...to think this interview was unrealistic? (Long sorry)

[EveDallasRetd]

Went for an interview today, for an office manager/PA role. This morning was billed as 'activities' followed by an interview in the afternoon. I've bombed out, but am left wondering if it's 'me' or 'them'

There were 11 of us going for the job. Separately we were taken into an office, given a laptop and data stick and told to complete the exercises in 45 minutes. The exercises were:

*Put these 6 tasks into priority order explaining why you have chosen that priority and how you would action the tasks (things like "a person called from the LA saying there is a problem with a casual workers time sheet. The LA needs answer by 1200 tomorrow, but the casual workers manager is off work until tomorrow morning" and "You arrive at work at 0800 to a note from a colleague saying they have emailed you a doc that must be signed by the HT or DHT before 1100 or a trip will be cancelled. When you open the email the doc is corrupted and cannot be printed")

*Write a letter to a member of staff whose sickness record you are concerned about, pointing out how many sickness days she has had this term.

*Miss X is on maternity leave and has written a letter request she returns in a part time role. Write a letter to the HT and Governors explaining the law (you may use internet links) and suggesting a course of action.

*The attached document needs to be seen and signed by all staff within a one week period. You can use email.

*Send a text to all parents requesting assistance at the end of year disco. Mrs Y is organising it and her telephone number is 01234 567896.

*You receive an anonymous telephone call suggesting that the parent of Tommy Smith in Yr4 collected him from school yesterday smelling strongly of alcohol. You know that Tommy Smith is under CP. What do you do?

*Proof read this letter correcting all mistakes and punctuation.

And in the midst of all this i received a (pretend) telephone call from a local resident complaining about parking and litter and demanding to speak to the HT.

I didn't manage to proof read the letter and think I was prob a bit 'curt' on the phone. oh and I was annoyed by the alcohol scenario which probably showed. The current PA thanked me for coming in and said "I would have expected you to finish everything in the time provided, if we do want you to come back I will call you about 230"

So I'm not going back, am I?

Is that scenario normal? I thought it was too much to do in 45 mins, but am I just not as good as I thought I was . Do you think you could do that in 45 mins?

Yes, I agree. I googled and got the .GOV answer and a CAB answer which basically said there was no automatic right, but managers had to be seen to be considering it. So my letter linked the two sites, suggested that Miss X was asked to come in for a meeting to discuss what hours/work she wanted to do. Then we looked at workloads etc before deciding if it was possible. It probably wasn't a great letter tbh, but I was conscious of the time.

Bloody laptop as well, it had a touch pad mouse and I kept knocking it and jumping to the top of the page!

With several candidates, they would have eliminated those who completed precious little and concentrated of the remainder. They'd have looked at how each task was done and then chosen with the preferred number of completed tasks depending on how they were carried out. I'd have done that anyway.

That sounds alot to do. Especially with the comment at the end saying they would have expected it all to get done,

I'd be a little worried by the sickness letter actually, and the flexible working letter. I'd wonder if this is a real insight into the job (vs a tough test), if so then it looks like you're supposed to be writing very important and sensitive letters within a few minutes.

I'd be unimpressed if my request for flexible working was researched and advised on in a five minute window by someone who didn't know the law and wasn't actually in a position to advise the ht. Likewise composing a sensitive letter about sickness, another one that rests on knowing the legality of the situation as well as the school policy, her employment history etc. could do easily go wrong,

Or maybe that's the expertise candidates are bringing to the role?

So in short, I'd be questioning the schools ethos if that was supposed to be an intensified reality, less so if just a hardcore test.

Im not sure about the laws around the CP issue. I can imagine it would be within an office managers remit to know whether someone was under CP, but would be concerned about whether you should know the details or not. But maybe all the staff hand to know these things to best be on the alert ?

Well, hats off to whoever gets the job.

I think I'd've laid my head on the desk and surrendered. Agree with Miscellaneous: maybe a seasoned headteacher's PA would be familiar with employment law, but it is a bit bizarre to expect someone completely new to the job to provide accurate information - well, maybe they could - but not in a few minutes.

Perhaps the candidate they were looking for was already in this role but in a smaller school?

Talk about dropping you in at the deep end! Maybe it's better to find out now what kind of pressure they would have put you under if you had got the job! Could be a lucky escape!

Ugh. I hate a touch pad mouse and that would have slowed me down quite a lot.

Crikey. I recently had an interview where I felt that the time given to complete 2 tasks was insufficient, let alone all this! Another candidate agreed with me, we had a post-mortem in the car park afterwards.

I didn't finish everything I needed to in my test. I got the job. I'm going to ask for feedback despite being successful as I figure I can always ensure I show off my strong points / work on the weak ones in the future (no such thing as a job for life as a general rule) and I will also be asking what they were happy with in my tasks, seeing as I didn't finish. It'll probably be that I was heading along the right lines, or they preferred that I did one thing really well and made a solid start on another - that's how I would feel were I doing the interview.

Long story short, you never know. But do have a think about the whole experience - did it leave you wanting to work there? I cheered when the HR lady rang me to offer me the post, I can't remember ever wanting a job more.

Just wondering if you got a phone call? That interview sounded hell :(

I wonder if they wanted to see if you would prioritise all the other tasks as well, and if so, in which order you did them. Some look as though they could be viewed as more urgent than others.

Well, there you go. I'm not being called back for interview - but then none of us are

A governor called. She said "We have decided not to take anyone though to interview. We feel that you should all have completed the tasks you were set, this is a very important role and there is no room for error"

I said "oh, ok, I understand, although I must say I think the tasks were rather unrealistic in the timeframe"

She said "it's the type of work you would be expected to do"

I said "I understand that, and I'm sure I could do it once I was in the role, but coming at it blind and having to write down and explain what I am doing, rather than just doing it is bound to take longer...and obviously with an unfamiliar laptop instead of a desktop and so on. But that's fine, I understand what you are saying"

She said "I am sorry, it must be very disappointing, but we need someone that can do the work, and we think you didn't have enough experience"

I said "what, in schools? No you are right I don't have any experience there. I've been an office manager for 15 years though, and was a PA for 5 years, but a school is another thing entirely, as I've learnt today " and she said "Oh we didn't know that" and I said "It's on my application form and CV"

She went a bit quiet and I said "Ah, you haven't seen them have you? Don't worry, it's OK, thanks for the experience anyway" and we ended the call.

I've been left feeling a bit by the whole thing. But not disappointed I don't think. It was a lot of job for not a lot of money (the job description was 3 pages!), and whilst the school looked amazing, I don't think I could have kept up that pace of work for too long - that's what the Army has been like for the last few years and tbh I want to do less, not more.

I did find it all strange though. Civvy street is certainly going to be an eye opener if that's normal practice.

As a recruiter, I think that sounds like a really good interview activity. I'd love to see how they score it.

I work as a librarian and we often do similar tests for our non-librarian posts to weed out those who just like reading books / don't actually have a clue what we do all day (we're not a public library) vs. those with previous experience or who've done their homework.

We score such activities out of 20 though, and include it in someone's total score, so everyone would get an interview. Having a bad practical test can mean that candidates automatically presume they've failed so they go to pieces at interview though.

I think you've lucked out. If they're looking for someone to easily do that in 45 minutes (which they probably are and think they've given ample time at interview stage) can you imagine what they'd be having you do on a daily basis??

Only someone who's be in a job the same or that job for a while would be able to do those things WELL in a 45 minute period.

Oh, and we always get a random member of staff from a different team to try out our practical tests before we unleash them on candidates so we know if it's realistic to get the work done in the time given, and chop bits out if it isn't. It would seem that not all employers do this.

I don't think they'll find anyone really, if you can't pick one candidate out of 11.

They sound very unrealistic in their expectations, you don't hit the ground running in jobs like that.

I wonder what is going to happen with the post? They wanted someone to start on 1 Sep, and the school closes tomorrow.

Maybe they have already internally recruited, or the retiring PA/Manager is willing to stay on?

Seems strange they didn't interview anyone in the end, esp when 11 people went for it (and I was the only one not currently working in a school). Hats off to whoever gets the job though, they'll have to be pretty special.

I suspect they'll have to at least revise the interview process, in light of today, or possibly the job description to ensure they're getting someone of the calibre they seem to require.

I quite like the sound of the interview structure, I think it's a good way to see how people work, get insight into how they use their initiative, and work under pressure etc.

I do however kind of think they have missed the point in how they have used this to assess candidates. It does sound like a lucky escape because management clearly isn't one of their strong points.

Maybe the retiring PA/ Manager is after a pay rise and is using this exercise to demonstrate her worth

It sounds like you handled that really well, and that they didn't.

As another poster said; for an admin/office manager role, if they can't find someone suitable out of 11 short-listed candidates, then I think they may well be very unrealistic in their expectations - or - more likely - extremely inexperienced in the interview process.

Lucky escape for you, I think.

doobledootch - it makes you wonder whether it was the retiring PA who drafted it for them "oh yes, it's perfectly reasonable in the time allowed...."

Hmmm, I suspect others may be right when they say that an internal candidate may have already got the job. Being the public sector, they have to go through the motions.

I was doing a bit of temping once in a very large firm with many protocols, and they had ten candidates in jumping through hoops a la LtEve, knowing all the time that the job had already been secured by an internal candidate. What a waste of time for all concerned. Particularly the hapless external candidates.

Sounds like a waste of everybody's time. I agree that it was a lucky escape for you. Better luck with the next interview. And no, civvy street is not all like this.

Sounds totally unrealistic and drafting sensitive letters with legal implications would be a no-no to do quickly anyway.

You have had a lucky escape.

Employers are having a laugh at the minute in demanding more and more for their buck, aware that there are lots of people out there willing to do most jobs for less pay.

The tide will turn, can't wait, they are making out there's something wrong with you, but actually working at 110% all the time is not sustainable.

I agree likely to be an internal candidate- can't be something wrong with 11 candidates, one such as yourself with 15 years experience as office manager.

Absolutely hate this type of experience, it's not you, it is them (and I love how everyone is queuing up on here to say they would be able to do it!) In our school they put the kids on the phones in the afternoon in the office- can't be that hard then, can it?!

That's a standard interview in tray task at my school. It's to see if you have read up on policies as well as your work ethic. For example the alcohol scenario is to see whether you would prioritise that. Safeguarding is the main thing here. Safeguarding is the top priority no matter what else there is to do