Interviewer had not read my CV

Bootros Bootros

Martin567 wrote: »

I think this is an extraordinary post and sums up everything that I believe is wrong with interviews as a concept. Don't bother reading a CV or knowing anything about someones skills or experience. Simply "assess them as a person"!

What qualifies anyone to accurately "assess someone as a person" based on a brief conversation during the extremely artificial confines of a job interview? All that will be assessed is whether that person is good at job interviews or not. Depending on the nature of the job, it will likely not give any indication as to how this person will actually perform in the job. This is especially true if the person doing this "assessing" doesn't know anything about the technical demands of the job.

Some of the earlier posts read like HR people trying to justify their own existence based on supposed "people reading" skills that the most qualified psychologist would hardly possess.

Totally agree. There is no science to HR. It's either a feeling or pseudo gunk like Myers Briggs.

Sensible hr departments get out of the way of interviews and discuss terms later and check for references. Etc.

Martin567

Deenie123 wrote: »

Sort of. It's a technical role where you have to work in a multidisciplinary team. Only sometimes meet the client, but if you are face to face with the client or on the phone to them it's often because something's gone wrong. There's such a degree of responsibility with the role that a client will be really unhappy if they feel you don't know what you're at. If the guy's standing there shaking like a leaf, the client's not exactly going to be inspired with confidence... Plus, if the person is that nervous in a friendly enough interview, what will they be like when they have someone else involved in the project fighting with them over something. They haven't a hope, which means they'll either be sued or the client will be fleeced.

As I said, it's a technical role. It really is. But if you don't have the ability to cope with the 5% of it that's client facing you could create absolute havoc. Nerves aren't an absolute no - it was a relatively junior position and if someone came in showing absolutely no signs of nerves whatsoever I'd be wondering why not? Are they so arrogant that they think they have it in the bag already? Arrogance is dangerous. Or do they just not want the job? Do they not care what impression they make. It's a funny one, but I wouldn't dismiss someone for having interview jitters. Being a nervous wreck in an interview leaves a bad lasting impression. I still feel exhausted when I think of this guy, I spent ages trying to put him at ease just chatting away to him. He literally would have had the job if he had been a bit more relaxed and confident.

I obviously don't know anything about the specific situation you're referring to here so I can't comment as to whether you're right or wrong in your impression.

On a more general level, I would just ask you to consider the possibility that some people will find the "friendly enough interview" to be far more terrifying than the most difficult client meeting. An interview involves meeting people you've never met before, in a strange location and you have no real idea what you will be asked. If someone is shaking going into an interview, they may find it difficult to shrug this off in the interview no matter how benign you might think it is.

On the other hand, if someone is technically strong and really knows their job, they may be well capable of handling themselves in the most difficult client meeting. They may be well prepared and armed with all the relevant facts.

Martin567

Martin567 wrote: »

I think this is an extraordinary post and sums up everything that I believe is wrong with interviews as a concept. Don't bother reading a CV or knowing anything about someones skills or experience. Simply "assess them as a person"!

What qualifies anyone to accurately "assess someone as a person" based on a brief conversation during the extremely artificial confines of a job interview? All that will be assessed is whether that person is good at job interviews or not. Depending on the nature of the job, it will likely not give any indication as to how this person will actually perform in the job. This is especially true if the person doing this "assessing" doesn't know anything about the technical demands of the job.

Some of the earlier posts read like HR people trying to justify their own existence based on supposed "people reading" skills that the most qualified psychologist would hardly possess.

Ah, it's all well and good saying you'd read CVs, but imagine the sheer number of them you get as soon as you put any job opening in the public eye.

You'd be sick to the teeth of them after 20 minutes.

So you'd skim through a few and look for words or jobs similar to the position you're filling, put them to one side and when you've got, say, 10, you give them a ring and call them in.

You already know that whoever is in front of you at the interview already has somewhat relevant experience. During the interview you can look at their CV a bit more while asking them things about it.

You don't need to rote learn 10 CVs before a series of interviews. I wouldn't expect anyone to be giving up their time to read my CV and learn it inside out. Jesus, sometimes even I forget what's on it. :P



Everyone has different personalities and not everyone gels. I'd rather work with an under-qualified sound chap that I got on with, than an over-qualified asshole that I couldn't stand the sight of.

For me, assessing the person would be more important (assuming all candidates for the job have the same experience, of course).

o1s1n

When I was interviewing people, we'd receive so many CVs that they really weren't the focus at the interview stage itself.

What I'd usually do is the following;

• HR would send a batch of 10 or so CVs.
• We'd look through them and select candidates for interview based on the best ones.
• Set up interviews
• Dependent on how the interviews go, there might be one stand out person, there might be a couple of good candidates
• If there's a stand out candidate then we'd hire, if there were a couple who were even we'd go back and pour over their CVs again.

I always see CVs as 'getting you the interview'. Once it's at the interview stage, it's possible the interviewer hasn't looked at your CV since the initial stage. Sometimes I'd have time to quickly scan over the CV again just before the interview, sometimes not. You shouldn't automatically assume an interviewer has read it over recently. I know that's a bit crap at someone attending interviews, but it's the truth really.

Martin567

KKV - you've just summed up very well why interviews are very often not fit for purpose in terms of selecting the best candidate.

"Skim through a few" until you've got about 10 and just discard the rest. Interview these paying little regard to anything on the actual CV but instead use what is no more than gut instinct to select the person you gelled with best during that very brief conversation. Congratulations, you will likely have selected the person with the best generic interview skills out of the random sample you selected from the original list of applicants.

Will this process lead you to select a good candidate for the job? Sometimes, but I think that would be much more by accident than by design.

skallywag

It's not reasonable to expect that the interviewer has gone through your CV with a fine comb before the interview, but it is reasonable to expect that they have at least scanned quickly through it. It reinforces the point that a CV should always be crisp and to the point, and never more than 2 A4 pages, i.e. can be printed double sided on 1 A4 sheet. I have received CVs which are 3-4 pages long, and it really puts me off from the start. Being concise is a very important skill, and long winded CVs do not make a good first impression.

smcgiff

Martin567 wrote: »

"Skim through a few" until you've got about 10 and just discard the rest.

It's actually worse than that. Once you've one or two decent candidates for interview you’re pretty much wading through the rest of the CVs LOOKING for reasons to reject those CVs. Harsh, but true. I think most people reviewing CVs will do the same.

With that said, I’ll review all the CVs I get, however some might get rejected in seconds.

drumswan

Martin567 wrote: »

I think this is an extraordinary post and sums up everything that I believe is wrong with interviews as a concept. Don't bother reading a CV or knowing anything about someones skills or experience. Simply "assess them as a person"!

What qualifies anyone to accurately "assess someone as a person" based on a brief conversation during the extremely artificial confines of a job interview? All that will be assessed is whether that person is good at job interviews or not. Depending on the nature of the job, it will likely not give any indication as to how this person will actually perform in the job. This is especially true if the person doing this "assessing" doesn't know anything about the technical demands of the job.

Some of the earlier posts read like HR people trying to justify their own existence based on supposed "people reading" skills that the most qualified psychologist would hardly possess.

The technical lead has already been through the CV and assessed the experience and abilities of the candidate.

Most interviews for larger companies Ive been to would include interviews by the immediate line manager, a more senior manager and HR, all of whom are assesing different things. What value is there in a HR drone going through a technical CV?

Martin567

drumswan wrote: »

What value is there in a HR drone going through a technical CV?

What value is there in HR being involved at all in the interview process? "People assessing skills"?!!!

LegacyUser

davo10 wrote: »

Perhaps so but we have only the op's word for that and he doesn't exactly come across as someone capable of posting impartially. Others with experience of these matters have posted that when it comes to an interview with HR, the cv doesn't matter, the person being interviewed is what matters. After the op's last post, can you imagine that he sat there with a big smile, being as nice as pie through out that interview?

I did actually, even though it wasn't easy. I wanted to get the job so obviously I wasn't going to do anything to sabotage that. I am well accustomed to ignorant behaviour from interviewers (as I'm sure others reading this will have experienced). It's a means to an end, you tolerate it and grin and bear it (I even had someone ask me "are you married?" in an interview and I took no notice of it).
It was only afterwards on the drive home when I thought about it that I got annoyed about her not having read my CV. As someone else said if "I haven't prepped for this interview" is supposed to be a new technique, it's not one I would be too impressed with. I can only assume that those on this thread defending this technique are working in HR themselves.
Despite some people's protestations on this thread I don't see the advantage of not having read a person's CV. Maybe not in detail but it's surely not asking too much to have skimmed over it for five minutes and take a few notes. If the interviewer is interested in my personality (if I am used to working with a large group of people) she could glean that information from my CV ("I worked on a team project with x number of people etc.")
I've got enough feedback, I appreciate it all (even the negative stuff) so I'll be prepared for this in the future but that still doesn't mean I agree with it :-)

Bob_Latchford

Its a 2 way process, I would reject this company if I thought they did not hire good enough people to do the interviewing. Would indicate to me that my future co workers would be chosen in a random haphazard way.

Learn to walk away from companies that smell bad. You have at least one on your CV already (the job that didnt fit your skills)

Rubberchikken

OP
trust your judgemant.

all sorts of excuses and explanations can be put out for an interviewer's behaviour at said interview, but im personally, would be sceptical of them.

if a HR person can't bother to even glance through a cv for pertinent info before meeting someone and then conduct themselves in a professional manner, there's no excuse.

saying that's it a possible strategy to size up someone is an excuse and isn't worth considering.
imho, too many people doing interviews are not interested, not qualified, not professional enough to treat those that they bother inviting for interviews properly.

good luck with the job hunting and don't let this bother you. instead learn from it.

Bootros Bootros

skallywag wrote: »

It's not reasonable to expect that the interviewer has gone through your CV with a fine comb before the interview, but it is reasonable to expect that they have at least scanned quickly through it. It reinforces the point that a CV should always be crisp and to the point, and never more than 2 A4 pages, i.e. can be printed double sided on 1 A4 sheet. I have received CVs which are 3-4 pages long, and it really puts me off from the start. Being concise is a very important skill, and long winded CVs do not make a good first impression.

Mines longer but has a helpful summary.

drumswan

Martin567 wrote: »

What value is there in HR being involved at all in the interview process? "People assessing skills"?!!!

Are you serious? To assess someones suitability to the companies culture and ethos and methods of work, to see if they will be a good fit with the existing staff in the team, to see if they have any errant personality issues that will cause problems with their employment, to make sure if any delicate line of enquiry need to be followed it is done in a legal manner, to carry out industry standard personality testing, to assess whether the hire is going to be a legal problem for the company, to figure out why the potential hire might have left previous employment, to understand who the candidate is when they go to follow up references etc. etc.

Hiring permanent staff is a risk for a business, this can be mitigated by HR processes which look to filter out problems at interview. I have conducted technical interviews, my only job is to find a technically suitable candidate - I have not got the training to make calls on business risks not in my field.

king_of_inismac

I spend about 50% of my time pitching for funding or investment (very similar to the interview process).

I once was chatting to a potential funder prior to a meeting. He was from a similar agricultural background to myself and we were making small talk about farming (he was a really nice guy).

Once the pitching meeting began, he went completely on the attack. Attaching the project idea and attacking my ability to deliver on the project.

After about 45 minutes of very rough questioning, he stopped the meeting and apologised. He basically said with the economy so tight, he had to be very careful with his investments, and he had to separate the time-wasters from those worthy of investment.

While it was very tough, I understand why he did it and respect him for it.

I'm sure some interviewers are purposely obtuse (or maybe having a bad day?). My advice is to keep you cool always, and be confident in your own experience and expertise.

Bootros Bootros

There are some really amateur hour interviewers on here. I prepare for most non standard meetings even if just a few minutes before to decide what I am going to say or bring up.

Interviews are extremely important for your company. Prepare. At least 30 minutes. Take notes. Ask questions related to what they claim to have done.

Martin567

drumswan wrote: »

Are you serious? To assess someones suitability to the companies culture and ethos and methods of work, to see if they will be a good fit with the existing staff in the team, to see if they have any errant personality issues that will cause problems with their employment, to make sure if any delicate line of enquiry need to be followed it is done in a legal manner, to carry out industry standard personality testing, to assess whether the hire is going to be a legal problem for the company, to figure out why the potential hire might have left previous employment, to understand who the candidate is when they go to follow up references etc. etc.

And you wonder why I'm cynical! Reading the above, my eyes glazed over far quicker than those of any HR person reading through the CVs of a bunch of job applicants.

Martin567

Martin567 wrote: »

Congratulations, you will likely have selected the person with the best generic interview skills out of the random sample you selected from the original list of applicants.

But the fact they've made it to interview means their CV shows them to have relevant experience.


If you're looking for someone to cut meat in a deli counter, for argument sake, then you skim through the CV looking for the word "deli".

You put the chap with 5 years deli experience into one pile, and the chap with 2 years experience selling Eircom bundles can go into another pile, incase you exhaust the first pile.


It's not that difficult. Besides, most jobs have a 3 or 6 month phase where they can kick you out if they're not happy with you, anyway.

Alf Veedersane

If someone has to work with others, present their work or deal with clients then naturally you need some HR questioning to assess the kind of person they are and how they would fit in.

I'm not going to second guess the interviewer in the OP - maybe she was arrogant, maybe it was all part of agrand plan to see how the OP dealt with the situation.

Depending on the job, the technical interviewer will probably have more of a say when it comes down to it.

Unless you're a sociopath.

headtheball14

My reading of it is a bit different, first interviewer came out happy all went well and then asked somone from hr to have a word speed things up rather than càlling you in again a second time, hr person was not given any warning and had to do the interview cold, thats why they hadnt read the cv , it was a personality fit check

drumswan

Martin567 wrote: »

And you wonder why I'm cynical! Reading the above, my eyes glazed over far quicker than those of any HR person reading through the CVs of a bunch of job applicants.

I wouldnt do it for any money, but thats the reality of hiring for larger companies these days. In one interview I had last year (for a company which has been in the top 10 'Best workplaces in Ireland' list forever) the HR woman presented me with a 40 page personality analysis document for discussion listing all my strengths and weaknesses as assessed by their testing system.

Tordelback

Having sat on both sides of that desk, and endured courses on improving performance on both sides, I can definitely see the value of having at least one interviewer who doesn't address the CV at all - not least because CVs are (and should be) highly polished works of self-aggrandisement whose real job is often to hide flaws. It may well be that your technical qualifications and experience fit the job specs perfectly and thus don't need any further scrutiny, but what needed to be assessed was how you as an individual would fit into the specific work environment and satisfy the company's expectations for your overall contribution.

From my own experiences as an interviewer I'd say that falling back on flicking through an unread CV could be an indication that you weren't giving full enough answers to keep the interview going, and that the interviewer was struggling to find something you would be happy to talk about. Of course it could well be that the interviewer was just a very bad sloppy HR person, but seeing as you can't affect that aspect of things, it's worth reflecting on what you can change: your own response.

I'd also say that performance in an interview is all too often no indication of performance in a job, especially over the long term. But the more thorough the interview the more the employer can console themselves that they did their best when it all goes wrong.

Keyzer

She may have been testing you to see what your reaction would be. I've done it myself many times when interviewing people, good cop bad cop, whatever you want to call it.

Regardless, if you are really interested in the job, its up to you as the interviewee to sell yourself to the interviewer.

Martin567

drumswan wrote: »

I wouldnt do it for any money, but thats the reality of hiring for larger companies these days. In one interview I had last year (for a company which has been in the top 10 'Best workplaces in Ireland' list forever) the HR woman presented me with a 40 page personality analysis document for discussion listing all my strengths and weaknesses as assessed by their testing system.

My brother worked for a couple of years in a company usually near the very top of that list. He was hugely relieved to get out, thinks it is a horrible place to work and would advise anybody against ever working there!

drumswan

Martin567 wrote: »

My brother worked for a couple of years in a company usually near the very top of that list. He was hugely relieved to get out, thinks it is a horrible place to work and would advise anybody against ever working there!

From others I know who work in this particular place it sounds like an extremely micromanaged and controlling environment (probably by necessity in fairness). The personality test said I wasnt suited to this sort of thing at all, even though I had passed the tech interviews with flying colours. I didnt get the job, the company wasnt suited to me or me to it on a personality level. So there you go, a win-win.

Martin567

drumswan wrote: »

From others I know who work in this particular place it sounds like an extremely micromanaged and controlling environment (probably by necessity in fairness). The personality test said I wasnt suited to this sort of thing at all, even though I had passed the tech interviews with flying colours. I didnt get the job, the company wasnt suited to me or me to it on a personality level. So there you go, a win-win.

While I might still be a little dubious of personality tests, at least they have proper research behind them and all those taking them will be treated fairly. My main quibbles with HR people are playing games & gimmicks and judging people based on gut instincts & performance in interviews (which some people will always find more difficult than others).

Hrududu

Martin567 wrote: »

What value is there in HR being involved at all in the interview process? "People assessing skills"?!!!

Someone can look great on paper but talk to them for 5 minutes and you realise they'd be a nightmare to work with.

Martin567

Hrududu wrote: »

Someone can look great on paper but talk to them for 5 minutes and you realise they'd be a nightmare to work with.

Do you not think that the technical person interviewing might be able to figure this out for themselves without the help of a HR person? Especially as they would be the ones who would actually have to work with the new candidate?

But I would also caution that first impressions in an interview may not translate at all to performance in a job and I'm struggling to see what skills a HR person has to enable them to make that decision. Everything I say of course depends on the nature of the job being interviewed for!

Zulu

As an interviewer, the second interview is nearly always to assess the person as a person. (ie: the first interview is to check your skills and ability, assuming you pass that, now we're going to check if you fit the team as a person). So the CV (if heavily technical) isn't hugely important. Leafing through it is simply a prop. Looking for the next question...

ryan_00 wrote: »

No, you are completely wrong there...

I dunno if (s)he was. Fair enough you might be responding to the "getting bent out of shape" comment, but I think their post otherwise hits the mark.

Zulu

Martin567 wrote: »

Do you not think that the technical person interviewing might be able to figure this out for themselves without the help of a HR person? Especially as they would be the ones who would actually have to work with the new candidate?

They might, but they mightn't be allowed.
Companies love process.