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

Yeah, we also ask how they treated the PA too.

I've had one that was so shockingly bad it was a definite and immediate no. He was so patronising and rude throughout. At the end he tried to hit on me.

Yeah, we also ask how they treated the PA too

This. I think people forget everyone is in on the interview day sometimes!

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?

Individually, perhaps. As a panel, no. We score carefully, based on criteria linked to the essential criteria for the role. It's often never clear until scoring, who is getting the role.

There will always be a definite 'no' or two, but due to timing, we don't discuss them, beyond maybe a quick comment, as we need to move on quickly to the next candidate.

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

Not really. If someone has been terrible, it may be mentioned, but reasonably professionally. I'd never be rude or dismissive about a candidate, and have never heard my fellow panel members being so either. When we get to scoring, we can be very direct in terms of the score & why, but it is linked to their professional ability.

We would mention someone being lovely or excellent but again, only quickly at that point.

We take good care to interview as well & fairly as possible. All of us know the challenges of interviews and how stressful they can be. I've had tough interviews so I do my best to help an interviewee so their best on the day.

Usually whether there's time for a quick cup of tea and loo break.
Quick feedback on whether the candidate is appointable or not. Big discussions happen at the end of the process when we've seen everyone.

There's never any PA for our interviews (university). Even if there was, it is strictly how they perform in the 45 minutes or so that we are interviewing them that matters. Nothing else.

The defunite nos are always those who've given a red flag answer that immediately tells us they are unsuitable.

Examples (over many years of interviewing at different levels):
Admitting they took drugs
Admitting they took a sickie to come to the interview
Not shaking hands with the interviewer because they were talking to their friend on their mobile
Arguing with the interviewer and insisting working lots of overtime was the sign of a great employee and everyone should be expected to work overtime all the time
Answering a question about how to deal with an underperforming member of staff with 'sack them'
Having no work experience of any kind at all because 'I disapprove of drinking so won't work in a bar'

Nerves are normal and would never count against someone, we try and make people as comfortable as possible so they show the best of themselves.

Yes, us too.

I interviewed recently, and really did not take to one of the candidates. I said nothing, and tried to approach it objectively in the scoring instead (was glad she wasn't the successful candidate in the end tho!)

I always score out of 4 rather than 5 so you don't end up with too many maybes - you have to decide if the answer / person is a maybe-yes or a maybe-no.

I once worked somewhere where we used to do very frequent interviews for multiple casual, junior posts - no set number so we would take on anyone who fit the criteria. There was a panel code where we would put our clipboard down if we thought they were a yes so if everyone put their clipboard down we could offer on the spot rather than calling later.

I have been on a panel where a definite ‘no’ was given to the candidate who admitted that they weren’t actually interested in the job that we were interviewing for, but quite liked the company and had hoped that they could be given a completely different (non-adverted) role instead. We did discuss that one!

Individual scores, agree panel scores, agree feedback and normally one panel member “have I got time to pop to the loo before the next candidate?”.

Really? Even if they act like a prick in reception?

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.

I do this too (HR so I've sat on hundreds of interviews.) It is easier to rule out than rule in IMO. The "no" candidates you tend to know immediately after the interview but I've never heard another interviewer be rude or make a personal remark about a candidate. Usually it's something about answering the questions badly but sometimes they say something that raises a red flag or they just come across as rude.

"Yes" candidates are harder, we tend to say "they'd be appointable" or "definitely a possibility" as we have to wait until we've seen all the candidates before we can make a decision. However I've certainly been in interviews where 5 minutes in you know they could do the job and would be a great fit and you're breathing an internal sigh of relief (and willing them to continue to do well in the interview!)

It is often interesting, sometimes boring and always tiring but I do know how nerve wracking it can be being interviewed so I always try to give my full attention to the candidates (even if you're desperate for a coffee and a biscuit as PPs have said 😂)

I'm a heart on sleeve kind of interviewer - my boss always knows afterwards (without asking) that I loved or hated a particular candidate.

The convention at my work is that we discuss all candidates at the very end and after everybody has done their individual scores - so we don't discuss when the candidate leaves the room.

So can I ask the interviewers here why do they interview if they already the position filled (often internally)? And why the reluctance to say what the salary is at the first interview (though it should be in the advert)? And why do they not eventually tell unsuccessful candidates that they have not got the job?

Something like 'what do you think'. Sometimes someone is so good you can't help but say it but there is never a feeling of 'your hired'. Always need that team discussion, always need to think about best fit, development, balance etc.

Oh! I beg the pardons of all of you! I assumed you'd be indulging in normal office chitchat, and what happened on whichever drama everyone in the country was watching!

Same with us. We make notes, we have a scoring sheet, and we keep discussion until the end. It's been obvious a couple of times that everyone was blown away by a candidate, but as a chair I've deliberately kept things moving without comment.

It helps that we have another team assessing a separate task. So we never assume we know everything until the end. We have a panel partly so that we will notice and assess different things. And it seems fairest to candidates to keep an open mind throughout.

I don't tend to say things like that and most the people I've interviewed with haven't, but I've been on panels before where some people have. Particularly very negative comments which I've felt has been a bit unfair. I think about how I'd have felt if I'd have known someone was saying things like that about me after I've just been visibly so nervous at a job interview. So I never say anything that negative really.

At my last job I held hundreds of interviews and it was a mixed bag, discussions after depended on who my co-interviewer was.
The only time we were really annoyed and expressed it after was when we’d rearranged a date to see a candidate, I’d traveled an hour to see him and he told us in the first 5 minutes he was using us to get in with our competitor. When he left we said along the lines of ‘what a twat, wasting our time.’ We know people do it, but why tell us?!

On other occasions, if someone is clearly not employable, we have always agreed on a ‘shall we cross him/her off?’ Straight afterwards. I remember one girl was so flustered she barely answered any questions, we gave her a test and she didn’t answer any of it correctly and then ran out of time on a writing question, having only written one (poorly constructed) line. We did comment on how her CV was almost certainly fabricated as it was for quite a senior role.

One of the people I interviewed regularly with would close his book in the first few minutes if he didn’t like the candidate. It was clear from then but I’d have to continue the interview as if they had a shot, was always awkward afterwards discussing it with him as he used to moan I’d ‘wasted his time’ by continuing for so long.

I’ve never interviewed and said ‘yes’ straight away, however someone else I worked with did this regularly. She would often say when a candidate left the room ‘well the next interviews are pointless, she’s definitely getting the job’ which again made me feel awful for the remaining ones who thought they still had a shot.

Having been the interviewer, I feel more nervous at interviews but I’m very cautious about things I’ve picked up on. Not touching my hair, good eye contact, chewing gum before hand but not during, always accept water and most importantly - if I don’t understand a question, ask them to elaborate. Nothing more embarrassing than someone answering a completely different question to the one you’ve asked, especially when you really want them to get it right!

The only “definite no” conversations have been about candidates who performed very badly - 15 minute presentation which lasted 2minutes for example, or one sentence answers to several competence based questions.
Sometimes we would discuss if someone had performed better or worse than expected - we have usually been involved in selection for interview which means we have an idea of experience etc.

You'd have missed the bloke who walked behind the receptionist's chair to get a closer look at a class of pubescent girls doing PE, ogled an NQT's arse as she struggled to lift a heavy box and then said to the IT guy who stopped to help her 'Do you get to see stuff like this every day?' that way at one school. Fortunately, they weren't so shortsighted and took heed of the reports.

The last interview we did I think I said "wow that was amazing. I've never seen anyone come for an interview in a crop top" 😁

The last interview panel I was on, the internal candidate did a dreadful interview and we were all gutted for him so there was quite a bit of chat about that.

But then the next person in blew us out of the water and frankly would have got it even if internal guy had been on top form, so I guess that was something.

I always want people to do well and I'd say that's true of all of my colleagues I've interviewed with - we're rooting for you! There's nothing worse than trying to save a car crash if an interview.

So can I ask the interviewers here why do they interview if they already the position filled (often internally)?

We don't do this. If there was an obvious successor for a job there would be an internal only interview. TBH a company that prioritises developing current employees careers is a good company to work for, don't complain, keep applying.

And why the reluctance to say what the salary is at the first interview (though it should be in the advert)?

Salary ranges are in our adverts.

And why do they not eventually tell unsuccessful candidates that they have not got the job?

We are a big company and receive thousands of applications a month. If someone is interviewed and is rubbish they get an immediate 'no'. If someone narrowly miss out on the job then we wait till we hear from our first choice or we might have another vacancy coming up that they will be suitable for that we want to offer to them so there might be a bit of internal negotiation about when we can formally offer that job.