To think they had someone else in mind before I even went in?

[Flippantdolphin]

I interviewed for a role on Friday - should hear by tomorrow if I’ve got it - but when I went in they clearly had no interest in me or what I was saying. I am qualified for the role but they cut me off twice when I was responding. In fact, before the interview had even started they were quite offhand with me.
Perhaps I’m not what they are looking for but I felt to be interrupted - twice - isn’t great. And I’d not gone on for ages. Maybe two minutes per question? It only last twenty minutes in total.
Im not getting the job, am I?
There were three people interviewing and one was late. We waited about ten minutes and the other two didn’t say a word to me - I tried to make small talk about the organisation / job and they just gave me one word answers and then went back into silence.
I have concluded that they must already know who they want, because they weren’t interested in me even before the interview had started.

If they are so rude to someone who has made the effort to come for interview, you're better off not working for them.

Maybe they had a preferred candidate yes,and it was tick box,, but generally it’s more likely they didn’t want to give you an advantage by doing small talk about the org so every thing was on an even playing field, also they may not have felt comfortable or been experienced in dealing with this, some interviewers are crap, not trained and think their job is to be stoney faced.

cutting uou off is maybe as the answer was wrong or waffling, two mins is actually quite a monologue in some circumstances

they invited you to interview, so clearly you’d something they were interested in. Did you present your self correctly ie attire and grooming ? Sadly that can also make a difference.

Yes, I was in a suit - I was plenty smart enough.

Usually though - interviewers sort of expand and stuff. A couple of minutes for a two part question isn’t that long, I don’t think. I made sure I spoke clearly and gave it a few seconds thought before I answered.
It was just like they weren’t interested before I even answered.
maybe they just didn’t like me on sight!!

Honestly it’s really hard to judge op, some folks are shit interviewers, everyone may have been treated rhe same.

Was it public sector or private sector? Public sector jobs sometimes interview a set number of people because they have to as part of a "fair and transparent" recruitment process. I'd argue it's neither fair nor transparent to waste the time of unwanted candidates on false pretences but there you go. I've had a couple of really shocking interviewers in the public sector.
Private sector tend to only interview if someone at the org is seriously considering hiring you.

It was public sector.

It sounds like you probably haven’t - and either they always had someone in mind, or they saw their perfect candidate before you. It happens.

It happens, I once did a second round interview knowing the job had already been offered to someone else as it was a friend of mine who been offered it (the company and the recruiter didn't know we both knew and were working in the same office together at the time ) but they had to go through the motions to satisfy thier internal processes and I went along with it to keep in with the recruitment agent.

We had the same experience, but he lived within walking distance and could start 3 months before me. No brainer really, but an absolute waste of time for me and them. We had a really good laugh about it at the time. The lies that came from the recruiter keeping me on the hook whilst he negotiated his contract we're hilarious, we were sat on the same bank of desks opposite each other and could hear each others phone conversations.

They sound appallingly rude, and I wouldn't want to work for that organisation.

Incidentally - perhaps HR people can explain???

What happened to good old internal promotion? I hate the system now where every post has to be advertised externally and poor saps (I've been one a couple of times) spend ages applying and get their hopes up for the interview, only to realise that it's an internal promotion, dressed up as an actual job vacancy.

What is the thinking behind this horrible system? If there are no suitable internal candidates - fine, go ahead with the recruitment. But please don't waste people's time and raise their hopes in this cruel way if you know exactly who you want, and they know it's just a formality. I've been on both sides of this situation and it's awful.

It’s possible they have an internal candidate lined up but has to go through the process of advertising/interviewing to prove they’re the best person for the role.

Sorry OP - but as a pp said, think of as a good thing - job interviews are also a chance for candidates to suss out if they really want to work there, and you don’t really want to work for an organisation that can’t be bothered to make an effort with interview candidates.

That’s interesting as anywhere I have worked jobs are offered internally first and if the post is not filled in x number of weeks that’s when it goes externally

I think some companies forget that interviewing is a two way street and the candidate is interviewing them as much as they are interviewing the candidate. If I had an experience of not interested interviewers and one word answers it would seriously put me off working there even if I was offered the role (obviously dependant on individual circumstances of whether they really need the role or not)

Perhaps, but it isn't over until it's over.
I've known quite a lot of interviews where, even if an internal candidate may have been the person in mind, one withdraws and then they have had to offer to the 2nd or 3rd choice because front runner has not accepted it. If there were 3 shortlisted, then that can mean much better odds for person 2 or person 3.

It's quite possible that they had a candidate, however this does not excuse their behaviour. We have a couple of people in our organisation transitioning from fixed term to permanent contracts and all the roles have to be advertised externally. This means that these interviews are cursory at best because, unless a candidate has masses of relevant experience, it is well suited for the organisation to keep a person who's already been in the job for two years and performs well. Having said that, I cannot imagine my managers being so inconsiderate during an interview process to not even give a candidate chance to speak.

My experience - 20 years in the public sector - is that they advertise even for an internal promotion,

In my experience it is very very rare they do not already have someone in mind, although very occasionally they will not choose that person,

I didn't apply for stuff unless my manager gave me the nod. Was soul destroying otherwise.

I had this last year but I had to wait almost a month, I was apparently one of the last 2 candidates for the role but the other I found out was internal so had the edge. I got the feeling she was being moved around there too, obviously has more rights than me if she’s permanent.

Yes, it can be risky and time consuming for them onboarding you and inducting you but I was quite annoyed as I’d prepped really well for this interview.

It’s not nice for you though OP if you feel they’ve earmarked someone else and are just going through the motions with you, it’s time wasting too. On the plus side it’s interview practice.

Ages ago a friend of mine, a doctor who wanted a change of scene due to a nasty relationship breakdown, applied for a registrar post in a nearby city she fancied living/working in. A couple of weeks later I was having lunch with another friend who was already a registrar in that hospital and I told her about my mate. He pulled a face and said, “oh god that job is earmarked for Jane Smith, and she’s really great, they’re just going through the motions”.

It’s awful to raise people’s hopes. And sometimes they have to take annual leave or pay for childcare in order to attend the pointless interview. Just give the job to the “really great” internal candidate and don’t waste others’ time and give them false hope.

I think they were rude to cut you off and not interview you properly and fully. However, it’s not unreasonable for interviewers to have a preferred candidate, either “on paper” or having already interviewed them.

We frequently have preferred candidates but want to speak to others as back up if the preferred person doesn’t accept or gets a better offer. On that basis, they’re a bit daft not to give you a fair crack of the whip.

That said, we’ve occasionally had candidates who were clearly wrong from the get go - late, not dressed appropriately, poor answers to opening questions. In those circumstance, we do tend to bring the interview to a conclusion sooner rather than later.

This. This really pisses me off in the public sector. A job came up in my organisation I would have gone for except I knew that had already decided who they were giving it to. All the candidates who applied had their time and hopes wasted. And it does take a lot of time to apply and prepare for interviews. Its so disrespectful to treat people like this.

Sounds like it, OP.

I attended an interview years ago where it quickly became apparent that two of the three interviewers had no interest whatsoever in me. The third guy engaged me in general conversation but it was obvious he was just being nice. It was not an interview, it was an allotted time period for them and me to sit in a room together so they could say that they had considered other candidates. I was most annoyed that I had allowed their admin assistant to take copies of all my personal papers before the interview.
That was public sector.

I agree with all of this, sadly, especially in the public sector. It's very, very rare that they don't know who they're going to employ beforehand, however much HR might bleat on about fair recruitment. The only exceptions are if it's a very difficult-to-fill post because of location, reputation, or skillset, and even then, they'll probably have tried to find an internal candidate first. It's why most of my cv consists of time spent in "difficult" jobs...

Ill chalk it up to experience.
I am not saying I was wonderful or my answers were perfect but before I’d even answered anything they were quite disinterested.
I was surprised they only asked four questions. That was the end of their interview sheet. It seems very few so I wonder if they’d deliberately kept things short.
I have interviewed for roles within my current organisation and we ask about 10 questions.

I had this once but went into the interview and the person interviewing said oh hello, sorry for the formality but we have to interview a few people even though we all know you've got the job Kelly... my names Fiona!

So embarrassing. Should have walked out but was a lot younger a very naive.

Don't give up hope quite yet. My nephew went in for an interview and one of the panel actually got up after 10 minutes, said "Well, I've heard enough from him" and walked out of the room.

Nephew got the job. He still has no idea what that was all about and isn't going to ask.

Yeah it happens often in public sector, particularly when hiring an internal candidate means they are a known quantity and they also won't have a long notice period like someone external probably will.

One way to spot these is if the adverts have a 1-2 week deadline, that means that they are going through the motions and attempting to restrict the number of applicants to make this easier to do.