EMPLOYERS -Thoughts please

[millmoo]

If you had an ideal candidate on paper for your job vacancy, loads of experience could easily fit the role with minimal training BUT they didn’t perform well at the interview would you still employ them?

Minimal TRAINING!!! That’s supposed to say!!

Would depend how they didn't perform well.

This, and also if there was an equally qualified candidate who did interview well.

Probably not if there were other good candidates, otherwise what is the point in interviewing?

And would make it much harder to defend against any accusations of discrimination. We score all interviews and make detailed notes as evidence, in case it’s needed.

I hate the word perform, I take it you don’t work in a circus. You say they have loads of experience so can obviously do the work, so let them get on with it if they are ideal.

It depends.

is performing well at answering questions on the spot while under pressure a requirement for the job - which is what most traditional interviews test?

if yes I wouldn’t hire.

if not then yes a I’d give them a go or hold a second interview if unsure

Nope. Unless there were unlikely to be any other candidates, as our HR processes are very much based off interview performance.

In fact, I’d be more inclined to hire someone who needed lots of training but interviewed well as any role I recruit for will likely you need to be able to think on your feet in client situations and be a clear communicator even under pressure so poor interview performance would be a red flag for this.

It depends how the job relates to the issues failed on the interview.

We have a list of skills to assess in interview - the “paper” skills (training to date etc) are what got you to interview. So it would be hard, I think.

We have "competency based interviews". Set questions and set capability areas to assess. It's not really about "interviewing well" or badly it's hitting the higher scores in the 4 areas, saying things that demonstrate you have skills and experience, and it's all explained on our website. It's designed to level the playing field; it's far from perfect but it at least stops interviewers making decisions on intangibles like whether they liked them or know their uncle.

In short someone who has great skills and experience could well get the job, but only if they use the interview to tell me about those skills and experience. It's an opportunity to give me that evidence verbally.

In any interview you only get the job if you beat the competition. Sometimes you're just up against someone unbeatable. But it's a numbers game - try to have several irons in the fire if you can.

No. Because being good on paper and having experience doesn't always equate to being any good at the actual job.

However, if I believed that they could do the job and were just having a bad day, I might invite them back for a second interview.

No. Each candidate is marked on their answers to the same questions. The person with the highest score is appointed.

thanks everyone 🙏

Yep- this.

You shouldnt hire anyone without scoring them on interview and the person who scored most gets the job, otherwise you open yourself up to discrimination claims.