Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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

Candidates being interviewed when not got minimum experience required

33 replies

hostleg · 02/04/2025 08:28

On Monday, I attended an assessment morning with about 10 others. Job description said a minimum of 2 years of working in a call centre. Whilst awaiting in the reception area, we all started to chat about where we worked. Three lads only had 6-9 months call centre experience each. Why were they called up for the interview/assessment day? I won't be happy if any of these lads got a job and I didn't. One other wasn't impressed with this as whispered. I can't comment about the others.

OP posts:
PissedOffNeighbour22 · 02/04/2025 08:33

Same here - I (and others on my team) didn’t get a job that required working knowledge of legal regulations and absolutely needs to be someone that can interpret those laws. They chose someone who has no knowledge and has never worked in this type of job before. He hasn’t even got the security clearance needed to view the records. How the hell did he even get through to interview, never mind be given the job? Ridiculous.

SoftPillow · 02/04/2025 08:35

Whilst 2 years might be ideal, they might find that they can’t get enough candidates with this experience so flex to broaden the requirements. It’s quite normal that this happens.

Those candidates might have other relevant skills or experiences, or meet other criteria, or might simply demonstrate the skills and attributes necessary. Quite a lot of hiring now looks to skills and attributes as much as experience. Lots of experience is transferable and in being too rigid about years of experience good candidates can be ruled out, and it also creates more diversity in the talent pool to broaden requirements.

To that diversity point many job adverts now don’t mention years but instead phrase it differently eg ‘Previous experience of working in a call centre environment or similar customer facing position’ ‘Experience working with challenging customers to find resolutions’ etc

The interview, if well structured and conducted, will show who is a best fit irrespective of their years of experience.

Hope the interview went well for you

DenholmElliot11 · 02/04/2025 08:36

It’s because companies don’t employ properly trained recruitment and HR staff. It’s very short sighted of them.

Ihavepandassurvivalinstinct · 02/04/2025 08:36

Yes. And your last experience was 17 years ago, which counts as 0, so be happy they didn't stick to 2 years

applegrumbling · 02/04/2025 08:36

DenholmElliot11 · 02/04/2025 08:36

It’s because companies don’t employ properly trained recruitment and HR staff. It’s very short sighted of them.

Not necessarily. Sometimes it’s because the JD is an ideal wishlist and doesn’t reflect the actual candidates they’re likely to get.

Mumof1andacat · 02/04/2025 08:37

Maybe there wasn't enough candidates with 2 yrs experience so these people had the next best experience. I genuinely feel if your good at an interviews, you can get the job. Experience or not at times.

wherearemypastnames · 02/04/2025 08:37

Perhaps they are on a disability interview guarantee ?

AreYouMeOrWhat · 02/04/2025 08:39

PissedOffNeighbour22 · 02/04/2025 08:33

Same here - I (and others on my team) didn’t get a job that required working knowledge of legal regulations and absolutely needs to be someone that can interpret those laws. They chose someone who has no knowledge and has never worked in this type of job before. He hasn’t even got the security clearance needed to view the records. How the hell did he even get through to interview, never mind be given the job? Ridiculous.

Ha! You don't work for HMRC do you?

Overtheatlantic · 02/04/2025 08:42

DenholmElliot11 · 02/04/2025 08:36

It’s because companies don’t employ properly trained recruitment and HR staff. It’s very short sighted of them.

What a false and offensive statement about an entire profession.

MoodEnhancer · 02/04/2025 08:46

I’m guessing they didn’t get enough candidates who had 2+ years experience so decided to interview others?

I think a more interesting issue is that men apply for jobs even when they don’t meet the criteria but women tend not to apply unless they meet all the criteria. I read some research on this a decade ago and it’s interesting to see it’s still happening.

Guitaryo · 02/04/2025 08:49

MoodEnhancer · 02/04/2025 08:46

I’m guessing they didn’t get enough candidates who had 2+ years experience so decided to interview others?

I think a more interesting issue is that men apply for jobs even when they don’t meet the criteria but women tend not to apply unless they meet all the criteria. I read some research on this a decade ago and it’s interesting to see it’s still happening.

Edited

Yes this is it, some job adverts do now say don't be put off if you only meet x% of the criteria- although if they all refined the adverts as some do to have desirable & essential criteria it might help more feel confident in applying for stuff.

Bodonka · 02/04/2025 08:49

I thought it’s pretty common knowledge lots of people - especially men - apply for and are likely to get jobs they’re not 100% a match for. Requirements are no longer set in stone for most jobs, they’re a starting point. Realistically if they’ve worked in a call centre for 6 months, no reason not to apply as they wouldn’t have picked up all that more knowledge in another 18 months?

This is absolutely how I hire, and have been hired in the past. You’re really limiting yourself if you only apply for roles you match the description for completely.

MemorableTrenchcoat · 02/04/2025 08:51

I’ve worked in call centres. 6-9 months of experience sounds like plenty. It’s a high turnover job, and it’s not rocket science either. So the 2 year requirement seems a bit daft.

Original poster
hostleg · 02/04/2025 08:59

Ihavepandassurvivalinstinct · 02/04/2025 08:36

Yes. And your last experience was 17 years ago, which counts as 0, so be happy they didn't stick to 2 years

Edited

Huh? I have not posted on the work board before. Have posted on other boards under a different name

OP posts:
MadameCholetsDirtySecret · 02/04/2025 09:01

I think it is a positive if a company isn’t too prescriptive about this. I have employed many people over the years and have looked beyond the standard ‘wish list’ when looking at interview candidates on more than one occasion.
I hope that the best candidate for the job is successful.

Ihavepandassurvivalinstinct · 02/04/2025 09:06

In that case you can chat with OP here from 3 days ago who has exactly the same gripe about 2 years on JD and wouldn't be quite pissed off if those with under would get it. Maybe it's the one who whispered!

Been on various assessment days in the past few months with other candidates with no call centre experience, even though JD stated 2 years! Why take them through the interview process? I would be extremely pissed off if I heard one of those got a job.
www.mumsnet.com/talk/work/5304874-has-anyone-challenged-a-company-for-recruitment-process-not-being-nd-friendly?reply=143198831

Original poster
hostleg · 02/04/2025 09:08

Nope

OP posts:
PurBal · 02/04/2025 09:21

Bodonka · 02/04/2025 08:49

I thought it’s pretty common knowledge lots of people - especially men - apply for and are likely to get jobs they’re not 100% a match for. Requirements are no longer set in stone for most jobs, they’re a starting point. Realistically if they’ve worked in a call centre for 6 months, no reason not to apply as they wouldn’t have picked up all that more knowledge in another 18 months?

This is absolutely how I hire, and have been hired in the past. You’re really limiting yourself if you only apply for roles you match the description for completely.

Completely agree with this.

Mielikki · 02/04/2025 09:25

Because a job description is a wish list, not a “must have” list and it’s perfectly normal to apply for, and get, jobs that you don’t fulfil all the criteria for. Are you new to this job hunting thing?

BobbyBiscuits · 02/04/2025 09:26

Because they are desperate for recruits because they've got a new job/product/client and need multiple bums on seats. Anyone who's worked for 9 months in a call centre needs to be just as good as someone who's done two years. The majority of people dip in and out of call centre work. I don't really see why it bothers you? Surely if they are rubbish it will come out in the assesment and they won't get the job.

MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned · 02/04/2025 09:36

I actually think there are potentially people who could feel pissed off/hard done to by this company's approach, but it's not OP. If 2 years of experience isn't necessary (and I agree to see it's hard to see how it could be) then why put it, thus putting off some perfectly good candidates? Just say 'experience' or - if you want to weed out people who have only done a tiny bit of it - 'substantial experience'. It would make no difference to the OP at all - actually, it would just increase her competition - but it would be a better recruitment process overall.

Soontobe60 · 02/04/2025 09:39

hostleg · 02/04/2025 08:59

Huh? I have not posted on the work board before. Have posted on other boards under a different name

Show quote history

So when was the last time you worked in a call centre then?

Geordie01 · 02/04/2025 09:40

I used to recruit for Contact centres years ago. Granted things may have changed but they were always high turnover, high volume recruitment. Requirements like 2 years experience, specific software experience in reality were irrelevant and there to enable an easy reject if needed. The primary objective was to get ‘bums on seats’ and find people with a positive attitude who can be trained.

bigcushionlover · 02/04/2025 09:40

Sometimes soft skills and attituide matter more than you think - people can learn the technical/knowledge side of the job - but the way they are with people and their attitude is quite a different matter - a poor people skills and a shitty attitude is hard to shift and it comes across in an interview - sometimes I can't quite believe just how much of it comes across.

bigcushionlover · 02/04/2025 09:42

MoreDangerousThanAWomanScorned · 02/04/2025 09:36

I actually think there are potentially people who could feel pissed off/hard done to by this company's approach, but it's not OP. If 2 years of experience isn't necessary (and I agree to see it's hard to see how it could be) then why put it, thus putting off some perfectly good candidates? Just say 'experience' or - if you want to weed out people who have only done a tiny bit of it - 'substantial experience'. It would make no difference to the OP at all - actually, it would just increase her competition - but it would be a better recruitment process overall.

Have you much experience in recruiting for call centres?