..to complain about this wierd job interview?

[williaminajetfighter]

I recently attended a post for a Director level role but the interview was so odd. First they didn't ask me any questions related to the actual role - so imagine it's a Director of Finance role, I was asked nothing about actually 'doing finance' on a day to day basis or even financial processes, problems I've encountered or major financial projects. Instead I was asked very generic textbook questions like 'what are your strengths' and 'what was your least successful project' which I suppose are fine as I tried to respond by giving useful examples related to the post.

Secondly they spent the whole time intimating that I may be overqualified, that the scope and scale of this role was not enough for me which was really demoralizing.

Thirdly, instead of asking questions about the job they kept asking me opinions about the future of the company, which were impossible to answer as it was v difficult to obtain public information about the organization. Moreover I know an internal candidate was applying for the role, which surely advantages him!

This isn't normal practice is it? I mean I sit on or chair interview panels all the time and labour over the questions to ask. This just seemed really thrown together and, frankly, set up to favour the internal candidate.

I've never complained about a job interview but is it worth doing it in this instance?

They have an internal candidate and are box ticking. I remember going to a similar interview. Such a waste of everyone's time.

I agree it is a waste of everybody's time. Is it equal opportunity law or something that company's can't just offer somebody they know the job?

The interview itself doesn't seem too bad for me. Particularly at Director's level.
You could have rung them and showed an interest prior to the interview to know more about it. Sometimes they look for fresh perspectives. Who knows?
And if you are overqualified they might worry you would leave them as soon as you found another job.

All these comments are very interesting. The frustrating thing is that this was supposed to be a DIRECTOR level post and the questions were, I suppose, more broad strategic questions but then they constantly noted that I'd only be managing a small team of 3 and thought I'd be overqualified. Frankly I think this was a mid-range Manager's job pitched as a director.

However for jobs at this level they normally send you b/g information, an organogram/structure etc so you can get a sense of the org issues. They didn't although I probably should have asked for it.

As for why I thought it was discriminatory, as a woman in her 40s it's hard to hear 'overqualified' constantly and not equate it with age. It is a LOT easier for women at 35 to get a job than women at 45.

We have this where I work - we have to advertise and interview.
But it is a small team who work very closely together - one of the most important things is they can fit in well with the existing staff. There is often someone that someone already knows/has interacted with us in some way - in that case we advertise somewhere obscure for the shortest amount of time possible...but if we do get applicants we do have to go through the procedure and if it was someone who blew us away we might change our mind.
I'm a casing point ....my role is slightly different (not a direct part the team), very part time and not well paid. When I applied I was already involved as a volunteer and part of the reason was I thought they would struggle to find someone. I didn't get the job - it was offered to someone who seemed better qualified and committed. Who then came back and wanted to change the terms and conditions...so they offered it to me instead. Recently I discovered the person who turned it down was doing similar work for 2 other group and made a complete hash of it - one actually went bust partly because of their mistakes, the other fired them.
When I worked in a University it was similar -my contract was coming to an end, my boss had a new short term role to fill. It was more or less a continuation of my current job... you couldn't really have found anyone better, more suited to the role... but it had to be externally advertised. It was ....for a split second. On the deadline day no-one else had applied... great - then my boss was told I would still have to submit an application and an updated cv otherwise it would have to be re-advertised. I did them both in less than a minute just before the deadline - a joke really - full of typos and layout fails -just hope they have been erased off the face of the earth....

As for why I thought it was discriminatory, as a woman in her 40s it's hard to hear 'overqualified' constantly and not equate it with age. It is a LOT easier for women at 35 to get a job than women at 45.

I disagree. It's difficult to get a good job no matter what age, gender, etc you are. It's a very competitive market - and it only gets more competitive the higher up the chain you go. The people that get the jobs have good CVs or applications, research the job fully, and interview well. You got the interview so you can tick the first. Throwing around accusations of discrimination is not helpful.*

A lot of 20 somethings have been told they are over qualified. Over qualified is sometimes used mistakenly to make people feel better about being rejected. It's a nonsense; if someone is the right fit their qualifications are irrelevant (beyond job requirements). The concern about over qualified people is they are taking the job as a stop gap and will leave when a "more appropriate" role arises - I don't see this being an issue for a director position.

OP you heard this concern at your interview and you either didn't challenge it, or did not satisfy their concerns that you were not the match they were seeking. Don't make it into more than it is.

*discrimination does exist, I don't see it here.

As for why I thought it was discriminatory, as a woman in her 40s it's hard to hear 'overqualified' constantly and not equate it with age. It is a LOT easier for women at 35 to get a job than women at 45

If they genuinely think you are over qualified, it's because you are over qualified. Nothing to do with gender or age.

Yes as we get older we have more experience, but that doesn't mean that it's discrimination. If they suggested you weren't suitable just because of your age, then maybe.

When a company takes on people who are over qualified, they tend to get bored and leave.

I was told I was over qualified at 23 for a job. I was. But I wanted a job where I went in, did it and went home at the end of the day. Regular mon-fri work with regular hours. Dd was 18 months and I wanted a job that gave me a better work/life balance.

I got the job and actually ended up working my way up, while maintaining the same hours.

But they were right. I was over qualified. However they realised that not everyone is looking for the highest level of job they can get. That for some people other aspects of jobs can be more important.

They liked my answer and it convinces them that I was committed to staying because of the hours.

Best job I ever had.

Olly, I was hardly jumping on the discrimination bandwagon. I just mentioned that they intimated I was overaqualified many times, which seems absurd for a director level job. At the same time they then asked me about whether I was too senior to do basic level work, which isn't normally expected of a director-level role. It sounds like they wanted everything - a strategic thinker who was willing to update their website at the same time.

You weren't there at the interview though, so try to be a bit less harsh.

This isn't normal practice is it?. I think it is tbh.

I have never conducted an interview for a Director level post, but I have conducted interviews for 3 different levels within my company - starter (basic call centre roll), manager and department manager (fairly high up, in charge of up to 300 staff etc).

I was asked very generic textbook questions like 'what are your strengths' and 'what was your least successful project'
In my company, the starter roll includes very specific and detailed questions, competency based. Tell me about a time when you've had to work with a team to resolve a problem and what were your results? - is an example. 8 questions, very specific and fairly difficult to answer on the spot.

The questions get purposefully more vague the higher up you go. If I interview for a department manager, i'm not going to spoonfeed them the information I want, like I would an 18 year old going for a starter role. I would expect to be able to ask fairly vague questions and get thorough, detailed and well-thought out answers. 'What was your least successful project' is actually a question I have used! I would expect any decent candidate to be able to talk to me for 10 minutes from that. I'm looking for someone who is able to 'command the floor' and direct the interview in the way they want it to go, and to give the information they believe is relevant.

kept asking me opinions about the future of the company
Also entirely normal. I want to know your vision. Don't tell me just about the past, tell me about the future and why you think you would excel here and what you're bringing to the table and where you see the department or company this time next year.

I think you would look very silly if you complained op.

Frankly I think this was a mid-range Manager's job pitched as a director

Manager, Director and so on are just words. Unless of course the role is an actual Director role, with all the legal bumf that goes with it.

A company can call a role anything they want. In fact, the company I work for has recently re-branded their 'Business Relationship Managers' to be 'Business Relationship Directors'. Just sounds nicer.

William - the bottom line is I think they want the internal candidate.

I am a man and been to quite similar interviews recently where it was quite clear they were just box ticking and asking questions designed to give them an excuse not to hire me.

It works like this. They know the internal candidate and the internal candidate knows a lot about the company and its future. You don't because you are an external candidate.

To exclude you they ask questions about the future of the company that you cant answer. Bingo the internal candidate they wanted all along gave a better set of answers to questions that you had no chance of answering.

Also, the internal candidate and less well qualified so in theory you should win over him there but there again they can counter that by saying you are 'over qualified'.

Sorry. Its a grim fact of life in interviews at the moment for senior roles. I often see adverts for interviews at senior levels and reading between the lines the advert is so specific or has such strange requirements that it could only have been filled by an internal candidate (or external candidate the organisation already knows) they want and anyone else is just going to be there to complete their diversity box ticking open access criteria.

This happens in private and public sector all the time at senior levels. It who you know not what you know and yes its true women and other minority groups will tend to lose out in this environment where jobs are being handed out before the interviews take place. Impossible to conclusively prove in a Tribunal though.

Op I wasn't trying to be harsh. Apologies if it and across that way.

I was going off when you said it was managers job with directors title.

I know I wasn't there, I can only give opinions on what you posted. Which is all any of us can do.

"I just mentioned that they intimated I was overqualified many times, which seems absurd for a director level job."

Well, if it was genuinely a director level job, you'd probably be right. But you've said yourself several times that you felt the director label in this case was misleading and it was really a more junior level job than the title implies. In which case thinking someone is overqualified seems reasonable. And thinking someone is overqualified isn't discriminatory.

It happens. I once flew back from Germany, where I was living at the time, for an interview. The interviewers seemed so horrified and guilt stricken to hear this that I immediately realised that there was an internal candidate. Sigh, what can you do?

I wouldn't complain because there's nothing to be gained by it. If they don't already know that interviewing external candidates when the job is already filled is rude, they must be spectacularly ignorant so your complaint wouldn't get through. All it would do would burn your bridges with the company and anyone who hears your complaint - not a wise move, since you never know where you might meet them again.

If the position WASN'T already filled then you will just look stupid.

Lose lose.