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

Definitely 'what did you think' is the first thing I say!

In general I've never said anything detrimental about a candidate after the interview. I always try to be positive as I understand its not generally a fun experience for someone to go through.

If they weren't a good fit then I'll discuss why I think that and what they are lacking experience wise, or sometimes it's just about culture fit taking into account the rest of the team, or the stakeholders they need to deal with. I'd then ask the other interviewer's opinion to see if it matches mine or if they saw something different. Sometimes I can be persuaded to see it differently.

If I liked them then I'd discuss how I was impressed when they said this or that and how their experience would work well. Sometimes that they might not have the specific experience but because of their attitude / aptitude, I think they could easily catch up etc.

In my experience the longer the interview goes on, the more I like them and therefore will ask more questions to drill down on what experience I'm looking for, and how much of a good fit they'd be. If I'm not impressed I try and end the interview as soon as I can (without seeming rude) as I know it's a no and I don't want to waste anymore of anyone's time.

Sorry off thread. Anyone here interview for the council? Is it custom for the interviewer to make zero small talk and just stare at their piece of paper writing the whole time without commenting or elaborating on anything? Or smiling? Interview today has totally thrown me.

We allowed 10 minutes between candidates and used the time to make notes and score them on our check sheets. Usually before any spoken comments. If we had asked anyone to show them around, we asked if there was anything they wanted to tell us. Some people were really rude to potential colleagues.
Maybe someone would make us a coffee if lots of interviews.

Tend to keep comments to the meeting where we decide but I did once ask if anyone knew what perfume she was wearing 🤣 it was divine, and I still don’t know!

Not for the council but this is pretty common in public sector jobs IME, as they have to be scrupulous about treating all candidates exactly the same to avoid any suggestion of bias. That often does mean they just read off a preset script without any small talk or follow up questions, which can feel a bit uncomfortable but you get used to it.

@Didgy the public sector training I have had is not to make small talk as if you connect more with one candidate (“oh you also have a pet pony and were at Ascot last week!”) you are inadvertently putting one candidate at an unfair disadvantage to another - as you may subconsciously warm more to people with a similar social background to you. It’s all about reducing unconscious bias etc. seems brutal I know but it is done with the best of intentions.

So doing the scoring sheets. Maybe some comments along the lines of “oh she didn’t know much about x which is a shame”. Or “wow, they were really good”. But no decision made until we’ve seen everyone.

@NeverDropYourMooncup

That sounds like a very specific situation that isn't pertinent to the environment I work in.

Our interviewees don't encounter anyone at all, until they meet the interview panel; just the nature of the university set-up.

@Krustykrabpizza

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

There's no reception - university roles.

I can understand there'll be different dynamics in other workplaces. But the format of interviews & types of roles interviewed for, the performance within the interview room, linked to competencies required, is what is pertinent.

(That's not to say there aren't candidates that we know won't be suitable; they still have the same interview experience, and usually the scoring manages it but sometimes there are tweaks needed).

I hope the interviewee doesn't!

Interviewing is exhausting. We chat at lunch, but during the day, there's no time, and we are focused on the process.

i heard someone saying No , before my interview!
i dont want her
she said.

None of these things happen where I work.

The internal candidate is not automatically appointed. I've been on several panels where surprisingly, the internal candidate performed poorly and someone else was appointed. A thorough interview process is always followed, genuinely.

There's a salary range with the advertisement but the starting salary point won't be confirmed until the role is offered, and is nothing to do with us.

There can be a bit of time before unsuccessful candidates are notified - it depends on how long the senior level approval of the appointee takes, the time taken by the successful candidate to accept (and if they don't, the next candidate has to be contacted), and then there's the time for HR to contact unsuccessful candidates - this can take a few weeks but always happens.

Mostly it goes something like talking through each of the questions and their answers in turns and comparing our score and notes.

e.g. "I think he gave a good answer about project experience and I really liked how he was able to provide clear detail on the parts he was responsible for. I gave him a 4/5 because of tha but. I found he sometimes he seemed like he was more of a contributer to the project than leading it and I wonder if he might struggle here where you need to do be able to lead".

[other person]

"Oh, I felt he gave good answers about leading projects for all his example. He said he was the one who made the key decision on project X and had to then lead the team to implement it; when he talked about project Y he was clear that he was ultimately responsible for pushing the vendor to deliver. I gave him a 5/5 because I really couldn't see where else he could have given a better answer".

..and so on - through all the questions.

Then a final chat and agreement on whether we think he should be offered the role. By that stage, normally you are in sync anyway so it's rare you have much of a debate then - but sometimes you do.

Ultimately, I think the thing to remember is that I WANT everyone to succeed. I am looking to rule them in, not out so I am trying to do everything I can to help them shine in the interview. Although it's a pita, I'd still rather hire the wrong person and have to deel with the fall out, that miss out on a great one just because I didn't give the kind of interview they would excel in.

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

I've never done that. I have interviewed for roles with internal and external applicants that have eventually been offered to the internal app. But it was not a done deal. They applied and genuinely interviewed the best.

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

In lots of corporate roles, the hiring manager does not do salary negotiations (but contributes behind the scenes) and so may geneuinely not really know what the range is or what you've asked for; or you may be interviewing with someone who will end up being a peer of the new hire and so do not want to discuss salary in front of them.

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

The HR or recruitment team often do this, using feedback from the interviewers. In all honestly, sometimes that feedback takes a while to type up and send because interviews have already taken up a chunk of time and there's still the day job to do. The HR team may pass that feedback to an agency to feedback (if they submitted the candidate) and the agency may fail to pass it on, or may chicken out of doing so.

The "definite no" candidates are generally pretty obvious. Sometimes you know from very early on in the interview and it's quite tedious to have to go through all of the questions. Sometimes a candidate comes in and really wows the panel, and it's obvious who is going to get the role. Most of the time, there needs to be some discussion, sharing of scores etc.

Sometimes we talk about candidates between interviews - especially the brilliant ones or the really awful ones - but most of the time, we wait until all of the interviews are done. Sometimes we might pick up on elements of the interview, e.g. "poor thing, she was really nervous, wasn't she?". Or or a particular story they told which was noteworthy. More often than not, though, we're more preoccupied with checking the time of the next interview and working out whether we have got time to nip to the loo, top up on coffee etc before the next one!

Occasionally “oh my god, did he just say that?”
More likely “she’s lovely! The patients would love her.” Or, “ not bad” or “he was good” or “how many more till lunch?”
Occasionally when someone answers brilliantly and there’s more positions than candidates it’ll be a case of asking them to wait outside while we score and offering the job on the spot so we don’t lose them- that makes us very happy!
Generally no decisions till we’ve seen everyone and scored them all though.

I would never waste my time on interviews if the position was already filled. If I wanted to give it to an internal candidate, I would. If I interviewed an internal candidate alongside external candidates, it would be because I was openminded about who was going to be the best fit for the role. (Or occasionally I might offer an interview to an internal candidate out of courtesy while privately thinking that they probably weren't up to the role.)

We put all salaries in the job adverts and we are transparent about that. We also reply to all candidates and offer feedback.

In my last job, public sector, I saw quite a few positions given to candidates who turned out to be really dreadful workers or did not get on with other colleagues. They ticked all the boxes in the interview and on a couple of occasions just beat someone internally who had been doing the job for some time.

There were some very unpleasant people taken on and some very upset colleagues along the way, a couple of whom left to go elsewhere.

It was not a happy place to work at times.

it is hard to know how affable and pleasant etc people turn out to be,
fed up with interviewing tbh

Yes, it's the challenge of interviewing.

It's why a good panel is really important. You need to be able to read between the lines & what's said, and apply it to the work situation.

I'm always thinking (if it's for my own area), 'how would they handle x situation?'; 'how would they work with y team,' as I'm asking questions.

It's why having external panel members is good too, to give another perspective.

Mostly it's worked out, I've been happy with who we've taken on. Not my team but in another team, there was a truly disastrous appointment who had interviewed excellently. As it's public sector that's why the probation process is so important (after probation, getting rid of them is nearly impossible).

You need better questions then.

I'm relatively uninterested in how pleasant they are (to a degree) - but do they know the role, can they contribute, show initiative, work within the team. The questions are detailed to get some insight into this.

Not a lot until the end when we do the scoring and discussion.

Ive had one candidate recently who I knew halfway through was a definite ‘no’ as she was so ill prepared - hadn’t done the presentation required for the interview, didn’t seem to have read the JD or understand what the job entailed etc. Other than that, they’ve all had a fair chance until the last one is out the door and we discuss properly.

Our interviews are panel - so me, another senior manager, HR and often a client. It would be really unprofessional to start casually chatting about a candidate’s chances the minute they were out the door.

people can lie in interviews, say they are a team player, and hard working, when they simply want to coast

This is why we have a rigorous training programme and a good capability protocol.

We've filtered out a number of poor fits this way.