To be surprised that people conducting job interviews dislike them too?

[WryJadeWren]

I was talking to a colleague who is involved in recruitment and she mentioned that she hates conducting interviews. She also said that the people interviewing candidates often don’t particularly want to be there either.

I was quite surprised by this. I completely understand why candidates dislike interviews, given that they’re the ones being assessed, scrutinised and having to prove themselves.

But why would someone sitting on the interview panel actively dislike the experience when they’re not the ones under scrutiny?

I did ask her why but she just said “I just don’t like it.”

I’m genuinely curious. For those of you who conduct interviews, do you dislike them too? And if so, why?

I find them tiring and I hate having to be "on". Especially when you have several days of interviews with multiple candidates having to say the same spiel each time and still sound fresh. You also know that you won't actually get any lunch break because your usual work is building up and you'll have to fire fight on phone calls then and once you finish interviews that day.

The very worst is when the candidate is clearly not suitable from the moment you meet them after they seemed normal on paper. The woman who arrived wearing slippers and the man who rang several times because he didn't know if he was at the right building and I had to stay on the phone to walk him to the door and then meet him. Mate, it's the town hall with a massive bloody clock. Also the man who had a very thin loose woven linen shirt so his nipples were visible.

I hate that sort of question. People aren't going to say their actual weakness in case it goes against them - things like bad timekeeping or short temper aren't going to be admitted so being a perfectionist is something generic and positive to say.

I have done a lot of technical interviews in the past. It gets tedious when you get people in who seem suitable based on their CV, but appear to have done little or no preparation, and can't demonstrate the skills you are looking for, either verbally or in a practical test. A very simplified comparative example might be the job spec says it involves making pivot tables in Excel, their CV says they are an expert in Excel, so you give them a practical test to make a pivot table and they can't do it. Surely if you go for a technical interview you take a look through the requirements and do a quick revision? It's not like we expect someone to know 100% of the answers either, and we make it clear that we are just asking a range of questions to identify their strengths, but when some people can't even get the first three "easy questions to settle them in" correct you want to bang your head on the table.

I'm no longer involved, but hated being in a position where you had two good candidates and knew you had to disappoint one.

But why would someone sitting on the interview panel actively dislike the experience when they’re not the ones under scrutiny?

Just because you’re not under scrutiny yourself doesn’t mean you have to like it. I’m a teacher. There are many parts of my job where I’m not “under scrutiny” but I still dislike doing it. I’m never “under scrutiny” when I’m preparing my maths resources for the week, but I still “actively dislike” that task.

Im never on the interview panel for new staff but I do conduct a lot of lesson observations on teachers, as I lead a core subject. And I have to say, I find them incredibly boring. Watching other people teach 9 year olds is not a part of my job I particularly enjoy. Yes I’m not the one being scrutinised, but I still don’t really enjoy doing it.

I’m not a fan. I am a team manager but when I took this role interviews were always done by people the level above me. Then my company decided to change that policy and make team managers do them instead. I just find them really awkward when someone is clearly struggling for an answer. We’re an admin team and a lot of people we hire are fresh out of school or college, for some of them I’ve done their first ever interviews. Maybe I’d feel different if I was interviewing people with more experience.

Exactly. It’s a shit question so it’s no wonder it gets shit answers.

I find recruiting really stressful. I don't like that I'm making a decision which could have a really big impact on someone's life, especially if they're being made redundant or otherwise don't currently have an income.

I also know interviews are a really shit way of assessing whether someone will be good at the job. And that I have conscious and unconscious biases that make it even shitter.

Fucking hate them. My workplace makes me. Twats. It’s all so fake and we can’t actually ask any questions that might unearth any personality anymore, it’s all on ‘competencies’ which is almost pointless because anyone sat in the chair or on that call has already proved they can do the practical stuff.
The only good thing is I get to pick women over men, and WC people over posh ones, usually.

I quite enjoy it, because you meet so many different people. Some of them stick in my mind, like the poor guy who was very nervous, which made both his ears wiggle. But I also quite enjoy going to interviews and seeing different workplaces and meeting people, even when I'm full of nerves.

I mostly do technical interviews, usually with one other guy, and he was the one who said, "have you noticed, some of them answer to me, even when you were the one asking the question?" I just said, one of the joys of being a woman in tech.

Funnily enough, no one we actually hired managed to ignore me in the interview, so it was a daft strategy for those who did. Thry should have looked up my LinkedIn profile and seen all the women in tech stuff I've done.

Me too I enjoy this
I do not enjoy interviewing people who don’t match the applications firms, using AI and just not suitable wasting my time!

I find it exhausting and often tedious. You can often tell if someone is right or totally wrong within the first minute and then have to fill another 44 minutes. It's repetitive and takes a lot of energy to be properly engaged and give every candidate a good experience.

It depends. You can have a good candidate who you are engaged with and interested in what they have to say and they ask the right questions. Equally you can get an awful candidate who is ill prepared and gives poor answers. You usually work out in the first 2 minutes how the interview will go and whether you wish you were somewhere else , it’s going to feel like you are stuck in the room for an eternity and I would rather be at the dentist !

Hate it. Some of the answers are awful. I ‘ve had people close to crying at the end of the interview and begging for the job because they want a visa and to get to the uk and are desperate. Thankfully due to cutbacks we rarely interview these days as no jobs!

I’m tend to find it boring. Especially if you can tell in the first ten minutes that the candidate doesn’t fit the team. You have to keep going with the interview so they can’t accuse you of not giving them a fair shot - so it’s performative.

Some candidates are weird too. They don’t think about why they want the job at my firm - an opener question for which any half decent answer would do. “It’s on my train line”
isn’t going to cut it. Or the ones who act like you have to sell them the job and try to recruit them - if you apply the baseline should be that you’d like to have the job. If you tell me that you don’t actually want to leave your current role and can’t articulate why you fancy a move, I’m not going to offer you.

But then, you get the winning candidate. And that interview is wonderful. Everyone is engaged, positive and you actually look forward to working with them.

wish we didn’t have to do all the others to find them….

The worst is when you are interviewing internal candidates who you have already been working with for a while.

There were strict rules where I worked, with HR on the panel with you making sure that the person who got the job was the one who scored highest on the day.

Which was incredibly frustrating when your top choice who is brilliant at the job on a day to day basis is overcome with nerves and completely flakes on the day and the over confident guy who is great at interviews but an absolute pain in the butt at doing the job looks like the best candidate in the interview.

They are interesting at first and some people are a genuine pleasure to interview. But it can get boring if you've got to interview a lot of people. Also, having to intensely concentrate for a whole day of interviews can be really draining. There's usually also lots and lots of note writing.

Sometimes it's disillusioning that people you thought were going to potentially be a great addition to your team are a great let-down at interview. Also - asking same question in three different ways to try and illicit a proper answer can be very frustrating.

Finally, sometimes one of other panel members are on a differnet page, and you have to deal with them liking candidates everyone else would fail, and wanting to fail candidates that everyone else thinks were great!

What can I learn from an interview about a person’s actual skills? Nothing. All I can learn is that they are good at selling themselves.

I would much rather just see the resume and then screen people with a standardized sample task to see if they have a logical and mathematical brain, which is what they will need to succeed if they have come to interview with me.

Alas, I have to ask them ridiculous questions like tell me about past work that illustrates how they can be detail oriented and tell me about a time you solved a problem without having all the information.

Because recruitment is hugely time consuming. I don’t hate interviewing but it’s a very involved process which takes me away from my work for days. Having said that, I really want to find the right person for the role, so there’s a trade off.

It's very hard work, paying really close attention all the time. Some people don't do well which is upsetting. You have to make hard choices and need to be sure you are being fair which is not always easy. So just not much fun really

It is tiring as you often are interviewing around 8 people per role at my work. And you have to focus the whole time obviously so you can assess them fairly. And some people give answers that are really hard to follow!

I’m a director / head of department and I really dislike interviewing. It’s tolerable when you get someone with whom the conversation flows well, but when you don’t it’s just painfully awkward. I also feel quite nervous and want to come across well. Yes, they are interviewing for a job with me but I also think the other side should want to give a good impression too.

It’s part of my job and I hate it. I have massive imposter syndrome that I’m the person charged with making the decision (although in our business I’m clearly the right person for it).

Part of it is the pressure of choosing the right person, part of it is wasting my time sitting through interviews with people who clearly haven’t actually read the job description. The one who came in for a PT role wanting only full time, or the one who wanted max 20 hours a week but applied for FT, or the one who read ‘immediate start’ and told me mid-way through she was about to go travelling for 6 months. If you’re taking a punt that you might be good enough for the role to be accepted anyway (which is fair enough) at least open that conversation pre-interview.

It's stressful. In public sector there is room to challenge if we mess up. You feel for people who are nervous or really need the job. If you get it wrong you have a problem. If you are too picky you might not get anyone. Often the hiring manager is interviewing with the boss and/ or HR and feels pressure. Many reasons not to like it!

I actually prefer ones who are clearly unsuitable. I find a good interview quite stressful - are they actually good, or just good at interviews? Are they the right fit? Am I about to make a massive mistake and spend 40 hours a week with a complete idiot?!