'Fake job interviews?

Austria!

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I know you aren't asking for this advice, but I'm going to give it anyway.

Assume your failures are due to you, and not due to someone else.

That might be the best way to improve yourself, but I don't think it's true in this country in fairness.

Avatar MIA

Austria! wrote: »

That might be the best way to improve yourself, but I don't think it's true in this country in fairness.

Care to expand?

AndrewJRenko

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Not sure it will be news to many, but interviews aren't considered of much use, but glad to hear the Public Sector is so well run. They must have the very best workers in all positions.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/11/24/want-best-person-for-job-don-interview/3LB4rwjf6i88GfaDoRubLN/amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwj-j-HJ_ofdAhXJLsAKHQKgBKwQFjAMegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw24AEgwXoErvM6oTDDVFe9g&ampcf=1

I'm not sure if you read the article that you linked to, but all the critique in that article is about 'unstructured interviews', which pretty much makes the same point that I was making above.

An unstructured chat with the lads is indeed a fairly poor way to select staff. A structured, competency-based interview with trained interviewers a decent way to recruit staff, as part of a good recruitment process.

It's nothing to do with a public sector vs private sector debate. In the public sector, interviews are usually the final stage after competency tests and (in some cases) group exercises.

Google use interviews; https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/google-s-hr-boss-use-these-interview-questions.html

Facebook use interviews: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/3-interview-questions-facebook-recruiters-ask-candidates.html

Microsoft use interviews: https://www.glassdoor.ie/Interview/Microsoft-Dublin-Interview-Questions-EI_IE1651.0,9_IL.10,16_IM1052.htm

Expert interviewers like Hays recommend competency based interviews for posts at all levels, up to CEO: https://www.siliconrepublic.com/advice/the-competency-based-interview

So you might want to rethink your sneer. But if you do have a great alternative to offer, please share details of what other approach you recommend.

Avatar MIA

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not sure if you read the article that you linked to, but all the critique in that article is about 'unstructured interviews', which pretty much makes the same point that I was making above.

An unstructured chat with the lads is indeed a fairly poor way to select staff. A structured, competency-based interview with trained interviewers a decent way to recruit staff, as part of a good recruitment process.

It's nothing to do with a public sector vs private sector debate. In the public sector, interviews are usually the final stage after competency tests and (in some cases) group exercises.

Google use interviews; https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/google-s-hr-boss-use-these-interview-questions.html

Facebook use interviews: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/3-interview-questions-facebook-recruiters-ask-candidates.html

Microsoft use interviews: https://www.glassdoor.ie/Interview/Microsoft-Dublin-Interview-Questions-EI_IE1651.0,9_IL.10,16_IM1052.htm

Expert interviewers like Hays recommend competency based interviews for posts at all levels, up to CEO: https://www.siliconrepublic.com/advice/the-competency-based-interview

So you might want to rethink your sneer. But if you do have a great alternative to offer, please share details of what other approach you recommend.

You're making the claim all public sector interviews are competent, this is not so, but continue to make that claim. That some may be is largely irrelevant to this thread.

Competency based interviews may be better than common interviews, but no substitute for long term experience of an individual which IS relevant to this thread.

AndrewJRenko

Avatar MIA wrote: »

You're making the claim all public sector interviews are competent, this is not so, but continue to make that claim. That some may be is largely irrelevant to this thread.

Competency based interviews may be better than common interviews, but no substitute for long term experience of an individual which IS relevant to this thread.

I didn't say anything of the sort, that all public sector interviews are competent.

I'm not even sure if you mean 'competent' (referring to the interviewers) or competency-based, referring to the process.

Recruitment is a big deal in the public sector. The Public Appointments Service does the recruitment for all Civil Service roles (about 38k staff). So that's about 300 people in PAS who do recruitment all day every day, coverall all levels from entry-level Clerical Officers up the Secretary Generals and CEOs of some state bodies. They have built up considerable expertise, and they apply it well.

For other public bodies who recruit directly, they need to get a recruitment licence from the Commission for Public Service Appointments. They can't just decide 'sure we need to do a few interviews next week'. They need to map out their processes to an external validation body.

Of course, none of these are absolute guarantees of competence, but they are pretty far along that road. They certainly rate well by comparison to the SME sector.

Long-term experience of individuals can indeed be interesting, but it's hard to bring it into a recruitment process. If you rely on long-term experience, then you're restricting yourself to internal staff effectively, as they are the only ones you really know have the exact kind of experience you need. This means closing off a very large potential target audience.

This can also work against candidates, where people within the organisation know well their limitations and weaknesses through direct experience. By comparison, external candidates come in with great interview responses, and look so shiny and smooth that they can outshine internal candidates.

Good recruiters will make sure to balance these out.