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 had an interview today which was very short. this was my third interview and my first two interview wentwell, which were around 1 hr each. Third one was with Sr. director, she askedme only two questions, first one was “why should we hire you” I explained what Ican do for the company and then she told me abt her plans for the year andasked me how I can do that, I answered and she said “fair enough”. Then sheexplained more about her expatiations. All together it went only 10-12 mins. Interviewwas initially scheduled for 30 mins. Is it a good sign or short interview meansshe is unhappy from very first impression onwards ?
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
No idea. Only time will tell. If you still can edit your post, you may want to make it easier for us to read.
It's true--there is no way of knowing until you actually have a concrete answer from the employer. Speculating will only drive you nuts and will get you no closer to an answer.
-It could be a bad sign. Maybe she instantly disliked you and your shot at this job just evaporated.
-It could be entirely neutral. Maybe she is super busy and doesn't have the time to do lengthy interviews.
-It could be a good sign. Maybe the decision has already been made to hire you but the senior director has a policy that she must at least lay eyes on candidates before they are officially brought on.
Or maybe it is bad/neutral/good for a completely different reason than one of the above. No way of knowing.
It's true--there is no way of knowing until you actually have a concrete answer from the employer. Speculating will only drive you nuts and will get you no closer to an answer.
-It could be a bad sign. Maybe she instantly disliked you and your shot at this job just evaporated.
-It could be entirely neutral. Maybe she is super busy and doesn't have the time to do lengthy interviews.
-It could be a good sign. Maybe the decision has already been made to hire you but the senior director has a policy that she must at least lay eyes on candidates before they are officially brought on.
Or maybe it is bad/neutral/good for a completely different reason than one of the above. No way of knowing.
Thanks, I wish for the third option, will update you if I hear back from them.
It's true--there is no way of knowing until you actually have a concrete answer from the employer. Speculating will only drive you nuts and will get you no closer to an answer.
-It could be a bad sign. Maybe she instantly disliked you and your shot at this job just evaporated.
-It could be entirely neutral. Maybe she is super busy and doesn't have the time to do lengthy interviews.
-It could be a good sign. Maybe the decision has already been made to hire you but the senior director has a policy that she must at least lay eyes on candidates before they are officially brought on.
Or maybe it is bad/neutral/good for a completely different reason than one of the above. No way of knowing.
Agreed at some point you are just reading the tea leaves. In any case you did get to the 3rd in person interview so I have to assume they at least have some sort of concrete interest in you instead of "we already have a guy in mind and this interview is for show". Plus your last 2 interviews where an hour long each so I imagine they really got to know you well and asked from you nearly every question imaginable. At the same time I have never had any luck with interviews that went >20mins. Yes I know there is no magic # of minutes where interview = success, however I just have little hope for any interview that is sub 20 minutes.
If this was a first or 2nd interview that went sub 20mins then I would say no chance, however it being a 3rd interview after 2 one hour interviews, I would wager more toward the positive side.
The length of the interview has no causal relationship to how well it goes. Some think that the longer interview is better but I've also seen ones that are topped at with time so you don't gain points for scoring for questions unasked. There are some who have 10-15 minute interviews by design too.
The length of the interview has no causal relationship to how well it goes.
I agree with the above and have an experience to prove it. My roommate and I, this is back in 2004, both were selected for a client interview and it was scheduled by our vendor back to back. We drove in together and he went in first while I waited outside. He was technically stronger than me and answered most of the panel's questions during his 30+ minute interview. When he came out he was very excited because he did very well on the technical questions. I go in next and though I couldn't answer ANY of their technical question, I did speak a lot about how my past experience relates to this project and how I can help them. They offered me the role on the spot. My interview lasted less than 15 minutes.
The third interview, with a higher up such as a Sr. Director, is usually a short one. At this point, they just want to make sure you're a good fit since their own hiring managers have already interviewed you in depth you and recommended you as a finalist.
So, it's great you got to this stage of the game and hopefully will hear one way or the other very soon. Good luck!
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.
