I wonder what job interviewers talk about after the candidate has left the room…

[beeonmybonnett]

I always wonder this when I leave the room after my interview has concluded.

So job interviewers of MN, even if there are still more candidates to interview, do you have a fair idea as to whether or not you’re going to hire that one person that is sat in front of you?

when the candidate leaves the room, do youse say stuff like “OMG he/she was truly awful” or “that person was really good!”

Genuinely curious lol

You know if they’re appointable or not and generally discuss that but I’ve never been on a panel that’s decided to appoint before seeing the final candidate.

Write up our notes and complete the scoring. NHS so it’s very prescriptive and follow the civil service guidelines. We absolutely don’t discuss candidates in between interviews - it’s all saved up for a discussion once we’ve seen everyone

Two horrible women that once interviewed me didn’t even wait for me to leave the room before one said emphatically and rather loudly, “No”. I wish I’d said something at the time but the process of job-“ hunting can be so fucking demoralising it’s just one more fucking cherry on the whole shit-cake to knock any final vestiges of confidence you might have managed to hang on to.

Oh that’s awful. They shouldn’t have said that knowing that you could hear them!

Not being sarcastic or anything, but can you genuinely not imagine a scenario where someone is a immediate no?

It’s really common and a normal part of interviewing. You’ll come across people who-

• don’t have the skills at the level required
• are poor communicators
• have blatantly lied on their CV and can’t answer any questions
• have a very poor level of English which would make them unsuitable
• mask a question which sets off red flags
• answers questions badly
• demonstrates a poor organisational or team fit
• aren’t as strong as someone you’ve seen previously

I was just curious about it at the interview stage. I’d expect quite a lot of the examples you give to be picked up at the sift stage (e.g. don’t have the skills), and some of the other are more about comparisons (e.g. not as good as someone else), but I’m more interested in knowing what about them makes them an automatic no, irrespective of comparisons. Answering questions badly could be quite subjective, for example, so would that in and of itself make it an automatic no.

Indeed. And that's before you get to "rude to the interviewer", "rude to other staff", "answered my questions by always making eye contact with my male inferior".

My interviewing often included practical tests, which weren't so much about getting it right, as about solving the problem well. We had four questions, started in the middle, then moved up or down adding in extension or regression questions as we went along.

But what we were really looking for was whether the candidate was approaching the system the best way to problem solve, or asking bright questions as they went along. Not "can they do it", but "can I teach them to do it".

It's very obvious who has more aptitude.

I’ve done dozens of interviews over the years - find them absolutely fascinating. Definite “no” is normally someone who has been v unprofessional or totally slated others to make themselves look better.

As others have said, usually just a brief I think they are appointable or not. Always interview all candidates, it’s not the candidate’s fault they got the last slot and you never know who is going to best on the day. Usually interview days are manic, so a head start on the scoring, a restroom break, grabbing a refreshment is the priority.
Detailed discussion, decision and agreement on what feedback each candidate should have is done at the end.
The only real awkward moment I had was when I was interviewing at a different site to my office. Candidate 7 didn’t turn up, so panel had time to deliberate. We still interviewed candidate 8 to see if they could out perform the candidates we were happy to appoint. They couldn’t. It was a customer service based role for an international business. The question was regarding language barriers. Their response was they would send them to a competitor because we didn’t want difficult customers. There was a test for candidates to do after the interview. I’m afraid they were still in the test, when I passed on my way back to my office to start calling the candidates. Even 100% on the test would not have got them the job, but I did feel bad that they might have seen me.
Overall, I try to put people at ease, I want to see them at their best.

I overheard DH doing interviews during lockdown and there were definitely “oh s/he was great!” and “oh god that was awful” and everything in between. I once overheard the interviewers discussing me before an interview for a TA job in a school, mainly the head teacher (very distinctive accent) saying “she doesn’t even have a level 3 NVQ” that’s because I have a teaching degree but it made me wonder if I should just leave and didn’t help my nerves! I did get the job though 🤷‍♀️.

We have a structured capability based interview system. So we score each answer and always do that straight after the interview, and agree a score. We check we’ve got good notes for each answer (if we’ve taken turns asking the question). Then have a cuppa before the next one. It’s exhausting.

Like PP, chat about how they did. I try to score answers as I go (or I forget) then we quickly compare scores before moving on. There’s usually something that stands out such as whether they’d fit in the team or how they answered a particular question. Sometimes you’re arguing about wtf they were even selected for interview if they are clearly not suitable.

We use a scoring system and initially will be looking at my own notes to compose the score and reasons.
We may chat a little but mostly left till all interviewed and talking through scores

I've only ever had one where we didn't just discuss pros and cons, questions scoring, how they came across, and whether or not to shortlist.

Myself and the other interviewer both just sat back in our chairs in silence for a minute. Then I went "wow" and he went "yeah that was shockingly shit". It Really was the worst interview I've ever done, absolutely appalling.

A combination of "yeah they're nice like them/hell no!" And "I need a wee/drink" with a dose of "let me scribble this down then we can bring the next one in"

Well they were a definite no / Hmm, think they are a possible, not quite enough of the right experience but they seem canny / They were pretty good actually, let's see what the other candidates are like.

Then once we do all the interviews and compare their scores and discuss if we want to offer or reject straight away or keep them in reserve for the next vacancy.

Not exactly what your asking but I once had a situation where I had the interview and was waiting outside for the tour of the labs when the person hiring came out and immediately offered me the job. Guess I was a yes definetly. No idea how many other people interviewed but they were looking for highly specialised expertise so guess my 5 years experience doing exactly that made me the perfect candidate

This exactly.

Mine is often a gut reaction about someone, as much on their personality as their experience. I'd rather have someone less experienced but keen to improve, that will obviously fit in to the team, than someone with the right skills that doesn't seem like they'd get on with the others.

Also, I like to ask our receptionist for their opinion as the way they arrive and introduce themselves and act in reception is often indicative of their true nature.

"So, what do you think?" is about right. Generally followed by "I liked them," or "Not sure about that one."

General reflection on the interview, what we liked and didn't like out of the answers. Whether they'd fit in in a particular role. Then we usually score them as a group per question.

We usually say ooh l liked her skirt or ooh her bag was lush.
But l am not in charge of recruitment although l always notice if they were pleasant and polite to the mere receptionist and pass it on if they weren't.

We make an effort not to talk about a candidate we've just interviewed in case someone else's opinion sways our opinion of the next candidate.

At the end we ask each other if we have any who are appointable and any who are not. Then we talk about them. At that point we might say about an unappointable 'bloody hell X was a bit intense werent they!'

Whether they have ‘bench-marked’ each competency, and the fluffier ‘team fit’ ie do u like them 😬

Yes basically. Or a comment about needing a wee or being hungry as interviews go on forever

I've done alot of interviewing. Sometimes 8 a day for several days in a row. First we'd love sitting back and relaxing for a while if someone didn't turn up. Second we'd compare notes and then think about another cup of coffee and if there were any biscuits.