Odd Interview protocol?

kippy

Working class heroes wrote: »

One of my previous managers, just before introducing me to someone advised me not to shake his hand.
He lost his right hand in an accident. You just never know exactly what’s going on I suppose.....

As mentioned above, some times you just need to follow instruction's. You shouldn't always need to know why.

Westernyelp

Tell them to just go for the hi five

s7ryf3925pivug

The thing is if there is some personal reason one of the interviewers doewn't want to shake hands, their handling of it is a bit sh!t. They could just say 'Don't shake hands in the interview' [which is generally a good idea since it is a vector for transmitting disease, aside from it not being ok for some people for whatever reasons]. By saying they'll tell you whether you can makes a big deal of it unnecessarily.

seamus

The religious angle I can't respect. "My religion says I can't shake hands with you because we're not equals". I would consider that a very disrespectful way to treat an interviewee, it would score black marks against the organisation for me if that turned out to be the reason for it.

However, there may be legitimate other concerns - some illnesses such as severe arthritis or epidermolysis bullosa would make it impossible for an interviewer to shake your hand. So in that case, simply calling it out beforehand saves everyone from embarrassment. But if they haven't confirmed the interviewers yet, they can't tell you whether you should avoid the handshake.

Overall though, the instructions do seem oddly specific. Is there something unique about the company or industry? Is it public service or semi-state?

Oink

1. They assume no one can live without their phone anymore and the interviewee will obviously carry it with them. Obviously you can't trust people to turn their own phone off, just look at what happens on planes. So they want to see it turned off just because of the one idiot who's not going to do it. 2. Handshake. Why the f do so many people jump on the religious thing. Like a previous poster said, there can be many good reasons for that. So I suggest we wait to see what happens at the interview before feeling outraged. Awaiting full report from OP :-)

seamus

Oink wrote: »

Obviously you can't trust people to turn their own phone off, just look at what happens on planes.

I'm not sure that's it. You'd almost want a candidate to forget to turn off their phone and see how they react

I've worked for companies who are insanely paranoid about company secrets. Not only in terms of the insides of their business, but things like interview processes, names of the staff, etc. I've been in training sessions that advised never talking about work to colleagues in the pub or any public place and never using your laptop in public, because you never know who's watching.

So I expect in this case they want to know that the interview isn't being recorded or otherwise monitored. NDAs are functionally unenforceable and companies know this, it's a bit of theatre. If someone records an interview and posts it online, there's basically nothing they can do about it.

OMM 0000

I worked for a company which handled passport data for a big country. As a staff member, I had access to everyone's passport details. We had a biometric scan at the door, cameras everywhere, a rule where you can't throw any papers in the bin, a rule where you can't leave your desk without locking your computer, the USB ports on our computers were disabled, our company website didn't state what we do, and lots of other stuff... but in my interview there I could bring my phone, and at my desk I could mess around with my phone.

So I agree with Seamus that this is probably due to them not wanting the interview to be recorded, but as another person pointed out, what kind of security is this? Just bring an extra phone.

It makes me think the HR person might be thick, or seriously lacking social awareness.

It's bizarre and a really bad sign IMO.

s7ryf3925pivug

seamus wrote: »

The religious angle I can't respect. "My religion says I can't shake hands with you because we're not equals". I would consider that a very disrespectful way to treat an interviewee, it would score black marks against the organisation for me if that turned out to be the reason for it.

However, there may be legitimate other concerns - some illnesses such as severe arthritis or epidermolysis bullosa would make it impossible for an interviewer to shake your hand. So in that case, simply calling it out beforehand saves everyone from embarrassment. But if they haven't confirmed the interviewers yet, they can't tell you whether you should avoid the handshake.

Overall though, the instructions do seem oddly specific. Is there something unique about the company or industry? Is it public service or semi-state?

It's worse than just saying you're inferior, it's saying you're going to debase them when you get your jollies off touching their hand. And it's saying women who allow such things are dirty/loose etc. Active dehumisation of anyone who's not part of their group.

AlanG

ThorsMane wrote: »

Hi,

First was, she must turn off her phone in front of the interviewers which she though was over the top and odd.

The other was she would be told before hand if it was/wasn’t acceptable to shake hands with the interviewers

She’s kinda bogled on the whole thing... has anyone ever experienced such strict rules for a job interview ? Is this normal?

As an interviewer, where I work the chairperson on the day will decide if candidates should shake hands. A lot depends on the room used and number on the panel. It is a pain for 4 or 5 interviewers to shake hands with every candidate if there is a large table in the room, it is also uncomfortable for the candidates so we usually give clear instructions before hand.
Regarding phones, usually the person greeting the interviewee with ask them to switch it off.
I wouldn't read too much into these rules.

uck51js9zml2yt

Bria Bald Miser wrote: »

A Muslim lady dentist repaired a filling on my broken tooth. She gingerly poked it through a sheet that covered my mouth otherwise so she could work on it without sullying herself on my mouth/face. It was a bit odd. I guess they have these things for people with high risk diseases, or maybe it was her own invention.

Or more probably it was to keep the tooth dry while she worked on it !!

Colonel Claptrap

I once worked with an absolute genius of a man. He could computate huge volumes of data in his head, something the rest of us mere mortals needed spreadsheets to do for us.
He was a huge asset to the company and promptly got promoted up the ranks. Well deserved might I add.

He was incredibly awkward when it came to social situations. His small talk was blunt. He didn't really 'get' taking the p1ss out of yourself or having a bit of banter with a colleague. If you made a mistake he would make you feel horrible about yourself. There was no sugar coating.

As you have probably guessed, the man is on the autism spectrum in some way or another. It was never openly discussed but everyone in the office kind of figured it out themselves.

One manifestation was a very very strict adherence to personal hygiene. He would wash, dry, then re-wash his hands after using the bathroom. He got very upset if the sinks were in any way dirty or the bin overflowing.

I wonder if the interviewer may have OCD or something similar...

s7ryf3925pivug

Seamus Full Shinbone wrote: »

Or more probably it was to keep the tooth dry while she worked on it !!

Doubt it.It broke repeatedly and the same procedure was carried out by numerous others. Noone else did that. It's my front tooth so it wouldn't get wet unless I made it so deliberately.

Zirconia

kippy wrote: »

As mentioned above, some times you just need to follow instruction's. You shouldn't always need to know why.

I think that's a terrible philosophy for life! I think you should generally have a good understanding of the reason to do anything, including in a work situation. I don't blindly follow instructions from others as a general rule.

Squatter

Zirconia wrote: »

I think that's a terrible philosophy for life! I think you should generally have a good understanding of the reason to do anything, including in a work situation. I don't blindly follow instructions from others as a general rule.

I bet that you always unquestioningly obey instructions from Boards.ie Mods!

kippy

Zirconia wrote: »

I think that's a terrible philosophy for life! I think you should generally have a good understanding of the reason to do anything, including in a work situation. I don't blindly follow instructions from others as a general rule.

I never advocated it as being a great philosophy for life, in fact I qualified it by saying "sometimes". There are times you need to do as you are told without any deep thought as to why. This is most definitely one of them.

Zirconia

kippy wrote: »

I never advocated it as being a great philosophy for life, in fact I qualified it by saying "sometimes". There are times you need to do as you are told without any deep thought as to why. This is most definitely one of them.

I don't agree, particularly in this circumstance - I would be definitely asking for clarification as to why the phone must be switched off, i.e. is it okay if I just set it to silent, and regarding being informed that I would be told whether on not I should shake hands, I would look for a reason for this as it is clearly odd, as per the OPs point, and I don't believe it is crossing any line to forthrightly look for an explanation.

Sure there are times in life where you need to proceed with something requested of you without having all the details, but they should be critical situations. These particular requests and the apparent situation they seem petty and meaningless unless a valid reason is put forward.

kippy

Zirconia wrote: »

I don't agree, particularly in this circumstance - I would be definitely asking for clarification as to why the phone must be switched off, i.e. is it okay if I just set it to silent, and regarding being informed that I would be told whether on not I should shake hands, I would look for a reason for this as it is clearly odd, as per the OPs point, and I don't believe it is crossing any line to forthrightly look for an explanation.

Sure there are times in life where you need to proceed with something requested of you without having all the details, but they should be critical situations. These particular requests and the apparent situation they seem petty and meaningless unless a valid reason is put forward.

What difference does having an explaination for either request actually make to the interviewee?

Augme

The hand shanking thing could simply depend in which roomnis being used. I've worked somewhere before that uses a lot of rooms and often for interviews. Some of the rooms had bug tables and meant reaching over it is difficult and awkward(quite often people ended up knoxki g over the glass of water that was placed out for them) and walking around the table to shake hands and then go back and sit down is just awkward. So often people would just be tied nit to shake hands with the interviewers. Also, cutting out the hand shaking saves time.

The hand shaking thing doesn't strike me as odd at all but I guess I'm used to that protocol.

Jim2007

kippy wrote: »

Most likely an initial test to ensure you can read email/instruction and follow instruction to the tee.
Should be fairly straightforward to follow those and get the interview off to a good start......

Probably the most likely answer.... one of my former bosses used to do this because he was fed up with people not following instructions. Especially since they were traders and they cost him money.

Another used to place a brush on the floor with the handle across the door saddle... once I asked him what the story was and he said you either step over it or pick it and then went on to say: “it’s the ones that stop and stair you gotta watch’. And to this day I have absolutely no idea what he was trying to achieve!

odyssey06

Jim2007 wrote: »

Probably the most likely answer.... one of my former bosses used to do this because he was fed up with people not following instructions. Especially since they were traders and they cost him money.
Another used to place a brush on the floor with the handle across the door saddle... once I asked him what the story was and he said you either step over it or pick it and then went on to say: “it’s the ones that stop and stair you gotta watch’. And to this day I have absolutely no idea what he was trying to achieve!

People are more likely to follow instructions if they know the reason why it's important to follow said instruction.

If you just want a robot, a random test like that makes sense, well, assuming there was any sense to it. Was the idea he wanted the kind of people who would remove the obstacle?

But if you are looking to hire someone to show initiative etc, don't be surprised if you get automatons who can't think for themselves.

kippy

odyssey06 wrote: »

People are more likely to follow instructions if they know the reason why it's important to follow said instruction.

If you just want a robot, a random test like that makes sense, well, assuming there was any sense to it. Was the idea he wanted the kind of people who would remove the obstacle?

But if you are looking to hire someone to show initiative etc, don't be surprised if you get automatons who can't think for themselves.

I don't know why people are reading so much into this. They are two simple instructions, the background as to why they have been given us completely irrelevant.

lawred2

ThorsMane wrote: »

Hi,

My friend is going for an interview for a position in a organisation she’s already part of... in the email with the details of time and location of the interview there were some odd instructions

First was, she must turn off her phone in front of the interviewers which she though was over the top and odd.

The other was she would be told before hand if it was/wasn’t acceptable to shake hands with the interviewers

She’s kinda bogled on the whole thing... has anyone ever experienced such strict rules for a job interview ? Is this normal?

I'd be telling them to f**k off

pleas advice

What if you refused to shake hands, after being told it was ok?

odyssey06

kippy wrote: »

I don't know why people are reading so much into this. They are two simple instructions, the background as to why they have been given us completely irrelevant.

Their simplicity is secondary, as presented they are arbitrary and capricious. Maybe they signify nothing, or maybe they signify that HR or the department running the interview are on a power trip and it's a red flag.

odyssey06

pleas advice wrote: »

What if you refused to shake hands, after being told it was ok?

Yeah, "I don't do hand-shakes".

OMM 0000

pleas advice wrote: »

What if you refused to shake hands, after being told it was ok?

"Sorry I just had a ****".

kippy

odyssey06 wrote: »

Their simplicity is secondary, as presented they are arbitrary and capricious. Maybe they signify nothing, or maybe they signify that HR or the department running the interview are on a power trip and it's a red flag.

The mind boggles, it really does. People who question everything they are asked to do, down to the simplest of instructions as in this case are painful to work with.
'Power trips' red flags? I'd be saying the same of many people on here reading way to much into the scenario to be honest.

s7ryf3925pivug

Smell your index finger, frown, then take out some hand sanitiser and industriously rub it into your finger.

PanicStations

So OP, have you had the interview? How did it go?

TaurenDruid

facehugger99 wrote: »

It might be more considerate not to employ someone who believes females are so unclean they can't be touched on the hand.

jebus. Way to jump to conclusions. Maybe they employ someone who doesn't want to be touched by a stranger (which can be a religious thing, for any gender, or not).