HR query

[ceesvdelst]

Does anyone either working in HR or maybe in recruitment or even as a humble punter think that HR especially in large corporate companies sometimes interview people for the sake of it?

For example people with a loose connection of skills to the role (but could conceivably do it after some training) but who have zero chance of getting it and are being interviewed to tick corporate HR policy boxes.

I have experienced this a number of times recently, interviewing for roles where I have similar experience but not directly the same and then hearing very quickly it was a waste of time, almost same day as if it was prepared.

Of course I might have interviewed badly and there might have been far better applicants, but sometimes it all just feels a little too easy and set up.

Then afterwards you just think, "why on earth did you interview me really? Was I ticking an HR box?

[xx99xx]

I doubt they'd do it for the sake of it. Why would they waste their time. The public sector however, this happens all the time because everything has to be fair and equal. Even if you have someone doing the job to a high standard on a fixed term contract and you want to make them permanent in that same post, you still have to advertise externally. In that scenario, usually the person already doing the job is successful.

Maybe you look good on paper which gets you the interview but then don't come across that good at interview?

[dibblecorse]

Hi,

Not to my knowledge and I'm coming up to 14 years in house running EMEA recruitment, sometimes on the harder to fill roles we may give the benefit of the doubt and telephone screen a candidate and then have our doubts confirmed so its a quick no, we do also have times when we have been proven wrong in our doubts and a person gets in, we like those stories, helps us get the business to think beyond the 'obvious' candidates.

What you are saying shouldn't happen though beyond the recruiter screen as thats our job, to make sure the managers are only meeting candidates that have the potential to fit and do the role, even with some upskilling etc.

When i have seen it is when its been agency delivered candidates who we do not screen at recruiter level, thats what I pay the agencies for, and they have either misled the candidate regards the role or chanced their arm on a candidate they know is a low potential for hire but over eggs their profile, resulting in a hiring manager complaining to meet about the quality of candidates, also the agencies run different KPIs so may well need to shoe horn irrelevant people in to meet his metrics.

Sorry you have had a poor experience, recruitment functions are a bit like restaurants, they aren't all great.

[Sir Bagalot]

Sometimes there simply isn't a fit.

I've known 5 mins into interviewing that it was a no but carried on.

I used to work with a HR Manager who wasn't so gracious. The second she knew it was a no was the second she terminated the interview. She terminated one interview after 2 minutes once

[dibblecorse]

Sir Bagalot said:

Sometimes there simply isn't a fit.

I've known 5 mins into interviewing that it was a no but carried on.

I used to work with a HR Manager who wasn't so gracious. The second she knew it was a no was the second she terminated the interview. She terminated one interview after 2 minutes once

Thats why HR should never be let anywhere near hiring ......

[ceesvdelst]

To be honest I would rather that than wasting time.

It is incredibly frustrating to attend a series of interviews as I have recently and not be successful, often times you might now why, but to get the tired old excuse of experience as an excuse seems unsatisfying.

You have to somehow carry on and be positive and realise it is not personal and maybe you were just unlucky or not quite skilled enough for the role, and that is usually the case, but it still takes it out of you.

I have definitely been interviewed for a role I was never going to get to tick HR boxes, had t pretty much confirmed to be by an agency, so it certainly goes on.

[Carbon Sasquatch]

You won't get interviewed without being a credible candidate.

The threshold for credibility may get lowered at big firms for 'diversity' candidates - who may then have a higher probability of bring knocked back at interview.

Highly unlikely you will ever be speculatively interviewed either - it's almost always for a specific role.

[ceesvdelst]

I do know for instance that I was interviewed for a role at a UK car firm where there was a clear, obvious candidate and two of us were there as security, ringers if you will just in case this guy was a liar or a dweeb so they had others to fall back on.

I would imagine that happens a lot to be honest, we have a great guy but let's pick out two or three others who have a level of experience that matches but would need more time to learn.

I simply think this past few weeks I have had that, as every rejection was tagged with the droll "candidate has more experience" easy get out quote. Which I don't really believe anyway much. It's an easy excuse without being truthful as you rarely get truth in feedback, if you get any at all.

[Zetec-S]

dibblecorse said:

Sir Bagalot said:

Sometimes there simply isn't a fit.

I've known 5 mins into interviewing that it was a no but carried on.

I used to work with a HR Manager who wasn't so gracious. The second she knew it was a no was the second she terminated the interview. She terminated one interview after 2 minutes once

Thats why HR should never be let anywhere near hiring ......

To be fair, carrying on an interview for half an hour where it's clear it'll be a no is a waste of everyone's time. Maybe 2 minutes is a little unfair but wrapping it up after 5-10 minutes once you're sure isn't unreasonable.

And that applies to both parties. When I was young I somehow ended up in an interview where I knew within a few minutes that (a) I was out of my depth, (b) the company didn't feel right for me, and (c) the person interviewing me was a tt. And they must have known I wasn't the right person either. Yet we all sat there for probably half an hour going through the motions. In hindsight, and with a bit more confidence now, I wish I'd just said it wasn't going to work and end it there.

Back to the OP's question, I doubt anyone interviews people for the sake of it. Taking 30/40 minute + slots out of your working day soon adds up, most people I know haven't the time and wouldn't get people in if they didn't have to. I've not done too much myself, but most of the time you need to get a decent range of people in to be able to make a balanced and informed decision. I've interviewed people who've on paper not been the strongest candidate, but when you get them in a room realise that their CV doesn't necessarily do them justice and they're actually far more capable than you thought they would be. Likewise someone with a great CV might come across as a complete no-hoper when sitting down opposite you.

[Equus]

Sir Bagalot said:

I used to work with a HR Manager who wasn't so gracious. The second she knew it was a no was the second she terminated the interview. She terminated one interview after 2 minutes once

I'm no HR Manager, but I've done the same from both sides of the table, on a number of occasions. No point in wasting everyone's time, for the sake of politeness.

[Sheepshanks]

xx99xx said:

The public sector however, this happens all the time because everything has to be fair and equal. Even if you have someone doing the job to a high standard on a fixed term contract and you want to make them permanent in that same post, you still have to advertise externally.

Not to say it doesn't happen but they don't have to advertise and interview. Wife and both daughters all do different PS jobs. Staff are frequently given permanent, or different, roles without going through any kind of process. There's been one this week - temp teacher made permanent.

That's not to say they often don't go through the process just to see who applies and then give the job to the internal candidate.

IIRC FTC jobs become permanent after 4 years for all employees, and I have it my head it's less than that in the public sector.

[Sheepshanks]

Zetec-S said:

To be fair, carrying on an interview for half an hour where it's clear it'll be a no is a waste of everyone's time. Maybe 2 minutes is a little unfair but wrapping it up after 5-10 minutes once you're sure isn't unreasonable.

Well, these days (and for years now) you ought to be careful that the process would stand up to scrutiny if push came to shove.

[Gargamel]

dibblecorse said:

Sir Bagalot said:

Sometimes there simply isn't a fit.

I've known 5 mins into interviewing that it was a no but carried on.

I used to work with a HR Manager who wasn't so gracious. The second she knew it was a no was the second she terminated the interview. She terminated one interview after 2 minutes once

Thats why HR should never be let anywhere near hiring ......

I am an HR Manager (and run hiring too) so the last comment is kind of amusing. But whatever, if the interview reveals a killer gap in knowledge, like say, you need to speak German to do the role and question 1 is do you speak German then I can see how you might be tempted to leave.

That said, I encourage all my managers to ask at least five or six competency questions and score them overall rather than rely on single points of information. Sometimes though people get through a phones screen and the key questions didn’t get asked