nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

starlit

I do think she may have come across as lacking interest based on what you have mentioned in your post OP. It would have been polite of her to have at least scanned through the CV and took note of what was important to highlight when asking questions in the interview and had that prepared. I'd agree with the other posters she was testing you, and assessing you from a different perspective but she still shouldn't have said she hasn't read your CV that would seem a bit 'I don't care' attitude towards the candidate. I'd think she should have just asked 'tell me about yourself, give a quick run down of your CV' or approached it in a more professional way the way she asked questions.

HR is less likely to ask the technical stuff more likely to do with personality and competency type stuff but she been better off asking questions in relation to teamwork, how would you deal with a difficult person in a group/customer/employee or something like that. Give me an example of a time when....give example with 'STAR' approach to answering to those type of questions which is generally the more common type of questions I've experienced when doing interviews though each interview/job is different. She was assessing your personality but I think she could have approached it differently.

For me I've rarely been to an interview where they asked questions based on my CV but when they did the majority of interviewers read my cv and asked questions based on my CV. Any other interviews didn't require a CV just an online application and they stuck with questions in relation to the application others was a combination of the two it varied depending on the job and interview which they focused on more. For the phone interview they focused on the CV more than the online application, in face to face interviews they focused on the application and anything else that was required such as a presentation topic.

skallywag

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

I really can't see that working. Do you go two jobs back? People are hardly prior to interviews going to give referees in their present jobs.

In my own case most CVs that I currently receive are from those working as consultants and looking for fixed term contract work, hence providing a live reference from their current engagement is not usually an issue, as it's due to wrap up on a fixed date in any case.

I certainly take your point re candidates who are full time employees with another company at the time of application though.

Bootros Bootros

skallywag wrote: »

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.

I really can't see that working. Do you go two jobs back? People are hardly prior to interviews going to give referees in their present jobs.

Bootros Bootros

smcgiff wrote: »

Where are you getting the impression this is not done? You've hardly invented the taking notes idea.

I got the impression this was not done by people on this thread including the OP saying they didn't read CVs going into interviews or met interviewers who hadnt. This is what the thread is about.

Zulu

Martin567 wrote: »

I thought we were discussing whether the way things work in reality actually make sense and lead to effective results. Obviously not?

welcome to the real world

Martin567

drumswan wrote: »

Maybe, but thats not how it works in reality so I dont think its relevant.

I thought we were discussing whether the way things work in reality actually make sense and lead to effective results. Obviously not?

drumswan

Martin567 wrote: »

Do you not think that the technical person interviewing might be able to figure this out for themselves without the help of a HR person?

Maybe, but thats not how it works in reality so I dont think its relevant.

smcgiff

Bootros Bootros wrote: »

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

Where are you getting the impression this is not done? You've hardly invented the taking notes idea.

cloudatlas

I think the theory that the h.r. person was called in unexpectedly and having to do the interview cold doesn't fly as the O.P. says that the woman said 'I never read C.V.'s' plus it would be unusual not to give a colleague notice of a series of meetings. The tricky dick explanation of putting someone under pressure by being rude to them is also unusual and unprofessional.

I think it's unfair to say that the O.P. is arrogant, he just sounds angry to me. I was in a similar situation where I had spent a considerable sum to travel for interview and I found that the people interviewing me had not read my c.v. and it transpired that I was way more qualified than they expected for the job on offer. My theory, the h.r. folks chose me for interview and because it was entry level the bosses hadn't bothered to read the c.v.'s.

I know people are going to say nobody forced you to attend but in this climate you have to try for anything and everything. I think what it boils down to is rudeness and lack of professional courtesy which reflects badly on them.

Zulu

Martin567 wrote: »

Do you not think that the technical person interviewing might be able to figure this out for themselves without the help of a HR person? Especially as they would be the ones who would actually have to work with the new candidate?

They might, but they mightn't be allowed.
Companies love process.

Zulu

As an interviewer, the second interview is nearly always to assess the person as a person. (ie: the first interview is to check your skills and ability, assuming you pass that, now we're going to check if you fit the team as a person). So the CV (if heavily technical) isn't hugely important. Leafing through it is simply a prop. Looking for the next question...

ryan_00 wrote: »

No, you are completely wrong there...

I dunno if (s)he was. Fair enough you might be responding to the "getting bent out of shape" comment, but I think their post otherwise hits the mark.

Martin567

Hrududu wrote: »

Someone can look great on paper but talk to them for 5 minutes and you realise they'd be a nightmare to work with.

Do you not think that the technical person interviewing might be able to figure this out for themselves without the help of a HR person? Especially as they would be the ones who would actually have to work with the new candidate?

But I would also caution that first impressions in an interview may not translate at all to performance in a job and I'm struggling to see what skills a HR person has to enable them to make that decision. Everything I say of course depends on the nature of the job being interviewed for!

Hrududu

Martin567 wrote: »

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

Someone can look great on paper but talk to them for 5 minutes and you realise they'd be a nightmare to work with.

Martin567

drumswan wrote: »

From others I know who work in this particular place it sounds like an extremely micromanaged and controlling environment (probably by necessity in fairness). The personality test said I wasnt suited to this sort of thing at all, even though I had passed the tech interviews with flying colours. I didnt get the job, the company wasnt suited to me or me to it on a personality level. So there you go, a win-win.

While I might still be a little dubious of personality tests, at least they have proper research behind them and all those taking them will be treated fairly. My main quibbles with HR people are playing games & gimmicks and judging people based on gut instincts & performance in interviews (which some people will always find more difficult than others).

drumswan

Martin567 wrote: »

My brother worked for a couple of years in a company usually near the very top of that list. He was hugely relieved to get out, thinks it is a horrible place to work and would advise anybody against ever working there!

From others I know who work in this particular place it sounds like an extremely micromanaged and controlling environment (probably by necessity in fairness). The personality test said I wasnt suited to this sort of thing at all, even though I had passed the tech interviews with flying colours. I didnt get the job, the company wasnt suited to me or me to it on a personality level. So there you go, a win-win.

Martin567

drumswan wrote: »

I wouldnt do it for any money, but thats the reality of hiring for larger companies these days. In one interview I had last year (for a company which has been in the top 10 'Best workplaces in Ireland' list forever) the HR woman presented me with a 40 page personality analysis document for discussion listing all my strengths and weaknesses as assessed by their testing system.

My brother worked for a couple of years in a company usually near the very top of that list. He was hugely relieved to get out, thinks it is a horrible place to work and would advise anybody against ever working there!

Keyzer

She may have been testing you to see what your reaction would be. I've done it myself many times when interviewing people, good cop bad cop, whatever you want to call it.

Regardless, if you are really interested in the job, its up to you as the interviewee to sell yourself to the interviewer.

Tordelback

Having sat on both sides of that desk, and endured courses on improving performance on both sides, I can definitely see the value of having at least one interviewer who doesn't address the CV at all - not least because CVs are (and should be) highly polished works of self-aggrandisement whose real job is often to hide flaws. It may well be that your technical qualifications and experience fit the job specs perfectly and thus don't need any further scrutiny, but what needed to be assessed was how you as an individual would fit into the specific work environment and satisfy the company's expectations for your overall contribution.

From my own experiences as an interviewer I'd say that falling back on flicking through an unread CV could be an indication that you weren't giving full enough answers to keep the interview going, and that the interviewer was struggling to find something you would be happy to talk about. Of course it could well be that the interviewer was just a very bad sloppy HR person, but seeing as you can't affect that aspect of things, it's worth reflecting on what you can change: your own response.

I'd also say that performance in an interview is all too often no indication of performance in a job, especially over the long term. But the more thorough the interview the more the employer can console themselves that they did their best when it all goes wrong.

drumswan

Martin567 wrote: »

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.

I wouldnt do it for any money, but thats the reality of hiring for larger companies these days. In one interview I had last year (for a company which has been in the top 10 'Best workplaces in Ireland' list forever) the HR woman presented me with a 40 page personality analysis document for discussion listing all my strengths and weaknesses as assessed by their testing system.

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

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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 :-)