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 think good chemistry is important on both sides. Even if someone has all the right qualifications and experience, if you believe they won't click with the rest of the team maybe look further afield. If you're interviewing for a job that sounds great but you're getting a bad vibe from the people or company as a whole, maybe rethink your application. I've taken jobs where I didn't feel good about the situation but was desperate enough to say yes, only to be utterly miserable for the next couple of years. I know this economy makes being picky really difficult but is it really worth it?
In corporate America, from my experiences, chemistry and being personable can set you apart from other candidates. Like the adage goes, "it's who you know, not what you know" combined with the fact that the person who is in charge of hiring you likes you = increasing chances you will get the job.
Are you a hiring manager? When you interview candidates who would work for you do you ever hire someone you don't like personally but see something in them that will get the job done?
You only get hired if the recruiter likes you so no.
Interviewing is basically courting if you know what I mean.
Are you a hiring manager? When you interview candidates who would work for you do you ever hire someone you don't like personally but see something in them that will get the job done?
You SHOULD factor chemistry into your hiring process. Studies show that there are so many more benefits to hiring someone that enjoys their work, their co-workers, and their boss -- productivity, engagement, happiness at work, etc.
Rarely are the finalists for an open position separated by anything relating to their ability to the job you're hiring for. At that point, pick the one that adds the most benefit to the company. In most cases, that benefit is in direct relation to how well that person fits in w/ the company culture.
Chemistry with the hiring manager is a valid consideration. It isn't necessarily the same thing as determining fit for organizational culture, though. And an early round HR only interviewer probably should not allow interpersonal chemistry to influence who they pass along to operations management - unless they can legitimately say that it is due to a poor cultural fit.
I once wrote on this forum that interviewing for a job is really selling them on yourself. They are really buying "you" and how well you are able to sell them on that figures a lot into the equation. Don't get me wrong, education, experience, good references are great. But at the end of the day, how they feel about you matters a lot. Depending on the job, person, company, etc., it could be everything.
I met with a lot of resistance when I mentioned this but I firmly believe it. Granted, I am in sales. But my resume is also heavy with journalism, tech support and office and administrative positions. And no matter if you are applying to be the customer sales person, the baker or the bean counter in the back, you have to win someone over.
And to the person that said they are looking for someone that isn't that extroverted, that is quiet like them, if someone is very good at interviews they can mirror their interviewer and be appealing to that personality as well. It is an art but like anything else, if you want it bad enough you can get very good at it.
Managers would rarely ever hire someone they disliked. Chemistry is very important. I have seen completely inept workers (with poor skills), but have a good relationship with their manager literally get away "with murder". While the hard worker, with not such a good relationship, is treated poorly by the same manager.
The resume (education and work experience) will get you the interview.
The interview will get you the job.
The importance of chemistry depends a lot on the job. If the position is one where little interaction with others is required and the output is easily measureable, then it doesn't matter as much. For someone who is going to be working in a team everyday solving hard to quantify problems, the fit with the other team members in terms of both personality and skills is very important.
I don't think I've ever hired or recommended anyone I disliked, even if they could do the job. Why would you when there is another candidate who doesn't raise any red flags who can also do the job?
It depends on why I dislike the person. Disliking someone because of something petty like their clothes aren't designer or because they seem nerdy or "uncool" is not a reason to not hire someone. But, disliking someone who comes across as untrustworthy, intimidating, overly aggressive, unstable, dishonest, would be a few reasons for me to pass on a candidate if I were in a hiring capacity.
Those are all excellent points! That is a good philosophy.
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.
