Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually the interview is for the benefit of both parties. For the company, it is a means to learn more about a candidate. For the interviewee, it is a chance to learn more about the company - and having the opportunity to meet and chat with several people in different positions is a very good way for an interviewee to do just that.
I have turned down more than one job offer in my career or recused myself from proceeding to the next steps in an interview process specifically because, following an interview or series of interviews, I decided that those companies were not a good fit for me.
I have done the same as well. *laughs*
I can think of 4 different companies/managers that I have interviewed with and made the decision--- "yeah... I will NOT be pursuing that opportunity"
I've been in interviews that lasted several days. It was BS. MSChemist is right. You don't need to take up that much of anyone's time to know if the candidate is right. Their references, experience and presentation will tell you that and it doesn't take 5 people two hours unless they're monkeys masquerading as managers.
The longer interviews are just to make sure everyone is involved in this very important process. In many cases for the organization the job hiring process is internal ego stroking at its finest.
I would be curious to know what your field is.
I basically work in product management. I have to work with developers, sales people, operations, trainers, customers, fellow product managers, analysts, executives, and to compound all of that-- I work with people from multiple countries all with unique cultures and methods of doing business.
You better believe if I had to hire a peer I would have them speak with members of a few of these groups because if they cant last through an interview with the different personalities, methods, etc they will not survive doing the regular job.
Basically I am like a project manager-- I don't have any employees, but I have to influence a team of folks to work with me and propel our product through development and launch-- if I couldn't work as a team and have these peoples' respect it would be impossible for me to effectively do my job.
The more experienced interviewees can spend all day and not go off script.....Basically all you are doing is creating a system that selects for the best BSer and most experienced interviewer.
You assume that the one's who go off script lose. Not so. If I can't get you to loosen up after a couple hours, I figure you have something to hide.
Quote:
and the less experienced/adept ones are likely to start to get more and more nervous and stressed and behave in a manner that is not typical of them.
Our workplace can be stressful. How you handle the stress of an interview is the best indicator we have of how you might handle stress on the job.
5 different people for a low wage job? Sounds like the corporation is venal. Watch out!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evergreen7276
That is so ridiculous. I feel really bad for people that are put under so much pressure just to get a low wage job. Disgusting how employers operate these days.
Sounds like the OP is a little touchy about all this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeSoBe
I've been in interviews that lasted several days. It was BS. MSChemist is right. You don't need to take up that much of anyone's time to know if the candidate is right. Their references, experience and presentation will tell you that and it doesn't take 5 people two hours unless they're monkeys masquerading as managers.
The longer interviews are just to make sure everyone is involved in this very important process. In many cases for the organization the job hiring process is internal ego stroking at its finest.
We can all talk until the cows come home about the hiring and interviewing process and there are surely some people out there who'll benefit from this continuing dialogue. One who won't is the OP.
What I said is that interviewing is not as effective as businesses think but I guess you are the one not intelligent enough to comprehend a simple post. therefore I will try to clarrify further:
Companies can grill candidates for 24 hours like a police officer and still hire nitwits frequently. Companies would be wise to recognize what they can expect to get out of an interview and what they cannot so they do not waste both their and the candidates time and be inefficient. You can tell if someone is a total putz and ascertain if they are reasonably competent and employable. Beyond that what more do you expect to get from a person who is out of their element, nervous, and reading off a script and trying to tell you what he guesses you want to hear.
I guess your solution to something that isn't working is to keep doing it until it works. That is insanity.
seems to me companies want politicians who can talk endlessly about nothing important or used car salesmen.
but that's just a symptom of todays world where it's more about fake nice, team, personality, vibes, feelings instead of qualifications and experience brought to the table. Alot of companies would rather hire a kiss ass play-along than someone with pertinent experience b/c they'd actually have to pay for that experience. Just a sign of the times.
I worked at a place where several in the department would "interview" a canidate and then report back their feelings and impressions to the dept. manager to see if they'd be a good team player and all and the funny thing is those very existing employees would then backstab, lie, cheat , and rumor monger the new hire if they crossed them so "team" wasn't too important, just the idea of it.
I long for the days when experience was the most important factor, you brought in canidates b/c they had knowledge, experience and education and you knew that from the beginning b/c it was on the resume and didn't waste 4 hours talking about mundane stuff.
the fact is this new way still results in the same number of bad employees being hired, like you said, in fact, it probably makes the work environment worse b/c it encourages these fake motor mouths to get the job.
We can all talk until the cows come home about the hiring and interviewing process and there are surely some people out there who'll benefit from this continuing dialogue. One who won't is the OP.
Sorry...but 2 hours is about the shortest interview you are going to find. My last interview was 7 hours long and included a written aptitude test.
Really? I'm in a professional field, and haven't ever interviewed longer than an hour! My new job had a total of three interviews - one only lasted about 15-20 minutes, and the others were around 30-40. I know corporate jobs generally have long interviews, and my sister's current job (executive with a pro sports team) had a full-day interview at the end. But dang... I didn't realize my field had such SHORT interviews. I'm kind of glad, even though I am perfectly comfortable/confident in these situations.
seems to me companies want politicians who can talk endlessly about nothing important or used car salesmen.
but that's just a symptom of todays world where it's more about fake nice, team, personality, vibes, feelings instead of qualifications and experience brought to the table. Alot of companies would rather hire a kiss ass play-along than someone with pertinent experience b/c they'd actually have to pay for that experience. Just a sign of the times.
I worked at a place where several in the department would "interview" a canidate and then report back their feelings and impressions to the dept. manager to see if they'd be a good team player and all and the funny thing is those very existing employees would then backstab, lie, cheat , and rumor monger the new hire if they crossed them so "team" wasn't too important, just the idea of it.
I long for the days when experience was the most important factor, you brought in canidates b/c they had knowledge, experience and education and you knew that from the beginning b/c it was on the resume and didn't waste 4 hours talking about mundane stuff.
the fact is this new way still results in the same number of bad employees being hired, like you said, in fact, it probably makes the work environment worse b/c it encourages these fake motor mouths to get the job.
Haha I'd hire you in a minute! 100% agree with you!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm in a professional field, and haven't ever interviewed longer than an hour! My new job had a total of three interviews - one only lasted about 15-20 minutes, and the others were around 30-40. I know corporate jobs generally have long interviews, and my sister's current job (executive with a pro sports team) had a full-day interview at the end. But dang... I didn't realize my field had such SHORT interviews. I'm kind of glad, even though I am perfectly comfortable/confident in these situations.
Haha I'd hire you in a minute! 100% agree with you!
