To have quit a one way video interview

@Greenwitchart huge sympathy. My DD is dyslexic and absolutely hates the idea of a video interview: she’s fine on Teams etc but can’t do the one way thing. She asked for an adjustment at one internship she applied for - the company said that they would take needs into account. She wanted to do a regular interview via Teams or zoom because as she said, she was applying for an office job not to be a tv presenter. The company refused.

I don’t think it’s an age thing, DD is early 20s but really put off by it. She also fears that they screen the interviews using AI which makes her even more pessimistic, and disgusted with the companies that do this.

I do love your moral high ground... You interview a few people and discard and limit the rest based on an old-fashioned process.

That’s ok. I hire my own team, and I do it as a human.

I think it sounds an inhumane way to expect people to perform that way and that you acted in a very human way.

I would claim your internet went down and practice talking to the computer and your reflection. Pretend there’s someone there.

Surely you'd be able to request an adjustment given your circumstances?

This is why mumsnet is great. Someone coming along with practical ideas. I would never have known this.

I am now retired so my interview days are long gone but what happened to the candidate submitting a CV, attending an interview and then getting a letter offering the job or a rejection. I have interviewed people for jobs many times and in 99% of the time have known within minutes how suitable the candidate was. My daughter has over the years had to do the initial interview, usually in a hotel, then a presentation at their head office, then a final interview with a board, which takes weeks and even one time had to do an isometric test. They seem to make it harder and harder for applicants and it beats me why all this is so necessary.

Might be late replying to this but there’s a site called Shortlist.Me which has practice video interviews. Doing a few of them in advance might help you get used to the format.

You sound lovely too, guess I won't be hiring you anytime soon...

This just makes you sound like a dick 🤷‍♀️

Still, if the options are talking to a camera or talking to you, I imagine the camera is indeed preferable.

Sit through it again,but this time don't have your camera on and just listen to and answer the question without the added distraction of worrying about how you look or sou d on video....

I totally understand this. It wasn't a job interview,but a one way video call with a firm I'd bought weight loss injections from, about 6 months ago. In the blurb about it,it just said 'a video call with one of our team members'. I didn't find out until I actually did the call that it was one way,they could see me,but all I got my end was a disembodied voice. I found it very off putting.

I agree with PPs who said ask the recruiter for a second chance...
One of my DC did this when they just missed the deadline to book a telephone interview. I can't even remember why now. Anyway, They were able to phone and explain and the recruiter put them back on the list.
They aced the telephone interview and got the job. So it does happen

But valianttortoise the point is that it's not a conversation. Speaking to a real person online is very different from speaking to a robot. People who have good communication skills are usually empathetic and aware of their interlocutor(s). A whole different skill from talking into the void.

Don't you think he would prefer a distorted Mum to a faceless one?

Wow, this is news to me! It does seem like quite a specific skill to be able to sell yourself with no one there. If that skill is needed for the job, I could understand it. But otherwise, seems a bit rude and one-sided with the effort. Especially when teams is so easy. Something magic happens when people interact!

Perhaps smaller companies don't use these processes, but majority of large organisations, banks etc. and American tech companies have been doing this for a while.

You are focusing on the fact some people may not like it, as I said in previous post there are alternatives for neurodiverse candidates or people that don't like it. But in my opinion the benefits of flexibility for candidates, no travel, completing outside of work hours, and for the hiring manager being able to review far more candidates far outweigh the fact some people might not like them, people in the main don't like change, that doesn't mean we should just keep the same processes we have 50 years ago.

That’s different because the majority of companies don’t do this, so candidates aren’t forced to (possibly it’s more common among grad schemes). I think you should use it if you want, but the fact it might put people off should be something you acknowledge as a necessary evil (“we like it and think the benefits outweigh the downside of putting some people off”) rather than claiming that only people not serious about the job are put off.

If you want the job I'm sure most people are willing to follow the process even if they don't like it.

I've worked in IT for 30 years, the interview processes are in the main horrendous, with multiple coding / technical interviews especially for the major companies, I don't like them, but know I have to play the game if I want the job.

Not at all, interviewing processess are not a one size fits all.. if there are neurodiverse candidates we always have alternative options, like submitting answers in writing.

With traditional process I might select 3 candidates from thousands of CV's which is really difficult to do subjectively, then some might not be able to travel, or interview during the day, with this process everyone can answer the same questions, interview at their convenience.

I find it funny that “good way to filter out candidates who aren’t serious” is considered a reasonable defence of a practice widely disliked by candidates. You may like using it for other reasons and that’s fine, but it’s silly to pretend that only unserious applicants will be put off, rather than it also putting off very serious applicants who have plenty of other options and so can choose to not bother with this.

''@jbm16 · Today 00:51
Good way to filter out candidates that aren't serious about the role.
Actually think it's the opposite, gives more people the opportunity to stand out than via CV's, there are only so many people you can interview face to face, I find it a great tool to find out more about people, and gives equal opportunity before deciding who to bring in for proper interviews.''

Epic fail @jbm16...

I am autistic and I hate the idea of having to take a video of myself.

But thank you for assuming that I am ''not serious'' as an applicant...

Not to mention that far from championing ''equal opportunity'' I am an example of how this video request can in fact be discriminatory.

The risk is that it filters out people that have other options, which is likely to be the better candidates.

To be honest I find online interviews bad enough. I’d have done the same.

I have had several colleagues have to do one of those one way video interviews when going for promotions. Most hated it. The one person who didn’t mind it taught via video calls. It is off putting but hopefully they will allow you to re-do it. Practice, practice, practice.