Needs to be a better way of recruiting people than interviews.

[ifm1]

Been job hunting since November as left last job due almost getting a MH breakdown as the manager was bullying me.

The jobs I applied for in Nov/Dec are now starting to recruit. I think it could be the fact that some companies are clueless who they are recruiting. One job interview I went for, there was a lad - no older than 22 years old waiting in the reception area with me and just idle chat with him. On the JD it said a minimum of 2 years experience. He only had 6-7 months. So why on earth did he get an interview? Whoever screened his application should have noticed he only had a quarter of the experience required. On FB, on a local group page, I found his profile and it states "working at (employer)". This was the employer we sat together at the reception. I was fuming on why was he selected when experience required he didn't match that at all. I knew it was him as he has an unusual spelling for his first name.

I have seen it before when I have worked. 10-12 start together as get trained on systems, products/services etc. 3 months later, usually 3-4 leave as they can't hack it, find the hours crap etc. More fool them if they don't like the hours which were advertised in the job role, you don't apply! One role I looked at at the beginning of the month, I didn't apply as it was 4 on 6-2, 4 off, 4 on 2-10, 4 off, 4 on 10-6 then 4 off. Done 6 months of this and it was unbearable. Then got a role in the same company for another 18 months doing 8-4 in the week.

Now I think companies need to understand that sometimes the best workers are rubbish at interviews and ones good at interviews are bad at work. At my last job, I sat in interviews and took notes. Was told by the manager, who was the interviewer what to write down. My then employer took on 4 which were the best performing in interviews. They could not cope with the workloads. Think the employee that lasted the longest worked for 8 months. Can't remember how long the other 3 worked for.

I am crap at interviews as dyslexic. Have an idea of what to say but comes out differently. There must be better ways of discovering better candidates.

'Required' on job adverts never means 'required' which is a bit shit if you tend play by the rules. I'd suggest starting to branch out - if you hit about 70% of the criteria it's worth a shot.

To be fair, I've recruited for hundreds of roles and honestly an interview can be a pretty good indicator. I've hired people who are terrible at interviews before because I can normally tell if they're just nervous.

You looked up someone you met at a job interview reception online?

This is very odd.

You get the odd one who doesn’t work out, but most the the interviews I’ve hired have been absolutely fine. The specific line manager should be involved, this makes all the difference in getting the right person.

I didn't check him out purposely. He posted something on the FB group and caught the mouse cursor over his name and a pop up comes up.

I did not go out of my way to find him on FB.

What could you do instead of an interview, though? I’m not having a go, I just can’t think of an alternative. As the recruiter, at minimum you’d want to meet the interviewees and ask them about themselves, to see how they came across and whether they could outline their careers. So, an interview.

Maybe it would be easier if people were just asked to come in and explain what they’d worked on in the past and why they’d applied for the job, with no tricky questions like “give me an example of a time when you dealt with conflict”. You could ask follow up questions but more in a conversational way, perhaps? I’m not sure this is different enough to current interviews, though.

"Now I think companies need to understand that sometimes the best workers are rubbish at interviews and ones good at interviews are bad at work. "

I completely agree with this. Have always said that all interviews achieve is working out who is good at interviews.

Interviews are a very specific type of situation that the vast majority of people will never have to face when actually doing their job. I am terrible at interviews but have done very well and been very respected in any job I've managed to get! Conversely when I was a manager I hired someone (along with my senior manager) who was excellent in their interview, but really, really terrible at their job.

There must be a better system that someone can come up with.

What could you do instead of an interview, though?

It would depend on the job, but for some roles you could potentially sit them at the desk for a couple of hours and have them actually attempt the role (obviously observed and supported). Look at whether they get stuck in, show initiative, ask for support appropriately; and assess the quality of any outputs. If proficiency in X system is a requirement, get them to use the system and so on.

I think the shift in some sectors to giving the candidates interview questions in advance is an attempt to fix this. It helps people who are neurodiverse to prepare better and generally allows everyone a chance to present their best examples of their work rather than the ones they could think of on the spot.

I agree. I am great at interviews because I can put on an act of being a normal human being for an hour or so.
In reality I’m a freak of nature and a nightmare to work with

I don't think it's odd to look people up online

I don’t remember the actual stats, but it’s something like

• a man will apply for a job if he meets 40% of the required
• a woman will apply if she meets 80% of the requirements

Chance your arm a bit more. Apply for things that are a stretch.

The interview is just one part that of the process. Many employers have pre interview screening tests, scenario and situational skills questions as well as interviews. However I agree that it is difficult to really get to know someone in this short time. It takes a skilled interviewer to really bring out the truth about someone and even then it's still all a gamble.

I think interviews have their place, and skilled interviewers do get the best out of people/recognise and account for nerves etc. I wouldn't want to recruit anyone without talking to them (in person preferably, not online) and talking to them is, well, an interview. We always provide questions in advance.

We also do a scored activity for every recruitment - depends on the role, but this might be an Excel exercise, a presentation, scenario testing, an in-box exercise etc etc. This gives another view of each candidate.

I'm terrible at interviews. Even though I had years of experience couldn't think on my feet.
So fed up of bullshitters getting jobs and being absolutely useless at it.
I tried role playing interviews but it made no difference on the day. My mind just went blank and I'd sit there like an idiot although I knew I could do the job perfectly well.

I agree, but think it will actually get worse with AI type screening instead. People will have to fit the mould even more.

I think it’s important to be aware that are lots of bad / inexperienced interviewers out there. A good interviewer will see through candidates who are all style and no substance, just as they will usually recognise nervous candidates and try to take their nerves into account.

I’ve been interviewing / recruiting for many years for both my employer and on behalf of clients. I’ve never had anyone that I’ve recommended we hire not be successful at the job. In fact I’m very proud of how well some of ‘my’ hires have done in their careers. But I’ve had a lot of experience in interviewing as well as in the roles we recruit for and I always adjust my style to try to get the best out of the candidate. I actually interviewed someone in the US this afternoon over Teams and he said it was the most enjoyable interview he’s ever had. I get that feedback a lot actually. I’m a firm believer in that it doesn’t have to be a totally miserable experience. 😜 Don’t get me wrong, there are times when I need to do a more formal grilling to test out how a candidate reacts under pressure or to being challenged but I will still try and put them at ease both before and afterwards. My global team have a very robust process where everyone involved in screening cv’s and/or interviews gets feedback on any candidates that they’ve recommended progress but are unsuccessful at later stages with specifics on what they should have picked up in the earlier stages but missed etc. We constantly refine our process and challenge each other to make sure we’re getting the very best people but still being diverse and open to lots of differing backgrounds and types of people (we recruit globally so I routinely interview people for roles in our offices from the US to London to Hong Kong).

But there are some shocking interviewers out there. I’ve been on the receiving end as a candidate myself (I find it very hard not to roll my eyes and mutter FFS when an interviewer trots out “so what’s your biggest weakness?”) And as a hiring manager, I’ve had people banned from interviewing after they hired some real duds.

Interviews are stressful, no question. I have a terrible tendency to get nervous and worry that it’s incredibly obvious. However, whenever I’ve asked for feedback I’m always told nerves don’t come across whatsoever- so bear in mind it feels much worse for us!

I agree it’s often not the best indicator of who is best qualified for role, but like other posters I fail to see how else recruiters would work. That said, I recently had an interview where they gave me three questions the day before that I could prep answers for, and two ‘wild card’ qs on the day. Although I don’t get the job 😂, I think this was quite a fair way to do it as all candidates were asked the same questions…

In my experience interviews are just a chat about yourself and the company/project. I haven't been asked any tricky questions since I was interviewed for trainee roles 15 years ago.

Also I can work under pressure which is different to the pressure facing interviews

Totally agree. I’m autistic and totally suck at interviews - I just can’t think quickly enough and can’t ‘sell’ myself, but am a hard worker, well liked and respected by colleagues and have had excellent feedback in every job I’ve managed to get (all of which I’ve been overqualified for). I can come across a bit awkward and formal under pressure, and the minute I see another candidate who is warm and bubbly and chatty, I know I’m done for. ‘You were great in the practical task but the other candidate was more enthusiastic and interviewed better’ was the feedback from my last interview (I knew the candidate) and she lasted 6 months in the job). I’m job hunting again at the moment and dreading it.

Oh wow, I could have written this word for word. Another autistic adult who feels the same. Good luck with job hunt! x

Totally agree - I'm not autistic (I think I have some traits, as does my son) and everything you've written resonates with me.

I was a primary teacher. I'd far rather have done a half hour lesson with a class as a recruitment exercise. I wouldn't have been nervous as I knew I was good at teaching, rather than answering questions on the current theories and initiatives.
After all, my job was about teaching, not talking about education.

We once had an excellent supply teacher who'd been in our school for about 6 months so the HT knew her work. She didn't get the permanent job because she didn't "sell herself" enough. I wanted to say a big "Told you so" to the HT as the new teacher was an abject disaster. A prime example of being able to talk the talk.