To think that some people are too intelligent, skilled or capable to be humbling themselves just to beg for jobs?

[MyNattyGreyEagle]

Obviously everyone needs to work and provide for themselves but sometimes I wonder if the way we make people grovel through endless job applications, hoop-jumping and interviews for basic roles actually overlooks real talent. It feels like the people who should be leading or innovating often get stuck “proving” themselves to people less capable than them.

AIBU to think that if the system were really fair, intelligence and potential would be obvious, and you wouldn’t have to beg for a seat at the table?

I think that it’s naive to assume job market fairness and a “kind” process. There’s a lot of luck - especially atm when they often only accept the first X number of applications before taking the ad down. That can be hours later for jobs paying minimum wage.

There does seem to be a competition to see how much applicants will do for how little pay but it reflects the UK job market and the economic outlook for the next few years imho.

This reads like AI

Quite!

The OP’s post smacks of arrogance tbh.

I think the process is beneficial for both sides. I once realised a company/job wasn’t for me due to the second interview. You should be assessing them as much as they are assessing you. Recruiting is expensive and needs to end in the right candidate being secured by the company, but also, no one wants to end up in a position they are not suited for.

What do you mean by beg? You think no one has to prove their worth to get a job?

I m a solicitor and most times when I go for a new job.I m given a written exam to answer a legal problem question and a thorough grilling in interview. I can see the wisdom behind it.Because the quality does vary from practice to practice.

Sometimes it doesn't weed people out though.Because one of my paralegals is so utterly lazy and useless and misses the most basic things that I m surprised she made it through the interview at all. I didn't interview her.

Do you seriously suggest people should be given a job without any interview?

Interviews are a pointless way of trying to determine if someone is great at research or coding or baking bread and yes you will lose people who don’t also have the interview technique which all seems daft

There is that too
The useless paralegal, I mentioned in my previous post has only been at the job for about five months. She's complained about how the job is beneath her and how she isn't paid enough money.

I'm not her manager though she does work on my files among other solicitors. She's in for a rude awakening because we re all submitting reports about the basic things she is getting wrong and her inability to complete anything on time.

Arrogance is a very dangerous thing. It's often those who think they're slumming it in a job who are actually no good.

I’m all for proving competence, it’s the performative side of recruitment that bothers me. When the process starts to feel more like a power trip than hiring, something’s off.

That might be your experience, but it isn't mine

What you are describing is for entry level positions. If you are skilled, capable, and experienced this is not how interviews go - it’s more of a negotiation to see if you are the right fit for the employer and vice versa.

What on earth are you talking about? 'Performative'? Can you give some examples? I've worked in or around recruitment for the best part of 40 years and I have absolutely no clue what you're waffling about?

My husband is regularly offered jobs without interview. His reputation and the contacts he has are enough. He’s well known within his field.

however, interviews are supposed to be a 2 way process. It’s as much about whether the applicant wants to work for the organisation as whether the organisation wants them.

If you feel like it’s a power trip, then it’s not the right job or company for you.

By performative, I just meant when hiring panels make the process more about displaying authority or testing nerves than genuinely assessing skill. For example, endless interview rounds, trick questions, fake “pressure tests” or panelists trying to trip you up just to see how you react. It’s that theatre of recruitment that feels unnecessary.

I think a couple of stages of interviews for a professional job are fine, but it's the endless hoop jumping and multiple stages only to be ghosted at the end which is wrong. And don't get me started on how they harvest free work/ideas by making you do a presentation on a 'strategy' or some other such bolleaux

Presumably you put all those things in your CV with your qualifications, which should show your genuine ability (or often a hyped up version). The interview is partly to 'test' the CV or anyone could put anything, and to assess other things like if you think they will 'fit' in the role, will actually stay long term or it's just a stop gap. Many things you can't assess from a CV alone.

Yes, of course they are.
If they have means to support their lives, that's even better!

For me its at the point where my continued employment/progression depends much more on available funding than competing with other people. I've proved myself at what I do, and basically if the role continues to exist beyond where its currently contracted to, its mine, but that's subject to forces beyond my (and my line manager's) control.

There's nothing demeaning about interviewing though. An interview is a two-way street. If I move sector I want to be interviewed. I do object to writing pages and pages of buzzword-matching before it even gets to interview stage though. I don't like an employer that wants applicants to spend multiple hours/days to either be ghosted or get a generic mass email rejection. First stage sift should be brief, unless you're actually giving useful feedback.

I don’t think ‘performative’ is quite the right word, but I do know what OP is getting at.

I find that interviews often reward those who can perform well in an interview, regardless of how well they can actually do the day to day job. Some people are great at performing (bullshitting) in an interview, exaggerating their previous experience and saying how they’d cope with x situation or deal with client y.

I don’t know what the solution is. But it is frustrating- I’m one of those people who can do my job perfectly well, but am rubbish at performing in an interview situation.

I'm shit at interviews and its cost me a few opportunities so I've invested in interview coaching, which isn't cheap but it is an investment I'll see a return on one day hopefully. Got to learn how to play the game!

On the one hand, I agree with you that some interview formats are geared only towards finding the best interview performer, which is not the same as the best person for the role.

On the other hand, if I had a quid for every mardy twat who thought they were better than their managers, I'd be a rich woman indeed.

Is there more context or backstory to this OP?

Sort of sounds like either you’ve been interviewing for MI5, or a company with a terrible work culture!
Either way - consider it a bullet dodged, literally or figuratively!

There aren't enough well-paid prestigious jobs for the amount of people who are capable of doing them.

This isn’t my experience at all. I also work in the field of recruitment. If organisations are doing this, then I’d wager they aren’t serious about trying to successfully hire people for their roles.

Much of the time it's not grovelling though but boasting about how brilliant you are. Which can be very uncomfortable for some people.