'Fake job interviews?

Hello 1

Anyone ever been to a job interview where the job has been already offered to someone else or 'earmarked" for someone else by the time you attend for the interview?

Haithabu

Hello 1 wrote: »

Anyone ever been to a job interview where the job has been already offered to someone else or 'earmarked" for someone else by the time you attend for the interview?

It happens that preferred candidates are already identified. Sounds bad and might put you off applying. However, it's still good to show your interest.


Imagine you have a team with a team leader and a deputy. Whenever the team leader is not there, the deputy runs the team. Then, when the team leader leaves and the job becomes available, the deputy likely has the best chances and instead of pretending that everyone has the same chances, the company might as well say that they have a preferred candidate identified. Yet, they follow the process of advertising the role and do interviews. It's still good to apply as that shows interest and normally you would get feedback which helps in case the job comes up again in the future. Plus, maybe someone the company hasn't got on the mind applies and has a great interview. Potentially an outsider.


It is a different story if the job has already been offered. But it's still ok to advertise a job lie that because offered does not mean accepted. A company might keep interviews running in case there is a risk that the candidate who is offered the role won't accept it. You might get in a pipeline then and get the next job offered that becomes available.

Stephen15

Another possibility is the company may be looking at candidates for potential future positions that may arise in the future or another thing they may be looking at is if they may need to replace the preferred candidate if it dosen't work out.

Haithabu

Stephen15 wrote: »

(...) they may be looking at is if they may need to replace the preferred candidate if it dosen't work out.

No pressure then for the candidate

Stephen15

Haithabu wrote: »

No pressure then for the candidate

Never any harm to have a plan b

alroley

Yeah like every single teaching job in Ireland

TG1

If an organisation didn't advertise and interview and just handed out jobs to whoever they wanted then employees would be unhappy with that as well.

As another poster said, there is often an internal natural next in line, who fits the role, but if the organisation opts not to interview others for the role then they are denying people a chance to exceed expectations in the interview process. Sometimes people really surprise in interviews, other times they don't, but surely giving them the opportunity to is better than not?

Hello 1

I have attended for interviews in the past (2 past interviews to be precise) and was unsuccessful in both. My theory - it seems they only hire candidates who live locally to the business ( same town) and / or are relatives of the existing staff members who are 'shoehorned' into jobs.

_Brian

It’s very common for someone be earmarked for a position, even when it’s the best option many positions must go to interview for “open competition”.

I’ve sat on panels where the decision was ore determined a number of times, interestingly in none of these instances did we interview a better candidate so I didn’t feel so bad about it.

jimbobaloobob

Isn't it a legal requirement to advertise the jobs? Isn't that why it's done?

OMM 0000

Hello 1 wrote: »

I have attended for interviews in the past (2 past interviews to be precise) and was unsuccessful in both. My theory - it seems they only hire candidates who live locally to the business ( same town) and / or are relatives of the existing staff members who are 'shoehorned' into jobs.

I know you aren't asking for this advice, but I'm going to give it anyway.

Assume your failures are due to you, and not due to someone else.

So in your case, assume you didn't get the job on both occasions due to you not being the best candidate, rather than there being some conspiracy to secretly hire a relation or whatever.

This way you can improve yourself (e.g. your interview skills) rather than doing nothing.

jimbobaloobob

alroley wrote: »

Yeah like every single teaching job in Ireland

I don't believe this to be the case, really?

Hello 1

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I know you aren't asking for this advice, but I'm going to give it anyway.

Assume your failures are due to you, and not due to someone else.

So in your case, assume you didn't get the job on both occasions due to you not being the best candidate, rather than there being some conspiracy to secretly hire a relation or whatever.

This way you can improve yourself (e.g. your interview skills) rather than doing nothing.

I don't agree with you on the above, I have been successful in obtaining other similar roles in building up my job experience, so my past employers in the same line of work to that I am looking for other roles in, obviously did n't hold the view that I was the wrong candidate if I was hired by them.

OMM 0000

Hello 1 wrote: »

I don't agree with you on the above, I have been successful in obtaining other similar roles in building up my job experience, so my past employers in the same line of work to that I am looking for other roles in, obviously did n't hold the view that I was the wrong candidate if I was hired by them.

I'm not saying previous employers regretted hiring you, I am saying these two recent job interviews (which you didn't get) were due to you not being the best interviewee.

That is so much more likely than the interviews being fake or whatever.

OMM 0000

I just looked at your post history and it seems you have quite a history of victimisation.

Is it possible this is causing you to be paranoid that people are out to get you, or that there is some conspiracy against you?

I ask the above in a kind way.

2forjoy

Saw afternoon interviews recently with 4 candidates.
The first one in was an inter-county hurler.
Needless to say,he got the job

Corkgirl18

Yes.
It happens a lot with teaching.
Just move on and try to apply for more.

jimbobaloobob

Corkgirl18 wrote: »

Yes.
It happens a lot with teaching.
Just move on and try to apply for more.

With the teaching thought aren't a lot of those hired already doing subbing in the schools isn't that better than any interview to prove themselves?

Tom Dunne

Yeah, I applied for a job where I now see there was a candidate already chosen.

The signs were there - interview scheduled for Friday afternoon (suggesting it was a formality and there weren't too many candidates, I was first to be interviewed). Then the interview started 30 minutes late, they were clearly seeing everyone's CV for the first time. The interview itself was brief (30 mins) and HR repeatedly ignored phone calls and emails looking for an update. Six weeks to the day later, they bothered to tell me I was unsuccessful.

Very unprofessional.

Corkgirl18

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

With the teaching thought aren't a lot of those hired already doing subbing in the schools isn't that better than any interview to prove themselves?

Sometimes yes the person is working in the school already. Doesn't make it any less disheartening for the people who end up interviewing for the jobs and can sense they are gone already. Schools have to interview at least a certain number of people for a job.

Avatar MIA

Employers are damned if they do, damned if they don't.


A 30 / 60 minute interview is of limited value in reality, interviewees are well coached and have prepared answers to standard questions. 'Tell us one of your weakness' Cue breathless answer that turns their weakness into a virtue. References can be from effective friends of the interviewee.



So, if a position is important other indicators will be more valuable such as personal experience of the person, or recommendation from someone you trust (Nepotism does exist, but is rare enough, imo).


BUT, an employer may be required to advertise, or the same people that cry foul over pre-selection would be able to make life difficult for the hiring company.

Hello 1

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Yeah, I applied for a job where I now see there was a candidate already chosen.

The signs were there - interview scheduled for Friday afternoon (suggesting it was a formality and there weren't too many candidates, I was first to be interviewed). Then the interview started 30 minutes late, they were clearly seeing everyone's CV for the first time. The interview itself was brief (30 mins) and HR repeatedly ignored phone calls and emails looking for an update. Six weeks to the day later, they bothered to tell me I was unsuccessful.

Very unprofessional.

Thanks for the reply. I applied to one particular workplace for different positions over a period of two years or so, each time, unsuccessful.
I got the PFO letter the next day on each occasion. Utter time wasters.

HandsomeBob

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Employers are damned if they do, damned if they don't.


A 30 / 60 minute interview is of limited value in reality, interviewees are well coached and have prepared answers to standard questions. 'Tell us one of your weakness' Cue breathless answer that turns their weakness into a virtue. References can be from effective friends of the interviewee.



So, if a position is important other indicators will be more valuable such as personal experience of the person, or recommendation from someone you trust (Nepotism does exist, but is rare enough, imo).


BUT, an employer may be required to advertise, or the same people that cry foul over pre-selection would be able to make life difficult for the hiring company.

Sounds about right..... Can't be unprepared but also not too prepared. That's why I hate interviews; regardless of what's said about the fairness of the process no two interviews are the same.

I've experienced it anyway OP only very recently. Frustrating to feel like you're time has been wasted but only thing you can do for yourself is try turning it into a positive. Ended reinvigorating my attitude in my current job which has served me quite well.

Snotty

It happens, but as already said, it's more likely that you just were not the best candidate, no mater how great you think you are.

tedpan

Really not sure on the point of this thread?

How would you know if the position is already filled, I see you have a 'theory' below although it means nothing, only the person(s) hiring and getting hired can be sure of what happened in the process?

Hello 1 wrote:

My theory - it seems they only hire candidates who live locally to the business ( same town) and / or are relatives of the existing staff members who are 'shoehorned' into jobs.

_Brian

tedpan wrote: »

Really not sure on the point of this thread?

How would you know if the position is already filled, I see you have a 'theory' below although it means nothing, only the person(s) hiring and getting hired can be sure of what happened in the process?

Depends on the situation.
Some employment circles are very small and who is doing what widely known. Often it seeps out that C has been given the nod that the position is theirs.

AndrewJRenko

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Employers are damned if they do, damned if they don't.


A 30 / 60 minute interview is of limited value in reality, interviewees are well coached and have prepared answers to standard questions. 'Tell us one of your weakness' Cue breathless answer that turns their weakness into a virtue. References can be from effective friends of the interviewee.

It sounds like your experience is limited to fairly crap interviewers. Any half-decent interviewers will

1) Not pose standard questions - will pose their questions in a way that tests the candidate ability to interpret and apply their own knowledge and experience
2) Pose follow-up questions that drill into a prepared answer to test whether the person is spoofing, or whether they really understand the issue.

Avatar MIA

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It sounds like your experience is limited to fairly crap interviewers. Any half-decent interviewers will

1) Not pose standard questions - will pose their questions in a way that tests the candidate ability to interpret and apply their own knowledge and experience
2) Pose follow-up questions that drill into a prepared answer to test whether the person is spoofing, or whether they really understand the issue.

In your experience how normative is that. Are all company owners/interviewers expected to be experts in HR.

Dream on.

_Brian

Avatar MIA wrote: »

In your experience how normative is that. Are all company owners/interviewers expected to be experts in HR.

Dream on.

People who have been repeatedly interviewed by large companies and multinationals get brainwashed into thinking it’s all HR professionals out there.

Go to a small company and it’s different, many small companies operate with not one single hr or management trained individual so when it comes to interviewing it’s a bit of a loose process.
I’ve seen people ask completely inappropriate questions that could land them is serious hot water.

AndrewJRenko

Avatar MIA wrote: »

In your experience how normative is that. Are all company owners/interviewers expected to be experts in HR.

Dream on.

_Brian wrote: »

People who have been repeatedly interviewed by large companies and multinationals get brainwashed into thinking it’s all HR professionals out there.

Go to a small company and it’s different, many small companies operate with not one single hr or management trained individual so when it comes to interviewing it’s a bit of a loose process.
I’ve seen people ask completely inappropriate questions that could land them is serious hot water.

I've been asked completely inappropriate questions in very large companies, though that does go back a few years.

Yes, it is different in small companies. In public sector, you won't get onto an interview panel unless you've done interview training, which is right and proper.

Avatar MIA

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, it is different in small companies. In public sector, you won't get onto an interview panel unless you've done interview training, which is right and proper.

Not sure it will be news to many, but interviews aren't considered of much use, but glad to hear the Public Sector is so well run. They must have the very best workers in all positions.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/11/24/want-best-person-for-job-don-interview/3LB4rwjf6i88GfaDoRubLN/amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwj-j-HJ_ofdAhXJLsAKHQKgBKwQFjAMegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw24AEgwXoErvM6oTDDVFe9g&ampcf=1

Austria!

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I know you aren't asking for this advice, but I'm going to give it anyway.

Assume your failures are due to you, and not due to someone else.

That might be the best way to improve yourself, but I don't think it's true in this country in fairness.

Avatar MIA

Austria! wrote: »

That might be the best way to improve yourself, but I don't think it's true in this country in fairness.

Care to expand?

AndrewJRenko

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Not sure it will be news to many, but interviews aren't considered of much use, but glad to hear the Public Sector is so well run. They must have the very best workers in all positions.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/11/24/want-best-person-for-job-don-interview/3LB4rwjf6i88GfaDoRubLN/amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwj-j-HJ_ofdAhXJLsAKHQKgBKwQFjAMegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw24AEgwXoErvM6oTDDVFe9g&ampcf=1

I'm not sure if you read the article that you linked to, but all the critique in that article is about 'unstructured interviews', which pretty much makes the same point that I was making above.

An unstructured chat with the lads is indeed a fairly poor way to select staff. A structured, competency-based interview with trained interviewers a decent way to recruit staff, as part of a good recruitment process.

It's nothing to do with a public sector vs private sector debate. In the public sector, interviews are usually the final stage after competency tests and (in some cases) group exercises.

Google use interviews; https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/google-s-hr-boss-use-these-interview-questions.html

Facebook use interviews: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/3-interview-questions-facebook-recruiters-ask-candidates.html

Microsoft use interviews: https://www.glassdoor.ie/Interview/Microsoft-Dublin-Interview-Questions-EI_IE1651.0,9_IL.10,16_IM1052.htm

Expert interviewers like Hays recommend competency based interviews for posts at all levels, up to CEO: https://www.siliconrepublic.com/advice/the-competency-based-interview

So you might want to rethink your sneer. But if you do have a great alternative to offer, please share details of what other approach you recommend.

Avatar MIA

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not sure if you read the article that you linked to, but all the critique in that article is about 'unstructured interviews', which pretty much makes the same point that I was making above.

An unstructured chat with the lads is indeed a fairly poor way to select staff. A structured, competency-based interview with trained interviewers a decent way to recruit staff, as part of a good recruitment process.

It's nothing to do with a public sector vs private sector debate. In the public sector, interviews are usually the final stage after competency tests and (in some cases) group exercises.

Google use interviews; https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/google-s-hr-boss-use-these-interview-questions.html

Facebook use interviews: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/3-interview-questions-facebook-recruiters-ask-candidates.html

Microsoft use interviews: https://www.glassdoor.ie/Interview/Microsoft-Dublin-Interview-Questions-EI_IE1651.0,9_IL.10,16_IM1052.htm

Expert interviewers like Hays recommend competency based interviews for posts at all levels, up to CEO: https://www.siliconrepublic.com/advice/the-competency-based-interview

So you might want to rethink your sneer. But if you do have a great alternative to offer, please share details of what other approach you recommend.

You're making the claim all public sector interviews are competent, this is not so, but continue to make that claim. That some may be is largely irrelevant to this thread.

Competency based interviews may be better than common interviews, but no substitute for long term experience of an individual which IS relevant to this thread.

AndrewJRenko

Avatar MIA wrote: »

You're making the claim all public sector interviews are competent, this is not so, but continue to make that claim. That some may be is largely irrelevant to this thread.

Competency based interviews may be better than common interviews, but no substitute for long term experience of an individual which IS relevant to this thread.

I didn't say anything of the sort, that all public sector interviews are competent.

I'm not even sure if you mean 'competent' (referring to the interviewers) or competency-based, referring to the process.

Recruitment is a big deal in the public sector. The Public Appointments Service does the recruitment for all Civil Service roles (about 38k staff). So that's about 300 people in PAS who do recruitment all day every day, coverall all levels from entry-level Clerical Officers up the Secretary Generals and CEOs of some state bodies. They have built up considerable expertise, and they apply it well.

For other public bodies who recruit directly, they need to get a recruitment licence from the Commission for Public Service Appointments. They can't just decide 'sure we need to do a few interviews next week'. They need to map out their processes to an external validation body.

Of course, none of these are absolute guarantees of competence, but they are pretty far along that road. They certainly rate well by comparison to the SME sector.

Long-term experience of individuals can indeed be interesting, but it's hard to bring it into a recruitment process. If you rely on long-term experience, then you're restricting yourself to internal staff effectively, as they are the only ones you really know have the exact kind of experience you need. This means closing off a very large potential target audience.

This can also work against candidates, where people within the organisation know well their limitations and weaknesses through direct experience. By comparison, external candidates come in with great interview responses, and look so shiny and smooth that they can outshine internal candidates.

Good recruiters will make sure to balance these out.