Insulted at an Interview

davo10

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What's so special about 'management level' that people want progression? Why would a right-minded company not want people at sub-management level to want to progress in their jobs?

And what's the problem if someone else wants it? If I'm quite happy to continue to do the job I'm doing, and do it really, really well, why would you be pushing to move me to a different job that I will ultimately screw up?

Check out the Peter Principle and tell me how it benefits an organisation to require 'progression' at certain levels?

And tell me again why it would be silly for a job advert to be clear about the job requirements?

Nothing wrong with it at all, I haven't read the whole thread, I don't know what industry it is nor what position it is. I suspect most employers would prefer people who want to progress as they achieve. Employees are the bedrock of all businesses, if the employees aren't motivated to progress, then the company will stagnate.

If companies can't promote from within, they advertise, wouldn't it make sense to check if this particular applicant has what it takes to step up?

Ash.J.Williams

Surely "happened for you yet" is subjective... If you answered.. "it happens for me every fu*king day" you would be correct

davo10

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Surely "happened for you yet" is subjective... If you answered.. "it happens for me every fu*king day" you would be correct

Ya, that'll work. How could the interviewer not be impressed with that?

AndrewJRenko

davo10 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it at all, I haven't read the whole thread, I don't know what industry it is nor what position it is. I suspect most employers would prefer people who want to progress as they achieve. Employees are the bedrock of all businesses, if the employees aren't motivated to progress, then the company will stagnate.

If companies can't promote from within, they advertise, wouldn't it make sense to check if this particular applicant has what it takes to step up?

We'd need a bit more than 'you suspect' to justify this. If the employer has this preference, then they should be clear about this preference in the advert. They might also want to look for some evidence that this actually is a good thing to do, given the fairly well-established Peter Principle.

If some employees aren't motivated to progress, they might just get really, really good at doing their job. They might love their job, and they might not love the prospect of moving to the next level or a different role. That doesn't make them bad employees.

davo10

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

We'd need a bit more than 'you suspect' to justify this. If the employer has this preference, then they should be clear about this preference in the advert. They might also want to look for some evidence that this actually is a good thing to do, given the fairly well-established Peter Principle.

If some employees aren't motivated to progress, they might just get really, really good at doing their job. They might love their job, and they might not love the prospect of moving to the next level or a different role. That doesn't make them bad employees.

As you said, it's subjective. It's a double edged sword, if you went to an interview and stated that you want the job and you are not interested in advancement, then the interviewer would most likely favour an applicant with a more ambitious attitude, the more they want to advance, the more effort they put in to succeed. Employers don't strive for mediocrity, they want people who want to do better, that benefits the company.

All any of us can do is "suspect", we are neither the op nor the employer.

Teyla Emmagan

davo10 wrote:

Not many jobs are advertised: "job available, management level, apply if you don't want progression or to "make it"". That would be silly wouldn't it?

And why on earth would anyone be called for a management level job with absolutely no relevant experience? Companies don't interview everyone who throws in a CV. Your argument seems to assume that a whole rake of unsuitable people have been invited for interview and the interviewer has to do the initial screening. They're already been screened. If you have been in an entry level IT job for 20 years you don't suddenly find yourself sitting in an interview for a job as head of department.

davo10

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Your argument seems to assume that a whole rake of unsuitable people have been invited for interview.

A truer word was never posted. You wouldn't believe how many unsuitable people have been called to interview, great CVs, but the person you talk to doesn't quite match the world beater you see on paper. Ya see, that's what interviews are about, finding the suitable candidate among all the applicants.

Again, unless I've missed it, we don't know what the job is, but it's fair to assume it isn't on the bottom rung, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist as the interviewer wouldn't be concerned about whether the op had progressed.

This thread is just a back and forth with people posting the same two opinions, shoot the interviewer, and just get over it because it really wasn't that bad. If you get bent out of shape about something like this, life is hard, the interviewer was an idiot, but the sentiment of the question was valid, if they are looking for a "go getter", they are not going to hire someone who has been stuck in neutral for 20 years. Maybe if we knew about the ops work history we could get more perspective, but that was what the interviewer wanted, and just like the interviewer, we are left to speculate.

CalamariFritti

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

If this had happened to me would have smiled politely at the interviewer, brushed off the question and reported them after as requiring further training. And I would have told the agency who sent me to interview that I had no interest in working for such an unprofessional company.

I've had 3 interviews in the last year and a half, all of which were completely successful. But that doesn't mean I think any interviewer has the right to be in anyway demeaning towards an applicant who is giving up their time to come in and meet them.

HR is full of idiots who think they're gods.

I'm not saying it was a question well asked, but given the right CV it can be a valid question to ask. I dont think the question itself is insulting, delivery could have been better.

^ I believe you in that. I'm quite lucky with that in my current job but I've seen a few like that over the years myself.

skallywag

davo10 wrote: »

You wouldn't believe how many unsuitable people have been called to interview, great CVs, but the person you talk to doesn't quite match the world beater you see on paper.

Agree fully with this. An initial phone interview can help, but it's still not going to prevent plenty of candidates coming through who are way off the required expectation, particularly when it comes to personality and people skills.

flaneur

You could always misinterpret the question and say : "Well we have tried IVF, but I'm not really sure what that has to do with this job interview..."

That would send them panicking about legalities!

Calina

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I'm not saying it was a question well asked, but given the right CV it can be a valid question to ask. I dont think the question itself is insulting, delivery could have been better.

^ I believe you in that. I'm quite lucky with that in my current job but I've seen a few like that over the years myself.

I think - once more - you've missed a key problem.

The question which causes me particular consternation is that they straight out asked the candidate's age.

It seems to me more people are focusing on the "why haven't you made it" which is a bad and unprofessional question because that's easy to brush away as incompetence. BUt it followed asking the candidate what age they were.

The candidate's age is none of the interviewing team's business and discrimination on grounds of age is illegal. That is why some people are utterly appalled by this.

But personally speaking, if I had a line of questioning that went, what age are you, why haven't you made it, I'd be saying "Thank you for your time, it is obvious that I am not a good cultural fit for you" either at that point or at the end of the interview. If I were in a position to, for example, if I were not already unemployed which OP was IIRC. It's in the bracket of questions that includes "and are you planning to get pregnant".

I'd prefer to see people focus on the sense in asking what age an employment candidate is and whether in fact, that is acceptable or not. If the company was a large multinational, I cannot believe that it's considered acceptable. Nowhere I have worked would have asked what age I was but they might have reviewed the work on my cv in the context of discussion how it demonstrated career growth.

That so many people are writing this off as badly expressed actually worries me. Particularly since a couple claim to interview.

flaneur

The reality is that a lot of interviewers are dragged in from somewhere and hate interviewing and have only a very vague idea of what they should be asking.

You invariably get someone trying to be too clever or someone who is way too passive or is obsessed with one line in a CV.

It’s why you need good HR.

If you’re a small company, I would actually seek outside assistance for interviews. There’s no harm in having a HR professional sit in.

It’s not just common sense skills. Interviewing is complicated and has legal implications.

Ash.J.Williams

davo10 wrote: »

Ya, that'll work. How could the interviewer not be impressed with that?

Probably more impressed than getting offended

HandsomeBob

flaneur wrote: »

The reality is that a lot of interviewers are dragged in from somewhere and hate interviewing and have only a very vague idea of what they should be asking.

You invariably get someone trying to be too clever or someone who is way too passive or is obsessed with one line in a CV.

It’s why you need good HR.

If you’re a small company, I would actually seek outside assistance for interviews. There’s no harm in having a HR professional sit in.

It’s not just common sense skills. Interviewing is complicated and has legal implications.

Aye truth be told it was a manager rather than a HR person that asked such a ham fisted question. HR would be way too cute to ask such a loaded question.

The OP was probably just dealing with some knob on a power trip who thought he was Lord Sugar.

HandsomeBob

flaneur wrote: »

The reality is that a lot of interviewers are dragged in from somewhere and hate interviewing and have only a very vague idea of what they should be asking.

You invariably get someone trying to be too clever or someone who is way too passive or is obsessed with one line in a CV.

It’s why you need good HR.

If you’re a small company, I would actually seek outside assistance for interviews. There’s no harm in having a HR professional sit in.

It’s not just common sense skills. Interviewing is complicated and has legal implications.

Aye truth be told it was a manager rather than a HR person that asked such a ham fisted question. HR would be way too cute to ask such a loaded question.

The OP was probably just dealing with some knob on a power trip who thought he was Lord Sugar.

HandsomeBob

flaneur wrote: »

The reality is that a lot of interviewers are dragged in from somewhere and hate interviewing and have only a very vague idea of what they should be asking.

You invariably get someone trying to be too clever or someone who is way too passive or is obsessed with one line in a CV.

It’s why you need good HR.

If you’re a small company, I would actually seek outside assistance for interviews. There’s no harm in having a HR professional sit in.

It’s not just common sense skills. Interviewing is complicated and has legal implications.

Aye truth be told it was a manager rather than a HR person that asked such a ham fisted question. HR would be way too cute to ask such a loaded question.

The OP was probably just dealing with some knob on a power trip who thought he was Lord Sugar.

server down

davo10 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it at all, I haven't read the whole thread, I don't know what industry it is nor what position it is. I suspect most employers would prefer people who want to progress as they achieve. Employees are the bedrock of all businesses, if the employees aren't motivated to progress, then the company will stagnate.

If companies can't promote from within, they advertise, wouldn't it make sense to check if this particular applicant has what it takes to step up?

Most companies actually want to hire people for the actual position they are applying for and tailor interviews regarding that actual position.

server down

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Aye truth be told it was a manager rather than a HR person that asked such a ham fisted question. HR would be way too cute to ask such a loaded question.

The OP was probably just dealing with some knob on a power trip who thought he was Lord Sugar.

She. Yes she thought she was on the apprentice alright.

server down

Gerry T wrote: »

The interviewer didn't want to know the OPs age.

They wanted to know about their career and the perceived lack of advancement. This legal nonsense is clouding the question, which the OP couldn't answer, possibly explaining the lack of progress.
people shouldn't be so quick to jump on the "I'm going to sue" bandwagon, in work you will have to deal with far harder questions, if you can't handle this one I give up.

They literally asked the interviewers age.

I can’t believe you are not trolling at this stage.

You have read most of this thread unlike some Johnny’s come lately and yet continue with the same debunked crap.

professore

I hate to say it OP but how you let this get to you is a good sign that you wouldn't survive very long in a big company where your lack of ability to handle pressure with an awkward client or work colleague could cost the company dearly.

I've had much worse than this over the years in work and with clients. Not everything is roses in the workplace, if you go in expecting it to be you will be very disappointed, especially at bigger companies where being backstabbing and two faced are useful skills to climb the career ladder.

Treat it like a game, don't take it personally.

AndrewJRenko

professore wrote: »

especially at bigger companies where being backstabbing and two faced

Maybe this is because of group-think recruitment that focuses on people who've 'made it' without actually knowing what 'made it' is?

bozd

You got to interview stage - so someone must have seen something or you wouldnt have been called. If they picked your cv and then asked that question they cant work out your age which means they are an idiot- period. Its a horrible off throwing question ; it does however reflect on the company and those higher up should know of this clown. I have done interviews that were unpleasant - taken the job and regretted it - if that reflects the corporate culture then it doesnt suit you and you have had a lucky escape.

Tony EH

Calina wrote: »

It seems to me more people are focusing on the "why haven't you made it" which is a bad and unprofessional question because that's easy to brush away as incompetence. BUt it followed asking the candidate what age they were.

And this is the salient point from the OP's post that a couple of people are continuously missing in favour of assumpton and conjecture.

We know nothing of the type of role, we know nothing about the job spec, we know nothing of the OP's former experience (other than they have "lots" of it).

However, from the actual OP, we do know that they were expressly asked about their age and that the interviewer was "worried" about it, which was brought into the discussion more than once.

Bottom line is, none of us know what "it" is or means in this context, none of us know what type of job it is that the OP went for, if they were switching jobs, or even if they were just trying trying to get back into work after time out to do a masters degree.

But, what we do know is that the OP was asked about their age.

noodler

I'd be offended by the interviewer's subjective comments about my career to date being unsuccessful tbh.

CalamariFritti

Calina wrote: »

I think - once more - you've missed a key problem.

The question which causes me particular consternation is that they straight out asked the candidate's age.

It seems to me more people are focusing on the "why haven't you made it" which is a bad and unprofessional question because that's easy to brush away as incompetence. BUt it followed asking the candidate what age they were.

The candidate's age is none of the interviewing team's business and discrimination on grounds of age is illegal. That is why some people are utterly appalled by this.

But personally speaking, if I had a line of questioning that went, what age are you, why haven't you made it, I'd be saying "Thank you for your time, it is obvious that I am not a good cultural fit for you" either at that point or at the end of the interview. If I were in a position to, for example, if I were not already unemployed which OP was IIRC. It's in the bracket of questions that includes "and are you planning to get pregnant".

I'd prefer to see people focus on the sense in asking what age an employment candidate is and whether in fact, that is acceptable or not. If the company was a large multinational, I cannot believe that it's considered acceptable. Nowhere I have worked would have asked what age I was but they might have reviewed the work on my cv in the context of discussion how it demonstrated career growth.

That so many people are writing this off as badly expressed actually worries me. Particularly since a couple claim to interview.

Maybe you think thats semantics but asking for age and discriminating by age are not the same thing.

Calina

Whether you like it or not, asking someone's age opens up the risk of an equality complaint.

It is irrelevant information if you are not planning to discriminate on that grounds. It is profoundly incompetent to ask this question.

skallywag

I cannot see why any interviewer would need to ask this question.

There has never been a case where the CV in combination with meeting the candidate in person would not leave me in a position to reasonably accurately estimate age.

In greater than 95% of cases the CV alone will allow for filtering out on the basis of age.

server down

skallywag wrote: »

I cannot see why any interviewer would need to ask this question.

There has never been a case where the CV in combination with meeting the candidate in person would not leave me in a position to reasonably accurately estimate age.

In greater than 95% of cases the CV alone will allow for filtering out on the basis of age.

But don't quote you on that, right?

skallywag

server down wrote: »

But don't quote you on that, right?

I'm not seeing what you are getting at?

Being able to estimate someone's age from their CV and/or meeting them in person is not exactly that difficult?

As I said, if you want to filter candidates based on age then the CV alone will nearly always allow for that, which still leaves me wondering why asking someone their age at interview makes any sense whatsoever.

Calina

It is illegal to filter on age.