To think employers want applicants to bend over backwards

[jobhunter25]

During the recruitment process? I'm currently searching for a new job and can't believe how many hoops some companies expect people to jump through, for shitty pay/benefits might I add. I left my last role around a month ago (unhappy for years, toxic environment) and luckily I had some savings I was able to live off but I'm now ready to get back into work. I've applied for around 15-20 jobs and I've realised that employers don't just invite candidates in for an interview if they like their C.V anymore. It's so long winded. For example, a role that I applied for (pay is between 18-22k btw) wanted me to take a 45 minute test, and if I passed they would call me for a pre-screen chat and if they thought I was suitable they'd invite me in for an interview. I actually emailed them back this morning saying I'd been offered another job as I really couldn't be arsed with the hassle, not for 22k anyway. I understand companies being more thorough with a high paying role though. AIBU?

YANBU.

I have just got a new job after a short spell of unemployment (unemployed by choice for same reasons as you OP).

I have 6 interviews in total.

I got offered 3 and picked from 1 (they were v close together so could effectively take my pick)

Just one interview - the one I ended up accepting the job on - was a straightforward interview after submitting my CV. No task, no test, no silly things to do. Just interview questions. They also offered the job the same day as my interview.

For the others:
4 had pre screening interviews via Teams
4 wanted a fancy presentation that included a PowerPoint
3 wanted a project plan
2 wanted a PowerPoint AND a project plan
2 had long winded tests before the interview
3 had a ‘challenge’ set on the day (one of these was also the ones that wanted a PowerPoint and a project plan)
4 took over 72 hours to come back with an answer

For the 3 I didn’t get- including the one that wanted a presentation, plan and for me to do a task on the day - they all notified me via email that I was unsuccessful.

I fed back to that particular one to say when people take the time to swot up, create a presentation, create a plan etc that the least the employer could do is pick up the phone and let the applicant down in person.

All those roles were under £35k too. The one that wanted all singing all dancing stuff was £28k

I agree with that. We always email candidates who aren't shortlisted but have a phone conversation with those who are unsuccessful at interview, unless they have specifically indicated that they would prefer to be contacted by email (I always ask at interview). I think it's just common courtesy to have a conversation and offer feedback.

“Competitive salary” drives me round the twist. If I tell you my salary is £85K, why would I accept your job, that you think you are going to get an experienced COO for, that pays £38K? “But we’re a charity…” Well I’m not!

I think it’s reasonable to test essential skills for a job. It should of course be balanced and tests shouldn’t be too onerous but if you can’t use Excel, and the job requires daily Excel use with pivot tables and formulae then a test is entirely appropriate to weed out the chancers.

@DorisParchment

I detest it too and always put a salary range when I’m recruiting and I keep the range fairly tight so it’s a true reflection of the level of role I’m hiring.

I’ve seen £25k - £40k ranges - entirely unhelpful.

Can I add applications that state a range for pay but then it turns out that no matter what you start at the lowest end. Well that's not a range then is it?

The NHS is like this for minimum or just above minimum level roles. No wonder they struggle to get enough applicants.

Yes! @Merryoldgoat I saw one the other day that was 35-100k

A good few years ago I had a job interview where I was told to dress professionally. That was fine, I arrived well presented, more than ready to answer any questions fired at me.
I was then led into a large balloon filled hall with several others, separated into colour coded teams and told to pop as many bubbles matched our colour as we could before the timer went off.

They did explain that it was a team building exercise but I did feel very silly popping balloons whilst looking like a head office manager 😬

@jobhunter25

Utter bollocks. It just tells me they don’t know what they’re looking for.

I’m an accountant and you can find a role for £35k or £100k but you won’t find one where both those salaries are appropriate at the same time.

I expect they get so many applicants they need an easy way to filter who they want to spend time and effort interviewing.

Recruitment, and only finding later you have recruited the wrong person and have to go through it all again is very expensive.

It is a PITA, but I can understand why they find it beneficial to them and enough applicants must give the commitment and complete the process that they don't see it as an issue.

Sorry but this is really funny 😆

Pre screens should be short- 15 to 30 min to make sure that both sides have a basic understanding of each other. This can avoid getting to the end and finding out there is a mismatch that can’t be overcome.

Tests should be relevant, short, and strategically used. I used to use a basic knowledge test in a specific computer language that was literally the entire job. Even being a generous ’grader’ this test eliminated about 50% of applicants. I would give this at the start of the interview so I could gauge if the applicant had any hope of moving forward.

Projects/examples are a little harder. Yes, they are similar to a test, but if I’m honest I’m not sure I’d even really trust anything submitted. There would be no way for me to know if the applicant had done it themselves.

On the flip side as a candidate you get to decide what you’re willing to do during the process, and I would argue that the pre screen should be the time when you ask what to expect in the process.

I totally agree, but on the other side of the coin, it's annoying when candidates expect more than their skills and experience are worth!!

We have roles to which we can appoint either trainees without relevant experience or people who already have experience of doing the job. We make the salary very clear in the advertising, ie £x for new trainees and up to £x for candidates with significant relevant experience. We absolutely do appoint at the top of the range for those candidates who merit it, but it never ceases to amaze me how many trainees without any relevant experience at all are pissed off when we won't put them further up the scale. We wouldn't do that a) because their skills don't warrant it and b) because it would be unfair to existing members of staff.

So I agree that recruiters should be open and transparent about the salaries that they are offering, but if they are transparent about it, then people shouldn't waste everyone's time interviewing for a role if they aren't willing to accept the salary advertised. I mean, fine to try to negotiate to see what you can get, but if you are literally unwilling to work for the salary that we explicitly stated in the advert, why bother!!

Agreed!

This week I've got a 4th interview for a job....FOURTH! And it comes with a task that's going to take me 1-2 days to complete.

Then if I get past this stage, I have a half day in their office to see if I'm a good culture fit.

Then if that's successful they'll make me an offer. Which may or may not meet what I've asked to.

Previously it's been 2 interviews and a task. Which was just about bearable.

@lieselotte

My own employer is just as bad for graduate entry roles, I simply can't believe the hoops people have to go through.

Yep, I didn't believe my son when he explained what he had to do to apply for graduate jobs. When he came home at Christmas, I sat with him whilst he started one, first stage of the application, and my God, what a load of crap it was! Not only did he have to type in what seemed like his entire life history in numerous text boxes (He has it all in paragraphs/sentences in a Word doc so at least he can copy & paste things like exam dates/results, hobbies, extra curricula, DofE, references, etc), but then it went on to crazy "game" style tasks.

The worst was a character spinning in a circle on screen and you have to hit a key to stop it at an exact point in the circle (a bit like a "The Cube" game from the TV game show), he said he'd had to do it before with another application. Thing was it was impossible to do, so I think the "test" was of perseverance, i.e. how long he kept trying until he gave up, i.e. if he gives up too soon, fail, but if he carries on for a long time, probably fail too - it must be programmed for a "sweet spot" amount of time! He said he'd had several other "games" like that to do in other applications.

It was probably around 10 applications he did before he even got to the next stage, which often seems to be having to do a webcam video answering random questions of the type you'd typically get in an interview, and you have a specific amount of time to prepare your answers and then upload your video, all within a specific timeframe (so you can't go and Google answers etc!). And yes, probably about half the applications he made never actually said he'd not been successful - he only realised after a few weeks when he heard nothing.

After that, there seems to be "live" online assessment centres, either as a 1-2-1 with the employer or group sessions.

Then, it comes to face to face interviews, which presumably means you're pretty close to being offered a job.

Absolutely nothing like the old days of sending a covering letter and a cv. I feel really sorry for DS whose spent literally dozens (if not hundreds) of hours going through the application process, whilst trying to keep on top of his Uni course/studying at the same time.

Thankfully, he's got through all those stages and got a cracking good job (in fact he got 3 offers in the end), but by God was it hard work for him. I do wonder if a lot of the early stage is to weed out the ones who aren't fully committed.

It’s generally true if they won’t tell you the salary it’s because it’s insulting. I dismiss any recruiter who won’t tell me this.

On the opposite end, my graduate job-seeking son had one Teams call interview for a professional consulting role, at the end of which he was offered the job there and then. Afterwards his new and v experienced boss said she just knew he was who she was looking for.
And this was after endless online tests, assessment centres etc at other firms.

@jobhunter25 ...I have a friend who works in recruitment for a large company, she explained that this unfortunately is becoming a norm, these days candidates often use professional CV writing services and enlist friends or family to write a cover letter so the only way of verifying literacy is an 'in house' test.

Yes especially when "competitive salary" is used absolutely everywhere including on all minimum wage jobs! That's not competitive, that's literally the minimum, if they could pay less they would.

So many employers seem to have no idea about the labour market nowadays, after the rise from the 1st April, the minimum wage on 40 hours a week will be almost £22,000 a year so a lot of jobs just above that just became a lot less attractive. Pay minimum wage, expect minimum effort.

I applied for a job in a bookies a fair few years back, there were more stages in the process than there were for the military it was crazy. I do think now applications are largely online some seem to take it too far and just utilise all of the stages they can often for the sake of it. CVs weren't perfect by any means, but essentially you want to know as an employer that the applicant has x, y or z experience or transferable skills and qualifications and then cement this in interview along with some other stuff. More than enough imo, some of the online tests are not helpful in the slightest.

It’s true. The candidates I interviewed had good CVs but their English was so poor, both written and spoken, that that alone meant I couldn’t hire them ignoring the lack of technical skills.

Any job that requires daily use of pivot tables needs to be abolished.