Recruiters - what does 'another applicant had more relevant skills and experience' really mean

[christinarossetti19]

Just that really.

Obviously, I understand what it's saying but the organisations that I'm applying to know about my skills and experience from the application, but they've offered me an interview so they must be relevant enough.

The problem that I have is that I can't even get an interview for the field that I've worked in for 25 years and in any other field of course someone else will have more relevant skills and experience.

What can I do? I'm doing courses and upskilling myself and applying for anything where I fulfil the person spec and JD, but to no avail.

I feel stuck in this never-ending cycle that there's no way out of.

It usually means exactly what they are saying but yes it can also be used as a nice way of saying you were lacking somewhere else or didn't give a good impression if referring to an interview but it's impossible to know without being part of the panel, you'll have been successful in securing an interview in the new fields as you will have a selection of skills they are looking for along with others who get to that stage - sometimes when I shortlist it seems like one person will have it in the bag with lots of relevant experience but you'd never just rule everyone out without speaking to a range of candidates as on the day as they sometimes don't add any examples or expand so they score poorly and then one of the other candidates who may have had slightly less on paper actually articulates their skills better and is able to demonstrate how they can be applied in the workplace (even if transferable from other sectors and not directly linked to the one I am recruiting for) so you certainly have a chance of success in the process if you are being selected for interview in different sectors.
When receiving feedback you can also ask your own questions so if it's an ongoing problem ask them something like - what would I have needed to have been successful/where could I really have improved/what would you say was my strongest and weakest answer - then build from there. Good luck with future applications and interviews.

It’s very hard to advise when we don’t know the role.
In our industry people fail most often in their interviews because they underestimate the value we place on teamwork, they are obsessed with demonstrating they are management and leadership material, they miss the target - all our team have to work as a team even the person leading the team. And the second thing they perform badly in is establishing and building and valuing relationships with people outside the team and the improved perspective that gives you - to not exist solely in a work bubble.
So on paper you may think you’ve mentioned this and at the interview you may have felt you impressed us by responding to our team questions by indicating you’re a manager/leader rather than a team player, like somehow being a team player is like being a worker bee - a low level skill - and it really is not, it’s hard to be a genuinely good team player and you may not have fully understood the importance of diversity of thinking and external relationships but at that point we’d have said you don’t have the skills, and I think when we say this they probably don’t understand why teamwork or relationship building matters so much to us and that’s part of the problem - it’s a values thing.

They didn't offer the opportunity for feedback, so I can't really ask those questions.

Definitely a worker bee rather than leader, very much a collaborator.

This one was an NHS position, and I made sure that I covered all of their values in my application and answers.

Feedback would useful, but all I've ever had is 'someone else had more relevant skills and experience' which I can't do anything about.

The problem with feedback is that it needs to given with caution - one NHS manager last year rejected someone because she felt they were too old to fit with her young team and she told him- stupid and discriminatory - the candidate won the claim but imo it was unlikely he would ever have hung around had he got the job - it was a low level filler for him while he waited on a better paid job - which he'd got by the time the tribunal came around.
Poorly trained hiring managers can so very easily say the wrong thing, no one wants to give feedback that will upset (bad for business) or potentially land them in argument (we had that) or a tribunal. So the feedback is pre approved by the lawyers/HR, bland and a bit pointless and frustrating but they have to be seen to give it without really giving it at all. We have become a litigious society and while defending equality is important - the fall out is that it has made people very cautious and determined to cover their backs.

Yes, I get that and I can understand why employers would rather not provide feedback is there isn't something objective (and not unlawful!) like 'you didn't demonstrate x, y, z'.

I guess I ask because people always say 'ask for feedback' but if it's that someone else was a better fit it's not very helpful as there's nothing that I can do about that eg do differently for future interviews.

Can be shorthand for “you didn’t sell yourself well enough”. I’d say most people don’t unless they’ve had interview coaching.

You’re entitled to see your scoresheet - ask for it.

I don't want to go down that route NavigatingAdolescence - it's very confrontational and it's not like they're going to turn round and give me the job anyway.

We said this, as we tried to get the person with the best skills and knowledge already, rather than it being very new/different to what they have done before, so less training someone up.

Often it was not possible for any of the other candidates to have done better at interview, the successful candidate had worked in more similar role before.

When 2 people asked for more feedback, we did give more examples, but then they replied disagreeing/ defensively and I did wonder what the point of asking was.

@christinarossetti19

I don't want to go down that route NavigatingAdolescence - it's very confrontational and it's not like they're going to turn round and give me the job anyway.

It's not confrontational - it's sensible to see where your answers fell down. Or if your answers were solid, it just means the other candidate excelled. You're not asking for the scoresheet as some way of hinting they've got it wrong, you're asking to see where you could have improved.

Yes, good point LizJamIsFab.

Unless someone actually doesn't demonstrate a key skill or there is something very clearly missing, I can understand why employers use the 'someone else had more relevant skills and experience' as it's simply true.

For my recent interview it was that I had demonstrated plenty of experience that showed similar skills, but it was bits and pieces from different roles. They employed someone who was already doing the role in a different charity as they had more direct experience

We made the mistake of giving someone feedback on their CV inconsistencies, when they asked why they were rejected - they argued back that we were wrong - despite it being there in B&W- shame for them (lucky escape for us) because we had suggested they applied again in the summer but their aggressive and frankly gaslighting argumentative response had us running for the hills, they either lied on their CV or failed to update it. So had poor attention to detail or poor written communication skills and lacked diplomacy and honesty in dealing with a difficult situation. We also decided at that point that we would no longer give feedback on applications when asked. At the time I was really stressed about where they would take the argument - thankfully they dropped it when we ceased to respond to their emails.

Yes, I would love feedback on the applications where I know that I've met the person spec/JD but haven't been short-listed but wouldn't dream of asking.

I think it's probably age tbh.

When I say it I mean it.

There are lots of cases where you’d happily accept someone with a CV that shows they have the basic capabilities to do the job, and can be trained to use the specific tools you’re using, but if someone comes along who’s been doing that precise job elsewhere and is already up to speed with the tools then it makes life so much easier.

I've been a recruiter for years.

Usually that feedback means just that. Another candidate fitted my brief or interviewed better. I've only once had a situation where 2 candidates were totally equal and we couldn't separate them (ended up offering them both a role) every other time one candidate has just had an edge.

You can always ask for feedback and if asked I try to be as useful and constructive as I can be.

They didn't offer the opportunity for feedback, so I can't really ask those questions.
I've heard it suggested on here that you effectively ask for feedback during the interview, at the end. Ask them about the sort of person they are looking for and explain how you are that person!
It gets them away from the tick-box / scorecard straightjacket. It gives you a chance to sparkle, to stand out from the crowd, to leave on a high note.

But I can't explain how I am that person is there is someone with more relevant skills and experience!

GolfEchoRomeoTangoIndia yes, I'm sure that's the case.

My problem is that I can't even get an interview in the field where I do have direct skills and experience, so will constantly be up against this.

What’s the industry?

When I say this I mean "you were great but we had someone else who was also great already doing the exact same job in a different company. So they have more of a proven track record whereas you were more of a risk".

I am getting the same feedback myself because I am trying to move away from a very niche role, I know how frustrating it is but I also know it likely isn't anything particular I'm doing at interview.

I've heard it suggested on here that you effectively ask for feedback during the interview, at the end. Ask them about the sort of person they are looking for and explain how you are that person!

Wow I wish I were brave enough to do that!

In my industry (also public sector), it sometimes means someone who is already doing the job has also applied and they’ve picked them power you. This is the downside of the ‘fair’ recruitment process most public sector organisations try to pull off, it just wastes people’s time because you have to jump through so many hoops to make a direct appointment and you have to cover your arse in case someone raises a complaint.

I was once told I didn’t have sufficient sector experience for a job in a sector that I had been in for 30 years. I laughed out loud.
I was recently told that they were “looking for something a bit, um, different.” I asked for written feedback and interview scores from that one but never heard from them again. Pity, as they had approached me to apply in the first place…

@OnePoundfishhhhh

In my industry (also public sector), it sometimes means someone who is already doing the job has also applied and they’ve picked them power you. This is the downside of the ‘fair’ recruitment process most public sector organisations try to pull off, it just wastes people’s time because you have to jump through so many hoops to make a direct appointment and you have to cover your arse in case someone raises a complaint.

Yes, I think this was likely the case.

I saw another public sector job this morning where I fitted the person spec but haven't done exactly the role.

I'm weighing up knowing that my application will be strong enough to get an interview but they'll have someone else already in mind and thinking 'maybe this time I'll get lucky'.

I would take it as you e both had the training and experience that the job calls for, so both get an interview. But in an interview, it becomes apparent that the other candidate has more direct experience using the skill they want.

For example, I'm in bookkeeping/ accounts. I might get an interview as I've ticked the job spec for using cloud based technology, doing credit control, working for a company turning over xx amount of money. But in an interview, it turns out I've used Xero and they've used QuickBooks, I've done a small amount of credit control, but not much as I'm in charge of xx department, whereas they were solely on credit control for a year. We've both been in large turnover companies, but one of us has had a much bigger hand in making financial decisions. On paper, we both would easily tick the boxes, but, depending on the role, one or the other of us would have the more relevant skills and experience in person.