When you are not hired after an interview do you blame your self, or the potential employer?

[Java378]

I'm usually too busy applying for the next job or scheduling the next interview.

[artsyguy]

If you did everything professional and presented yourself in a civilized manner then it's obviously not your fault. Blame the employer.

Originally Posted by Failed Job Applicant

After being unemployed for almost a year and collecting unemployment insurance for 49 weeks, I feel like I am living in a horror movie. I have cut my expenses down to the bone and because of some odd jobs, savings and unemployment insurance I am doing fine financially. But the lack of a job is killing me.I have devoted my self to getting a job, and send about 8 hours a day to networking, interviewing, sending out resumes, going to job fairs and making phone calls. So far I have accomplished nothing, just failure.I have also attended seminars on job hunting, had my resume reviewed and revised by two different experts, done mock interviews with a consultant, and read about every book I can find on job hunting. Again, every thing I have done has come up dry.Here is my question: If you go to a job interview and want the position and are not hired, do you blame the company for inefficient hiring processes, yourself for not being impressive enough or the economy and the terrible job market. I know all are in play but what gets most of the blame?

[kevinm]

Originally Posted by anirow

I completely agree with the above, its the person who is to blame for being ill prepared. I think you should try and put yourself in the shoes of recruiter and try to think and find out what they might be looking for in a potential candidate?

I have no point of reference. In the 25 years I have been in the working world, I have been hired after the first interview 100% of the time. I have worked for over 10 companies. It all comes down to being a very positive and upbeat person in your interview. It also helps not to LIE on your resume or during your interview about what you are qualified to do.

[AnthonyB]

Blame is completely pointless, so is assuming that someone did something wrong, or that a hiring manager is omnipotent, or clueless.

I work in sales. I sell a product that is manufactured by many other solid companies, sold my many other solid companies and work in a very competitive marketplace and do very well. The sales process isn't that different from the hiring process and I have to succeed through multiple "interviews" every year so perhaps I can shed some light.

First of all the purchaser (hiring manager) has a personality and likes certain types and personalities. They are human. If you aren't the personality they bond with/like/respect, being hired will be an uphill battle. In sales we frequently tag team in order to be sure someone is present who will "click" better with the decision maker. As we say, people buy from (hire) people they like.

Secondly, the purchaser (hiring manager) is drawing from a pool of experiences which have given him or her a set of prejudices. They may have had great success with people of a certain age, or type or set of experiences and lean towards similar candidates, even though there is no obvious reason to do so. Conversely they may have had a bad experience that makes them reflexively exclude anyone who reminds them of that bad experience. It isn't personal, it is what it is.

Third. People are lazy/too busy. They don't like having to shop. I shortened the sentences for a reason because I can't stress how important this is and this is where networking comes in. If a ready made and adequate candidate presents themselves immediately the purchaser/hirer will frequently jump on that option rather than go through the time and headache of a lengthy search. Being in touch with as many people as possible for the inside scoop is critical.

Fourth, too many choices spoils the broth. I've noticed that really seasoned decision makers try to look at a limited number of options, usually narrowing the field down to 3 solid candidates. More than that and chaos ensues -too many choices, too many options they all start looking attractive in one way or another, the DM starts bouncing back and forth with indecision. Winning these is always a crap shoot. The current job market leans towards crap shoot just due to the numbers applying.

Fifth, timing is everything. If the decision is immediate, the last interviewee is remembered. If the decision is slow, the first ones stand out the most. I always try to be an early meeting and set the tone. It also allows me to dictate the terms and to differentiate myself early on, my competitors are playing catch up. Find a differentiator if you can (harder when interviewing I know,I know who my competitors are and their strengths.). The other aspect to timing is just being in the right place at the right time to apply - in other words, vigilance.

Six - questions. The meeting has to be a dialogue. Take a consultative approach where you appear to really care that they find the right fit by showing that you want to understand the process and the requirements. (No inquisition or you'll look like an idiot). Questions can reveal the underlying prejudices and experiences of the interviewer regarding previous hires and allow you to overcome these. They can allow you to show you understand the industry and company. People think that selling is about talking but it is really about listening.

There are more, but I can't make this too long. Of course the basics apply - dress well, solid resume, research company, research role etc. the interviewee does have responsibility for these. However as long as these are up to spec there is a lot more going on so beating yourself (or anyone else) for not being adequate isn't necessary.

Lastly - selling is a numbers game. The more people you are in front of, the greater the chances of success.

[JohnAlt]

A hiring manager may already have someone else lined up but is going through the motions of "recruiting" because of a company policy or other reasons.