“Other candidates had more experience”

[starlightstarbright6]

Received an email rejection today for an interview I attended earlier in the week - it was a career change but a job with many transferable skills. But it was clear on my application I didn’t have direct experience with the sector, but was shortlisted anyway. Interview seemed to go really well.

In the email they said while I performed well at interview, there were lots of other applicants who had that direct experience, so I hadn’t gotten it. Fair enough.

But what gets me is, why invite me to the interview at all if they can see clearly from my application that I don’t have the experience, and most other people applying do have it? Just feels like it was a bit of a done deal already and feels like a waste of my time 😕
Appreciate it’s all good experience but still feeling a bit aggrieved

@starlightstarbright6 last week I interviewed 4 people for 1 post. 15 people applied.
The person who appeared to have the best experience on paper, turned out to have next to nothing to say for themselves, and must have AI’ed their application. One was aggressive and arrogant. One was jolly and a good fit for organisational culture, and would have been a great assistant to the person we took on. One was very good indeed.

Chuckling at the recruiter who was surprised a candidate was 'formal' in an interview.

Performed well at interview doesn’t mean performed the best at interview sadly op, it’s just a kind way to say someone was more suited.

This.

This! I received the same feedback last week but I actually had experience. They interviewed me to suss out my age (40)

The recruiter slipped it in as he reeled off his feedback. "They were surprised at your a......... oh never mind!"

Have you ever been on an interview panel? If you have you will know that sometimes there are not many strong applications and that other times people who look good on paper turn out to not seem to know anything about the job or give answers that indicate they are not a team player. It's a complicated process and you can't really make any decisions until you have met the candidates. Sometimes one candidate stands out as the best, sometimes there are two really strong candidates and other times none. It sounds like you made a strong application and a good interview so that sounds very promising. If you had been unsuitable/poor interview you wouldn't have got that letter.

You had transferable skills that they appreciated, and you could also be an excellent team fit.

They have found someone who has direct experience and who they think will complement the team.

It's all down to who shows on the day. Use the experience and keep applying.

It might be that you had other qualities or experience they were interested in and thought it was worth a chat anyway, in case the other applicants didn't work out.

I recently recruited and despite being very clear in the job ad about the sort of experience and area of expertise I DEFINITELY needed and then sort of experience that would be beneficial but not essential, I would say a full 60% of applications had absolutely no relevant experience or expertise whatsoever.

I only interviewed two people in the end. Only one of them didn't have much relevant work experience but he did possess expertise and knowledge in our specialist area. The other had both.

As an analogy, let's say I run a professional catering supplies shop, and one applicant had briefly worked in a similar shop years ago and he was also a keen amateur cook. So he was familiar with the products but didn't have any recent or solid retail experience and had a patchy and varied work history, chopping and changing the sorts of roles he'd done.

The other was a keen amateur cook too, with similar levels of product knowledge but several years of uninterrupted retail and customer service experience in one company, albeit not in catering/cookware.

So they both had roughly similar product expertise but only one had a solid work history in a retail environment. They were both good and I'd have taken either of them, but in the end, I took the one who represented the least risk because his work experience showed me he was a safer bet. He also came across as having a bit more energy and confidence about him. And actually, that's a big part of it. Now I come to think about it, if the other bloke had been the one with more energy, I might have taken him in spite of his comparative lack of experience, just on a punt that he'd be a better fit from a personality perspective.

But no-one is going to tell you you didn't get the job because the other person had a better energy than you.

I understand you feeling like that.

When I was recruiting, I would occasionally bring in a candidate who had less experience than the others but who looked really good on paper. I did so because I felt their other qualities might outweigh their lack of experience. Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't. If they didn't, it would be true to say that they missed out because the other candidates had more experience, but the interviewee was definitely in with a shot. I would never have wasted my time interviewing someone who had no chance of getting the job, nor would I have wasted an interviewee's time this way.

I agree with you interviewing people who don't stand a chance wastes everyone's time. There's a widely held suspicion that a policy is in place that X number of people need to be interviewed before an appt is made - was that a thing for a while?

That's how I got my start. I was a new grad, went to interview, was asked if I'd had any interviews and what the feedback was. I said the same - lack of experience, but they knew that before I got there. The interview panel were very sympathetic, didn't give me the job, but did offer me work experience, after which another position became available.

I've heard it suggested, but I've never come across it actually happening.

For some employers it's a way to get around equality laws. They call you in for an interview then say that you lack experience, thus not have to admit that it's because of your race, disability, age, etc.

I recruited someone who had far less experience than the other candidates because he gave a great interview, had done loads of research and I had a feeling he would fit perfectly into the team. I was surprised his interview stood up to the others so well but it worked out great so it was worth both our time. Well done for getting an interview and good luck with future applications.

Outrageous

I usually only interview people that on paper, could do the job. If there are 6 candidates who all meet the person specification and 1 job, it comes down to who scores the best on the day. Being told you were good, but not the best, might be accurate.

And in the most recent round of interviews, I completed, the strongest person on paper was the worst at interview so from my POV, assuming the core knowledge is there, it is often worth interviewing people who may have transferable skills, to see what they can offer and who will be the best candidate for the role.

Try not to be too downhearted, although it’s tough when you put a lot of energy into an interview, the thing to remember is that you were good enough to be considered. Keep going and you will find something for you.

I hire a lot.
1, we don’t invite people for interview for a nice day out. We invite them because something in the CV indicates potential to do the job. Even without specific experience.
2, I’ve never experienced inviting candidates in to make up the numbers, tick a diversity box, or where an internal candidate has already been earmarked for the job.
3, there’s no such thing as ‘legally having to interview x number of people’.
4, hiring isn’t an exact science because it involves people. There are so many variables to consider; potential, transferable skills, other industry experience that might be useful.
Basically we’re hiring to solve a problem. The best candidate will solve it, suit the team dynamic, and in some cases add extra value. Interviews are ideal for exploring this. Otherwise we would all hire the strongest person on paper, and no one would ever be able to change career, industry, or get promoted.

I hire a lot, and I hate having to give feedback.

In my team, if you have an interview, on paper it looks like you can do the job. No one is called in to make up numbers.

So people who are turned down are either good but other people seemed better; or there’s something that means I don’t think they can perform as well as their CV suggests. That might be lack of confidence, a sense their CV has been over-egged, or the impression that for whatever reason you won’t fit with the team.

It’s almost impossible to give that feedback without looking immensely rude. So (when asked) I stick with generalities which probably aren’t very helpful.

When a recruiter is involved I’m always more accurate, but I have not idea if that’s passed on.

I agree, OP - it’s annoying. I had a similar experience myself last year.

I understand recruitment is tricky and they obviously thought your application was strong. But there’s too much of companies interviewing too many candidates for a single role, including those who fall into the ‘we suspect it’s not for her as she hasn’t the right experience, but this is a good application so we’ll see her anyway’.

Huge waste of everyone’s time!

We quite regularly hire people with less experience, but better cultural fit and proven ability to learn quickly. However, if there is somebody with experience and cultural fit, they are going to get the job!

I’ve employed the person with no experience over the person who has, so would shortlist.
However if that is the only way to separate, then the experience would be helpful and this is what we would put in letter, hoping they know there was no fault on their part.

Having been through redundancy in recent years I know only too well that certain organisations like councils and housing associations etc are hell to get in with because there's always an internal candidate. They of course have to interview other people to make it look like they've followed a fair process. There's also situations such as like the NHS and the railways where if people have their jobs made redundant, they are shunted into roles in other departments whilst outsiders still have their time wasted to be interviewed to tick a box. My partner is NHS and I was railways for 14 years so know this for a fact sadly.

I was referring to the private sector. How can they claim that’s a fair process? Not for the external applicants! What a waste of time and public funds.

Sometimes they like the other person more but use the “experience” as a way of letting down gently. It’s far simpler to say that.