1hr interview lasting 15mins! Any hope of getting it?

[Elouera]

I tick every box on the JD and am overqualified, but realise the job market is different now. Initially told it was a 1hr interview, then the teams invite only showed 45mins. FAR more casual than I expected. No actual competency questions, just a run down of the role, my experience, what I can bring to the role and whether I'd want full or part time.

I realise no one can say either way, but are online interviews usually casual and very quick?

You're over qualified - that's something you'd want to address - did you?

Was it a big company, if small you might have had inexperienced hiring manager, who based on your CV though she's perfect, let's just phone to see if she's nice to work with.

If a large organisation, they should have a standard list of questions, including skills, so 15 minutes would be unusually short.

Was this maybe the first interview our HR speak to our potential candidates first, before the interview with the hiring manager?

@slightlysnippy

Was it a big company, if small you might have had inexperienced hiring manager, who based on your CV though she's perfect, let's just phone to see if she's nice to work with.

If a large organisation, they should have a standard list of questions, including skills, so 15 minutes would be unusually short.

Was this maybe the first interview our HR speak to our potential candidates first, before the interview with the hiring manager?

I was going to make similar points to this.

I've been interviewing via Teams over the past few months, large organisation. We have to do the interview properly and it definitely fills the time slot. I've interviewes strong, borderline, and clearly-not-good -enough candidates in this format and they've all taken close enough to the full time.

Good luck! 🤞

Recently had a Teams interview. Scheduled for 45 minutes, done and dusted in 25 minutes. My now boss (started today) says he doesn't believe in long meetings and all that competency questions rubbish...
Good luck, OP. Hope you have a similar outcome.

It does really depend on the role. I interviewed people recently and each interview lasted 15 minutes - but it was for a short-term contract, at graduate entry level.

I would have done the same if held f2f rather than on Teams. The format shouldn't make a difference.

The interview does sound particularly short & superficial. I'd say it's their fault, not yours though.

I had a not dissimilar experience last week.

Were meant to be three people on the panel, but only two with no explanation. Very informal chatty interview - they kept interrupting my answers to chat. Shorter than it was meant to be.

Despite being very qualified for the role and submitting (in their words) a very strong application, they didn't even inform me that I wasn't successful in going through to a second interview until I emailed to ask them.

The reason given was that 'there were other candidates whose experience more closely matched the requirements of the job' which I took to mean that they'd already decided to appoint someone internally/had someone in mind.

I hope that's not the case for you, and they've already decided to offer you the job/next stage of application.

Its a short term contract with potential to extend. Although I have the experience, I've been out of this direct field due to covid, so looking to get back into this area- which I did explain in the 'interview'.

Either it's a junior HR who was just sense checking you exist before referring you for second interview, or you haven't got the job because something you did or said ruled you out quickly. Did you ask for part-time? Did you express that you were over-qualified in a way that might have come across as arrogant or otherwise unsuitable for the role? Did you answer clearly why you've been out of work?

Interviews usually take the allotted time. I once told a "gentleman" the interview had concluded after 10 minutes due to him making several misogynistic comments. I was amazed he fit them in, but I explained to him at the time why he was leaving and let his recruiter know a few minutes later. If I didn't like the CV or already found someone then I wouldn't interview, I don't think many people have so much time to spare that they'll hold interviews just for fun.

MRex it's not true that candidates either progress to a second interview or don't get the job "because something you did or said",

Plenty of jobs are earmarked for internal candidates/friend of employer etc. In these instances, it doesn't matter how well you perform at interview, how skilled or qualified you are etc.

Hope that this isn't the case for you OP, and that they will progress your application to a second interview.

Plenty of jobs are earmarked for internal candidates/friend of employer etc. In these instances, it doesn't matter how well you perform at interview, how skilled or qualified you are etc.

I'm not going to say this isn't true in some sectors / organisations because I don't know. But I've interviewed extensively in public & private sector bodies and this was never the case.

Each interviewee was given time to show us how good a candidate they were, and all were asked the same questions.

Interviews were only shortened if the the candidate really wasn't answering questions, or like MRex said, they did / said something that ruled them out.

People often like to believe that organisations have someone lined up. It's much less true than they think. A good organisation worth working for will want to get the best candidate. I've been at interviews where internal candidates didn't get the job. I've been the internal candidate ^^ who didn't get the job!

This practice has certainly been pretty common in sectors that I've worked in.

I hope that this isn't the case for you OP.

I’ve run short interviews when it was clear the candidate was great (and also short succinct answers vs waffle waffle)

Still got through the requisite topics though

Plenty of jobs are earmarked for internal candidates/friend of employer etc
Usually those jobs are given to the person and not advertised. It's only a proportion of public sector and a very tiny proportion of private sector where anyone is obliged to advertise a job. Even then, there can be internal candidate preference where a job may be advertised only for internal candidates to apply - so yes someone could be disappointed if another team member looks likely, but usually they actually all get a fair chance and it isn't external candidates applying as in this situation. In private sector employers advertise only to find someone. Think logically here, employers will not want to pay advertising fees, recruitment fees and waste their own employees' time if they can just promote an internal candidate, so they don't.

Except that advertising a job and going through the motions of shortlisting, interviewing protects the employer from accusations of discrimination or a grievance being raised by another employee, or even someone external, about not following its own policies re: recruitment.

Think logically here - no employer wants to run the risk of legal proceedings against them.

In my experience this could go either way.

I’ve had a very long interview where I didn’t get the job, and a very long interview where I did.

My son was recently applying for private high schools and the school that interviewed him for less than 5 minutes was the one that accepted him...

Thanks for the thoughts. Yes, I know it could go either way.

To clarify, I have been working this past year, just not in this specific specialty.

@christinarossetti19 - your experience is clearly very different than mine, I am perhaps used to larger companies.

No company, small or large, wants to open itself to legal proceedings for discrimination or not following their own policies.

In my experience, it is highly unusual for a job to just 'be given to the person and not advertised' as you say.

When I interview people I expect it to last for the allocated time (usually 45 mins). No different for video interviews.... IMO a short interview is a bad sign! I’ve never offered a job to someone who did a short interview as invariably I just don’t have enough information to decide if they are suitable or not (rather than judging the candidate to be unsuitable just because the interview was short).

@christinarossetti19

No company, small or large, wants to open itself to legal proceedings for discrimination or not following their own policies.

In my experience, it is highly unusual for a job to just 'be given to the person and not advertised' as you say.

It isn't discrimination to hire someone, it would be discriminatory to turn someone down based on protected characteristics. Small companies will have a chat, large companies have an interview with additional people to confirm for the role. What they don't do, is review 100 other CVs and bring in ten other candidates to time-waste just for shits and giggles, if they know someone who will fit the bill from other work experience. Very few companies outside public sector require that jobs be advertised. What do you think, my neighbours can sue my limited company for employing DH instead of advertising? I'm afraid your experience is limited and you're over-applying it.

I started w new job yesterday and my interview was on teams and only lasted about half an hour of the hour slot. They just felt I answered the Questions well and didn’t have any follow up questions to ask me

MRex organisations open themselves to claims of discrimination if they don't adhere to their own recruitment policies and just give someone a job.

Your neighbours aren't likely to sue you for employing your dh. As I said, lots of people and organisations use this method to recruit to positions.

Your experience is limited and you're over-applying it. Here's what ACAS - who know more than you or I - have to say about direct and indirect discrimination and not following policies when recruiting www.acas.org.uk/hiring-someone/check-if-you-need-to-advertise.

It is a matter of law @christinarossetti19, companies do not need to advertise because they are not obliged to. Public sector is usually different in their recruitment policies, though even then they may limit to internal candidates. Ensuring diversity in the workplace does not require advertising. ACAS won't tell you any differently, call them up if you like.

Advertising isn't only about trying to ensure diversity - it's also to protect organisations from claims of indirect discrimination, discrimination or grievance for not following their own policies.

ACAS explain it very clearly in their link.

I'm not going to divert OP's thread further by continuing this, you only seem able to believe in your own opinion so it's pointless @christinarossetti19.

@Elouera - I hope it was a junior HR waving you through, if not good luck with the search.