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.
Hi, what I mean is when you go through the interview process and do well(being honest, showing interest, letting them you are qualified, connecting with the interviewer(s), and passing all test). Even after all of that, are human resources really still very distrustful?
I understand that you can't really know someone, and it's okay to be distrusting, but deep inside a human resources persons mind are they still very distrusting toward applicants? Thanks!
What do you mean by 'distrusting'?
Do you give them feeling you are lying to them?
What are you doing that you think they might not trust your answers?
I guess I don't see how you project a lack of trust on an interviewer.... trust is earned over time.
Human Resources people are often under enormous pressure to produce results. It's not always a case of simply distrusting the applicant; they can pick and choose who like they please. But they will usually bend further towards the applicant who sells themselves the best.
During the interview process, if you are unable to communicate yourself in a way that establishes confidence, you put yourself at a large disadvantage. Being able, qualified, and experienced is not enough; you have to think a little like an HR person, which means talking in a way that solves their problem - does this applicant really have interest? Are they truly committed to the job role? How will they get the results I want?
I wouldn't say that HR are exactly evil, but the Bible describes them as one of the main antagonists in the best-selling fiction novel, "the Bible", under the chapter Revelations.
What do you mean by 'distrusting'?
Do you give them feeling you are lying to them?
What are you doing that you think they might not trust your answers?
I guess I don't see how you project a lack of trust on an interviewer.... trust is earned over time.
I don't know if it is me. What I think it is is that these HR people hire so many people and maybe a lot of the applicants who they hired in the past turned out to be something different than what they were during the interview process. I understand the some distrust because the company still has to see the applicant perform.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
Our decisions are all made by the hiring manager, not HR. We all know that people exaggerate so yes, there is some distrust which is why we ask for actual examples rather than just asking if you have done something in you previous work. Also, we have several different groups in HR. Some protect the company from the employees, as in justified firing or faulty unemployment claims, but others do spend their day protecting employees from the managers/supervisors. In the last 5 years two supervisors have been demoted after complaints from their staff were investigated.
That's interesting. I was just telling my wife about the weird interview I went on yesterday. . . I am an expert in a specific are of IT. I have certifications, I teach the certification class, experience, and involvement in a group devoted to that specific area. But the guy didn't seem to trust that I knew what I know and have done what I've done. He wanted to call in a buddy to talk to me and assess my knowledge (I felt like I was on pawn stars )
At first I thought it was just me - that I had not exhibited confidence or "sealed the deal". But then I realized that I've NEVER been accused of being unconfident or unable to communicate so it just had to be a skeptical hiring manager, by nature. I'm actually glad it didn't work out - imagine working for a manager whose alwasy distrustful and skeptical. It would be stressful and miserable.
If a hiring manager/HR is really that distrustful with everyone, I think it says more about their level of competence rather than the quality of the candidate.
If a hiring manager/HR is really that distrustful with everyone, I think it says more about their level of competence rather than the quality of the candidate.
No, it probably says more about their experience with applicants. Some people lie outrageously on applications, so any given candidate pool is likely to have one or more liars. One of the best ways to determine a person's true level of competence is to ask them increasingly detailed questions about one or two of their featured accomplishments. I have often see applicants crack and the truth comes out.
A second good way is to conduct a thorough reference check. Call everybody on the reference list, and at least as many people who weren't listed as references. You will soon have a prevailing opinion as to the applicants abilities.
As a HM, one of my responsibilities is to determine the best candidate. This includes competence and truthfulness. As a candidate you have not yet established a track record for either, so I need to investigate.
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.
)
