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.
Wrong. The majority of people do not know how to be interviewed. They may think they do, but the majority don't.
If you are experienced and educated in your field, and handle the interview right, you will never go to more than 3 interviews to be hired. If you attend a number of interviews over 3 and are not getting the job, you don't know how to be interviewed and be hired.
And what she said about applicants is really true. If they are the ideal candidate, with education and experience to do the job, and are the best truly qualified, most applicants do a very poor job at the interview and do not get hired. They may be the best worker if hired, but do such a bad job at the interview they blow any chance of getting the job.
The way you look, and the answers given, are what is determining if you will be hired.
When I see posters that have been to many interviews and have not gotten the job, I know right then the reason they are not getting the jobs is one of 3.
1: They act so frightened to just be at the interview, the interviewer will reject them every time.
2: It they hate the questions asked because they cannot come up the answer, it shows why they do not get the job.
This is incredibly arrogant and condescending on so many levels. As if you even have the slightest clue what the majority of people look like who are interviewed. Millions of people are interviewed every year and successfully switch jobs. And because you've interviewed a handful of them 50 years ago, this makes you an expert on the majority of them? No, it does not!
With all due respect, you are incorrect with your generalized assertion about the majority of interviewees. Nobody can generalize about them, because none of us have the slightest clue how the majority of interviewees perform in interviews.
I have been invited to be part of an interview panel looking for a new Office Manager at the company I work at. This is the first time I have got to see job applicants from a hiring perspective. In the past, my only contact with the hiring process has been me applying for jobs.
After a week of phone and in person interviews, here are my observations:
1) The average person is really sad when it comes to being interviewed for a job. They seem scared to death, are stiff and boring and don't sell themselves well at all.
2) If I hear one person tell us they are: "Hard working, well liked, good with people, well trained, etc." ---- I am going to die. Some how job applicants seem to think that if they throw out all kinds of broad statements about themselves saying how wonderful they are, they have won the game. After the applicants say all these wonderful pluffy things about themselves, our next question is: "tell us more, why is this true?" The applicant will be just stare at us, they don't know what to say.
3) So few people are really memorable and don't have anything about them that the interview panel will remember ten minutes after they leave. People are so average and unremarkable.
4) The standard interview questions of: "Tell us about yourself" and "what are your weaknesses," really trip people up.
After a week of interviewing ten people, no one has stood out and we are going to have to re-advertise and start over.
Why would an office manager need to be "memorable"?
This is incredibly arrogant and condescending on so many levels. As if you even have the slightest clue what the majority of people look like who are interviewed. Millions of people are interviewed every year and successfully switch jobs. And because you've interviewed a handful of them 50 years ago, this makes you an expert on the majority of them? No, it does not!
Not a handful and actually thousands over the years. Certainly a lot of people switch jobs every year. But for every job filled, there will many that do not get the job. A good job, will often have say 200 applicants for the job. The majority of the applicants will not be interviewed, as they have applied for a job they truly are not qualified for, or their resume and application are so bad no one can really get an idea of what the applicant would be able to do for the emplorer, they are rejected without an interview. Of those that are interviewed, you get people that cannot live up to their resume. Some will be unable to adequately satisfy the interviewer, and are rejected. Some will be so unable to even answer simple questions due to pressure of the interview, and are rejected. It is often only 2 or 3 are adequate at an interview, and the decision will be to hire one of those final 2 or 3.
Quote:
With all due respect, you are incorrect with your generalized assertion about the majority of interviewees. Nobody can generalize about them, because none of us have the slightest clue how the majority of interviewees perform in interviews.
When you have interviewed hundreds to thousands of applicants, you do know what the majority of interviewees will be like and how they will act.
Not a handful and actually thousands over the years. Certainly a lot of people switch jobs every year. But for every job filled, there will many that do not get the job. A good job, will often have say 200 applicants for the job. The majority of the applicants will not be interviewed, as they have applied for a job they truly are not qualified for, or their resume and application are so bad no one can really get an idea of what the applicant would be able to do for the emplorer, they are rejected without an interview. Of those that are interviewed, you get people that cannot live up to their resume. Some will be unable to adequately satisfy the interviewer, and are rejected. Some will be so unable to even answer simple questions due to pressure of the interview, and are rejected. It is often only 2 or 3 are adequate at an interview, and the decision will be to hire one of those final 2 or 3.
When you have interviewed hundreds to thousands of applicants, you do know what the majority of interviewees will be like and how they will act.
There are tens of millions in the workforce. Your few hundred applicants are only a handful in the grand scheme of things. It is extremely arrogant to think that you have a good measure of the majority of interviewees that seek employment on a yearly basis. Your assertion is incorrect and hyperbolic, to say the least. Furthermore, I would argue that this is more of a reflection of a poor vetting process on your end to bring in candidates that are so poor in interview performance, that this has shaped your belief that interviewees are mostly inadequate. My suggestion: Do a better job at vetting candidates.
I firmly beleive that a truly smart individual is one who is capable of acknowledging how little they know about the world they live in. You clearly do not possess this trait as you continuously post from an all-knowing, authoritarian position on all matters. I think you need to strongly re-evaluate your self-importance.
Here's a secret. There's a good chance the person who you interview and hire will probably quit at some point. The most important questions to ask is if they are married and their general debt load. Family and debts will keep a person at work. Then go for qualifications.
Here's a secret. There's a good chance the person who you interview and hire will probably quit at some point. The most important questions to ask is if they are married and their general debt load. Family and debts will keep a person at work. Then go for qualifications.
Any reasonable person with any self worth should walk away from a company that asks such intrusive questions. This is none of an employer's business.
Here's a secret. There's a good chance the person who you interview and hire will probably quit at some point. The most important questions to ask is if they are married and their general debt load. Family and debts will keep a person at work. Then go for qualifications.
Never thought being single and debt free is such a liability in this job market.
Never thought being single and debt free is such a liability in this job market.
Me neither, being single can just as equally mean that the employee will stay so I don't know what that's got to do with anything. I mean think about it no wife/husband to move states for if they get a new job and no kids so they won't quit to be a stay at home mom/dad.
Either one shouldn't matter though. You can be any marital status but still want to stay where you're at or want to leave because with most jobs, people are bound to leave at some point. Not only that it's illegal to use that in hiring decisions so it's crazy that someone would suggest that.
Me neither, being single can just as equally mean that the employee will stay so I don't know what that's got to do with anything. I mean think about it no wife/husband to move states for if they get a new job and no kids so they won't quit to be a stay at home mom/dad.
Either one shouldn't matter though. You can be any marital status but still want to stay where you're at or want to leave because with most jobs, people are bound to leave at some point. Not only that it's illegal to use that in hiring decisions so it's crazy that someone would suggest that.
One would think so, but it isn't true. Marital status is not a federally protected class. It may be in some states, but certainly not at the federal level.
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.
