Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Original poster

HR people: would you hire..

20 replies

gisajob123 · 14/10/2022 19:14

Someone who performed well in interview, had demonstrable relevant experience but mucked up a test to demonstrate some of those skills on the day!!!

OP posts:
PilchardsonToast · 14/10/2022 19:31

No probably not.

Unless they spoke to me immediately after to explain what had happened and had a genuine reason - . Lots of people have skills on paper but if when you test them in practice they can't deliver that's probably enough to ensure you don't get a job offer from that particular role.

Violettaa · 15/10/2022 08:29

Agree with Pilchard - the test is one of the most important things. SORRY!

Krustykrabpizza · 15/10/2022 08:33

Usually the hiring manager chooses who they appoint to their team, not HR

Smidge001 · 15/10/2022 08:53

No. The test is surely the most important part - to prove what was said in interview is backed up. Otherwise, what was the point in having the test be part of the recruitment process.

Princessglittery · 15/10/2022 16:20

The type of test I would use would be skills based e.g Excel and so if you mucked it up it would be a no from me.

Kanaloa · 15/10/2022 16:23

Not if I had the choice of somebody who had all the right skills on paper PLUS could demonstrate them on the day too. I’d choose the latter.

I think unfortunately too many people go into job hunting with a them-centric approach. They should have given me the chance/they should have been more flexible/they should have xyz. Employees want to hire the best person they interview. If that’s not you it’s not you.

Camesawconquered · 15/10/2022 16:24

Princessglittery · 15/10/2022 16:20

The type of test I would use would be skills based e.g Excel and so if you mucked it up it would be a no from me.

Same.

Fundays12 · 15/10/2022 16:28

It depends on the test. Personality tests can ask very open questions like “how would you get on with work if you had a terrible day?” Some peoples idea of a terrible day is having car accident on the way to work while some peoples is not getting breakfast. I workday question this as the tests are poorly written. If it’s a skills based test probably not.

mackthepony · 15/10/2022 16:29

No I wouldn't.

AquaticSewingMachine · 15/10/2022 16:32

No, because the skills test is the most relevant and revealing part of the process. Some people are crap at interview but great at the job, but it doesn't matter how well you interview if you aren't strong on the actual skills.

CanYouFeelMyHeart · 15/10/2022 16:33

Oh that's a tough one! I think if they had said all the right things at interview and I was the hiring manager I'd want to have a 'what happened with the test' conversation if they otherwise would be a great fit.

Rotherweird · 15/10/2022 16:36

Depends who else had applied - if somebody else had done a decent interview and passed the test, then they would definitely get the job. If there was a shortage of appointable candidates, I might consider somebody who had fluffed the test - but it depends on how badly!

woff45 · 15/10/2022 16:38

Depends if there is a minimum requirement, I'm public sector so the rules are quite strict, if you set a bar the successful candidate has to meet it. Up to the hiring manager, although it would be HR reinforcing the rules to the manager (where I am).

Ekátn · 15/10/2022 16:40

What’s the skill and how did you demonstrate you had it?

Because often, not always, that’s showing something you have no way of proving you did.

So the test, is the only way of actually knowing someone has the skill.

It would be very situation dependent

MadeForThis · 15/10/2022 16:43

Some people can only talk the talk. They could also be lying or exaggerating their experience.

PinkFrogss · 15/10/2022 17:04

No because the test is there for a reason. It’s also important to do equal hiring. Leaning more towards one part of the interview process for certain candidates could lead to biased hiring.

For example in roles where we do interviews and tests we find men are just better at selling themselves in the interviews, and less well and demonstrating what they’ve sold us on in the tests.

ChicCroissant · 15/10/2022 17:15

As PP have said, you'd need to perform well across all the elements of the interview process to be selected especially if it was a skills-based test because that's likely to be extremely relevant to the post.

If it's you that found the test didn't go as well as you'd hoped, there is always another time. If you are querying whether another candidate was appointed who you think didn't do well on the test, is there a reason you don't trust the panel to make the right appointment?

Aprilx · 19/10/2022 19:25

The test is the most objective part of the process, it would be very odd to ignore the test results and go off a subjective performance in an interview, which can be faked.

icelollycraving · 19/10/2022 19:30

Depends on the role in honesty and what the job entails. If you were poor in the task that is the basis of the job, then no, it’s not likely.

FinallyHere · 19/10/2022 20:16

I was invited back to redo the written part 45min of a three day interview event. Aced it and was offered the job on the spot.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page