ages trying to put him at ease just chatting away to him. He literally would have had the job if he had been a bit more relaxed and confident.

Martin567

Deleted User wrote: »

I've never interviewed people, but I'm pretty sure I've never had an interview where my CV had really been read at all.

And if i were the one conducting interviews, I don't think I'd be bothered reading CVs either.

In this particular case you describe OP, it sounds like she already knew you were qualified to do the job based on the other chap already interviewing you, so why bother reading your CV to see what skills or experience you have? Sounds more like she was assessing you as a person.

I think this is an extraordinary post and sums up everything that I believe is wrong with interviews as a concept. Don't bother reading a CV or knowing anything about someones skills or experience. Simply "assess them as a person"!

What qualifies anyone to accurately "assess someone as a person" based on a brief conversation during the extremely artificial confines of a job interview? All that will be assessed is whether that person is good at job interviews or not. Depending on the nature of the job, it will likely not give any indication as to how this person will actually perform in the job. This is especially true if the person doing this "assessing" doesn't know anything about the technical demands of the job.

Some of the earlier posts read like HR people trying to justify their own existence based on supposed "people reading" skills that the most qualified psychologist would hardly possess.

Bootros Bootros

Martin567 wrote: »

I think this is an extraordinary post and sums up everything that I believe is wrong with interviews as a concept. Don't bother reading a CV or knowing anything about someones skills or experience. Simply "assess them as a person"!

What qualifies anyone to accurately "assess someone as a person" based on a brief conversation during the extremely artificial confines of a job interview? All that will be assessed is whether that person is good at job interviews or not. Depending on the nature of the job, it will likely not give any indication as to how this person will actually perform in the job. This is especially true if the person doing this "assessing" doesn't know anything about the technical demands of the job.

Some of the earlier posts read like HR people trying to justify their own existence based on supposed "people reading" skills that the most qualified psychologist would hardly possess.

Totally agree. There is no science to HR. It's either a feeling or pseudo gunk like Myers Briggs.

Sensible hr departments get out of the way of interviews and discuss terms later and check for references. Etc.

Martin567

Deenie123 wrote: »

Sort of. It's a technical role where you have to work in a multidisciplinary team. Only sometimes meet the client, but if you are face to face with the client or on the phone to them it's often because something's gone wrong. There's such a degree of responsibility with the role that a client will be really unhappy if they feel you don't know what you're at. If the guy's standing there shaking like a leaf, the client's not exactly going to be inspired with confidence... Plus, if the person is that nervous in a friendly enough interview, what will they be like when they have someone else involved in the project fighting with them over something. They haven't a hope, which means they'll either be sued or the client will be fleeced.

As I said, it's a technical role. It really is. But if you don't have the ability to cope with the 5% of it that's client facing you could create absolute havoc. Nerves aren't an absolute no - it was a relatively junior position and if someone came in showing absolutely no signs of nerves whatsoever I'd be wondering why not? Are they so arrogant that they think they have it in the bag already? Arrogance is dangerous. Or do they just not want the job? Do they not care what impression they make. It's a funny one, but I wouldn't dismiss someone for having interview jitters. Being a nervous wreck in an interview leaves a bad lasting impression. I still feel exhausted when I think of this guy, I spent ages trying to put him at ease just chatting away to him. He literally would have had the job if he had been a bit more relaxed and confident.

I obviously don't know anything about the specific situation you're referring to here so I can't comment as to whether you're right or wrong in your impression.

On a more general level, I would just ask you to consider the possibility that some people will find the "friendly enough interview" to be far more terrifying than the most difficult client meeting. An interview involves meeting people you've never met before, in a strange location and you have no real idea what you will be asked. If someone is shaking going into an interview, they may find it difficult to shrug this off in the interview no matter how benign you might think it is.

On the other hand, if someone is technically strong and really knows their job, they may be well capable of handling themselves in the most difficult client meeting. They may be well prepared and armed with all the relevant facts.

Martin567

Martin567 wrote: »

I think this is an extraordinary post and sums up everything that I believe is wrong with interviews as a concept. Don't bother reading a CV or knowing anything about someones skills or experience. Simply "assess them as a person"!

What qualifies anyone to accurately "assess someone as a person" based on a brief conversation during the extremely artificial confines of a job interview? All that will be assessed is whether that person is good at job interviews or not. Depending on the nature of the job, it will likely not give any indication as to how this person will actually perform in the job. This is especially true if the person doing this "assessing" doesn't know anything about the technical demands of the job.

Some of the earlier posts read like HR people trying to justify their own existence based on supposed "people reading" skills that the most qualified psychologist would hardly possess.

Ah, it's all well and good saying you'd read CVs, but imagine the sheer number of them you get as soon as you put any job opening in the public eye.

You'd be sick to the teeth of them after 20 minutes.

So you'd skim through a few and look for words or jobs similar to the position you're filling, put them to one side and when you've got, say, 10, you give them a ring and call them in.

You already know that whoever is in front of you at the interview already has somewhat relevant experience. During the interview you can look at their CV a bit more while asking them things about it.

You don't need to rote learn 10 CVs before a series of interviews. I wouldn't expect anyone to be giving up their time to read my CV and learn it inside out. Jesus, sometimes even I forget what's on it. :P



Everyone has different personalities and not everyone gels. I'd rather work with an under-qualified sound chap that I got on with, than an over-qualified asshole that I couldn't stand the sight of.

For me, assessing the person would be more important (assuming all candidates for the job have the same experience, of course).

o1s1n

When I was interviewing people, we'd receive so many CVs that they really weren't the focus at the interview stage itself.

What I'd usually do is the following;

• HR would send a batch of 10 or so CVs.
• We'd look through them and select candidates for interview based on the best ones.
• Set up interviews
• Dependent on how the interviews go, there might be one stand out person, there might be a couple of good candidates
• If there's a stand out candidate then we'd hire, if there were a couple who were even we'd go back and pour over their CVs again.

I always see CVs as 'getting you the interview'. Once it's at the interview stage, it's possible the interviewer hasn't looked at your CV since the initial stage. Sometimes I'd have time to quickly scan over the CV again just before the interview, sometimes not. You shouldn't automatically assume an interviewer has read it over recently. I know that's a bit crap at someone attending interviews, but it's the truth really.

Martin567

KKV - you've just summed up very well why interviews are very often not fit for purpose in terms of selecting the best candidate.

"Skim through a few" until you've got about 10 and just discard the rest. Interview these paying little regard to anything on the actual CV but instead use what is no more than gut instinct to select the person you gelled with best during that very brief conversation. Congratulations, you will likely have selected the person with the best generic interview skills out of the random sample you selected from the original list of applicants.

Will this process lead you to select a good candidate for the job? Sometimes, but I think that would be much more by accident than by design.

skallywag

It's not reasonable to expect that the interviewer has gone through your CV with a fine comb before the interview, but it is reasonable to expect that they have at least scanned quickly through it. It reinforces the point that a CV should always be crisp and to the point, and never more than 2 A4 pages, i.e. can be printed double sided on 1 A4 sheet. I have received CVs which are 3-4 pages long, and it really puts me off from the start. Being concise is a very important skill, and long winded CVs do not make a good first impression.

smcgiff

Martin567 wrote: »

"Skim through a few" until you've got about 10 and just discard the rest.

It's actually worse than that. Once you've one or two decent candidates for interview you’re pretty much wading through the rest of the CVs LOOKING for reasons to reject those CVs. Harsh, but true. I think most people reviewing CVs will do the same.

With that said, I’ll review all the CVs I get, however some might get rejected in seconds.

drumswan

Martin567 wrote: »

I think this is an extraordinary post and sums up everything that I believe is wrong with interviews as a concept. Don't bother reading a CV or knowing anything about someones skills or experience. Simply "assess them as a person"!

What qualifies anyone to accurately "assess someone as a person" based on a brief conversation during the extremely artificial confines of a job interview? All that will be assessed is whether that person is good at job interviews or not. Depending on the nature of the job, it will likely not give any indication as to how this person will actually perform in the job. This is especially true if the person doing this "assessing" doesn't know anything about the technical demands of the job.

Some of the earlier posts read like HR people trying to justify their own existence based on supposed "people reading" skills that the most qualified psychologist would hardly possess.

The technical lead has already been through the CV and assessed the experience and abilities of the candidate.

Most interviews for larger companies Ive been to would include interviews by the immediate line manager, a more senior manager and HR, all of whom are assesing different things. What value is there in a HR drone going through a technical CV?

Martin567

drumswan wrote: »

What value is there in a HR drone going through a technical CV?

What value is there in HR being involved at all in the interview process? "People assessing skills"?!!!

LegacyUser

davo10 wrote: »

Perhaps so but we have only the op's word for that and he doesn't exactly come across as someone capable of posting impartially. Others with experience of these matters have posted that when it comes to an interview with HR, the cv doesn't matter, the person being interviewed is what matters. After the op's last post, can you imagine that he sat there with a big smile, being as nice as pie through out that interview?

I did actually, even though it wasn't easy. I wanted to get the job so obviously I wasn't going to do anything to sabotage that. I am well accustomed to ignorant behaviour from interviewers (as I'm sure others reading this will have experienced). It's a means to an end, you tolerate it and grin and bear it (I even had someone ask me "are you married?" in an interview and I took no notice of it).
It was only afterwards on the drive home when I thought about it that I got annoyed about her not having read my CV. As someone else said if "I haven't prepped for this interview" is supposed to be a new technique, it's not one I would be too impressed with. I can only assume that those on this thread defending this technique are working in HR themselves.
Despite some people's protestations on this thread I don't see the advantage of not having read a person's CV. Maybe not in detail but it's surely not asking too much to have skimmed over it for five minutes and take a few notes. If the interviewer is interested in my personality (if I am used to working with a large group of people) she could glean that information from my CV ("I worked on a team project with x number of people etc.")
I've got enough feedback, I appreciate it all (even the negative stuff) so I'll be prepared for this in the future but that still doesn't mean I agree with it :-)

Bob_Latchford

Its a 2 way process, I would reject this company if I thought they did not hire good enough people to do the interviewing. Would indicate to me that my future co workers would be chosen in a random haphazard way.

Learn to walk away from companies that smell bad. You have at least one on your CV already (the job that didnt fit your skills)

Rubberchikken

OP
trust your judgemant.

all sorts of excuses and explanations can be put out for an interviewer's behaviour at said interview, but im personally, would be sceptical of them.

if a HR person can't bother to even glance through a cv for pertinent info before meeting someone and then conduct themselves in a professional manner, there's no excuse.

saying that's it a possible strategy to size up someone is an excuse and isn't worth considering.
imho, too many people doing interviews are not interested, not qualified, not professional enough to treat those that they bother inviting for interviews properly.

good luck with the job hunting and don't let this bother you. instead learn from it.

Bootros Bootros

skallywag wrote: »

It's not reasonable to expect that the interviewer has gone through your CV with a fine comb before the interview, but it is reasonable to expect that they have at least scanned quickly through it. It reinforces the point that a CV should always be crisp and to the point, and never more than 2 A4 pages, i.e. can be printed double sided on 1 A4 sheet. I have received CVs which are 3-4 pages long, and it really puts me off from the start. Being concise is a very important skill, and long winded CVs do not make a good first impression.

Mines longer but has a helpful summary.

drumswan

Martin567 wrote: »

What value is there in HR being involved at all in the interview process? "People assessing skills"?!!!

Are you serious? To assess someones suitability to the companies culture and ethos and methods of work, to see if they will be a good fit with the existing staff in the team, to see if they have any errant personality issues that will cause problems with their employment, to make sure if any delicate line of enquiry need to be followed it is done in a legal manner, to carry out industry standard personality testing, to assess whether the hire is going to be a legal problem for the company, to figure out why the potential hire might have left previous employment, to understand who the candidate is when they go to follow up references etc. etc.

Hiring permanent staff is a risk for a business, this can be mitigated by HR processes which look to filter out problems at interview. I have conducted technical interviews, my only job is to find a technically suitable candidate - I have not got the training to make calls on business risks not in my field.

king_of_inismac

I spend about 50% of my time pitching for funding or investment (very similar to the interview process).

I once was chatting to a potential funder prior to a meeting. He was from a similar agricultural background to myself and we were making small talk about farming (he was a really nice guy).

Once the pitching meeting began, he went completely on the attack. Attaching the project idea and attacking my ability to deliver on the project.

After about 45 minutes of very rough questioning, he stopped the meeting and apologised. He basically said with the economy so tight, he had to be very careful with his investments, and he had to separate the time-wasters from those worthy of investment.

While it was very tough, I understand why he did it and respect him for it.

I'm sure some interviewers are purposely obtuse (or maybe having a bad day?). My advice is to keep you cool always, and be confident in your own experience and expertise.

Bootros Bootros

There are some really amateur hour interviewers on here. I prepare for most non standard meetings even if just a few minutes before to decide what I am going to say or bring up.

Interviews are extremely important for your company. Prepare. At least 30 minutes. Take notes. Ask questions related to what they claim to have done.

Martin567

drumswan wrote: »

Are you serious? To assess someones suitability to the companies culture and ethos and methods of work, to see if they will be a good fit with the existing staff in the team, to see if they have any errant personality issues that will cause problems with their employment, to make sure if any delicate line of enquiry need to be followed it is done in a legal manner, to carry out industry standard personality testing, to assess whether the hire is going to be a legal problem for the company, to figure out why the potential hire might have left previous employment, to understand who the candidate is when they go to follow up references etc. etc.

And you wonder why I'm cynical! Reading the above, my eyes glazed over far quicker than those of any HR person reading through the CVs of a bunch of job applicants.

Martin567

Martin567 wrote: »

Congratulations, you will likely have selected the person with the best generic interview skills out of the random sample you selected from the original list of applicants.

But the fact they've made it to interview means their CV shows them to have relevant experience.


If you're looking for someone to cut meat in a deli counter, for argument sake, then you skim through the CV looking for the word "deli".

You put the chap with 5 years deli experience into one pile, and the chap with 2 years experience selling Eircom bundles can go into another pile, incase you exhaust the first pile.


It's not that difficult. Besides, most jobs have a 3 or 6 month phase where they can kick you out if they're not happy with you, anyway.

Alf Veedersane

If someone has to work with others, present their work or deal with clients then naturally you need some HR questioning to assess the kind of person they are and how they would fit in.

I'm not going to second guess the interviewer in the OP - maybe she was arrogant, maybe it was all part of agrand plan to see how the OP dealt with the situation.

Depending on the job, the technical interviewer will probably have more of a say when it comes down to it.

Unless you're a sociopath.

headtheball14

My reading of it is a bit different, first interviewer came out happy all went well and then asked somone from hr to have a word speed things up rather than càlling you in again a second time, hr person was not given any warning and had to do the interview cold, thats why they hadnt read the cv , it was a personality fit check