Community Chat

[CatsyCline]

On 4/3/2015 Justina rae said:

Ashleigh - Thank you, I understand. I guess different workplaces have different ways to conduct the interview. Different limitations.

{~.o} Justina, you are welcome any company can have exposure, especially the companies with deep pockets!

[Elstongunn]

On 4/3/2015 ashleigh dupray said:

On 4/3/2015 Justina rae said:

Chickenbutt - I've also been very cynical most of my life as a result of people letting me down. I'm trying (in my older age) to turn things around. Maybe have a more positive outlook. Don't know if it'll work but I'm trying.

Ashleigh dupray - I can't imagine how telling a candidate the real reason they didn't get the job was because they missed/cancelled "x" number of appointments and that shows a lack of responsibility, etc. would open the door to any litigation. I think giving that feedback is important to the candidate rather than letting her go on her merry way. Maybe she will learn a hard lesson having lost the job over it!

HR usually screens first - Hiring manager has to be very careful in their wording. Neither is there to teach, coach or criticize. The focus is on discussing the candidate and their qualifications. Any criticism or observations outside of the resume, job description are subjective, add in the possibility of protected class concerns...its just not good practice to get personal.

I totally agree...DO NOT EVER discuss the details with the interviewee. It sounds all warm and fuzzy and a "teaching moment," but it can land the interviewer in hot water and potential litigation. The interviewee can lie about what she was told, claim she had to cancel so often because of a "disability" that the interviewer refused to accommodate, etc., etc. Or that she told the interviewer she had to cancel because she had child issues, and once the interviewer found out that she had children, was a single parent, or whatever, she refused to hire her, on and on.

The interviewer is NOT a teacher, coach, parent, mentor, BFF, or anything else. Anything beyond the suggested wording of "we've found another applicant more closely suited to the position" is putting the company at risk.

[puglet1]

On 4/3/2015 ktlynam said:

On 4/3/2015 ashleigh dupray said:

On 4/3/2015 Justina rae said:

Chickenbutt - I've also been very cynical most of my life as a result of people letting me down. I'm trying (in my older age) to turn things around. Maybe have a more positive outlook. Don't know if it'll work but I'm trying.

Ashleigh dupray - I can't imagine how telling a candidate the real reason they didn't get the job was because they missed/cancelled "x" number of appointments and that shows a lack of responsibility, etc. would open the door to any litigation. I think giving that feedback is important to the candidate rather than letting her go on her merry way. Maybe she will learn a hard lesson having lost the job over it!

HR usually screens first - Hiring manager has to be very careful in their wording. Neither is there to teach, coach or criticize. The focus is on discussing the candidate and their qualifications. Any criticism or observations outside of the resume, job description are subjective, add in the possibility of protected class concerns...its just not good practice to get personal.

I totally agree...DO NOT EVER discuss the details with the interviewee. It sounds all warm and fuzzy and a "teaching moment," but it can land the interviewer in hot water and potential litigation. The interviewee can lie about what she was told, claim she had to cancel so often because of a "disability" that the interviewer refused to accommodate, etc., etc. Or that she told the interviewer she had to cancel because she had child issues, and once the interviewer found out that she had children, was a single parent, or whatever, she refused to hire her, on and on.

The interviewer is NOT a teacher, coach, parent, mentor, BFF, or anything else. Anything beyond the suggested wording of "we've found another applicant more closely suited to the position" is putting the company at risk.

That's interesting and how times have changed. I remember when I first started out interviewing, if I didn't get the job, I specifically asked what it was that I could improve or focus on my next time around. I was always given specific feedback. I guess we are in a much more litigious society today.

[mstyrion 1]

On 4/3/2015 ktlynam said:

On 4/3/2015 ashleigh dupray said:

On 4/3/2015 Justina rae said:

Chickenbutt - I've also been very cynical most of my life as a result of people letting me down. I'm trying (in my older age) to turn things around. Maybe have a more positive outlook. Don't know if it'll work but I'm trying.

Ashleigh dupray - I can't imagine how telling a candidate the real reason they didn't get the job was because they missed/cancelled "x" number of appointments and that shows a lack of responsibility, etc. would open the door to any litigation. I think giving that feedback is important to the candidate rather than letting her go on her merry way. Maybe she will learn a hard lesson having lost the job over it!

HR usually screens first - Hiring manager has to be very careful in their wording. Neither is there to teach, coach or criticize. The focus is on discussing the candidate and their qualifications. Any criticism or observations outside of the resume, job description are subjective, add in the possibility of protected class concerns...its just not good practice to get personal.

I totally agree...DO NOT EVER discuss the details with the interviewee. It sounds all warm and fuzzy and a "teaching moment," but it can land the interviewer in hot water and potential litigation. The interviewee can lie about what she was told, claim she had to cancel so often because of a "disability" that the interviewer refused to accommodate, etc., etc. Or that she told the interviewer she had to cancel because she had child issues, and once the interviewer found out that she had children, was a single parent, or whatever, she refused to hire her, on and on.

The interviewer is NOT a teacher, coach, parent, mentor, BFF, or anything else. Anything beyond the suggested wording of "we've found another applicant more closely suited to the position" is putting the company at risk.

You are right, kittynam and I was mistaken in my comments.

I was thinking back to the interviews I did with internal candidates. In that case, we did have to give specific feedback as to why they didn't get a job. In the case of external candidates, we couldn't.

[Elstongunn]

On 4/3/2015 puglet1 said:

On 4/3/2015 ktlynam said:

On 4/3/2015 ashleigh dupray said:

On 4/3/2015 Justina rae said:

Chickenbutt - I've also been very cynical most of my life as a result of people letting me down. I'm trying (in my older age) to turn things around. Maybe have a more positive outlook. Don't know if it'll work but I'm trying.

Ashleigh dupray - I can't imagine how telling a candidate the real reason they didn't get the job was because they missed/cancelled "x" number of appointments and that shows a lack of responsibility, etc. would open the door to any litigation. I think giving that feedback is important to the candidate rather than letting her go on her merry way. Maybe she will learn a hard lesson having lost the job over it!

HR usually screens first - Hiring manager has to be very careful in their wording. Neither is there to teach, coach or criticize. The focus is on discussing the candidate and their qualifications. Any criticism or observations outside of the resume, job description are subjective, add in the possibility of protected class concerns...its just not good practice to get personal.

I totally agree...DO NOT EVER discuss the details with the interviewee. It sounds all warm and fuzzy and a "teaching moment," but it can land the interviewer in hot water and potential litigation. The interviewee can lie about what she was told, claim she had to cancel so often because of a "disability" that the interviewer refused to accommodate, etc., etc. Or that she told the interviewer she had to cancel because she had child issues, and once the interviewer found out that she had children, was a single parent, or whatever, she refused to hire her, on and on.

The interviewer is NOT a teacher, coach, parent, mentor, BFF, or anything else. Anything beyond the suggested wording of "we've found another applicant more closely suited to the position" is putting the company at risk.

That's interesting and how times have changed. I remember when I first started out interviewing, if I didn't get the job, I specifically asked what it was that I could improve or focus on my next time around. I was always given specific feedback. I guess we are in a much more litigious society today.

You are exactly right, puglet1. In fact, it was often suggested in Job Interview manuals that the interviewee do just that if s/he didn't get the job! Yes, how times have changed.

[Apple Head]

I am in the opposite situation. I was laid off of a job after 18 years. I am having issues with hiring entities not following up with me. I got a call from a place I submitted a resume and wasn't home when she called. I returned the call when I got home and she wasn't here. Never got another call back. I called twice yesterday, only to get the voice mail. Still haven't received a call back.

I also interviewed with a recruiter (who was hired by the company to interview all potential candidates). I had a good interview on Monday, and she said she was going to set up an interview with the company because she said I was a good fit. Today is Friday, and I never got a call back for that 2nd interview.

I am very responsible and professional and have outstanding references. I am very discouraged by the hiring entities and their lack of professionalism.

OP: The candidate you had was terrible. That's why when someone who is responsible, dependable, professional and comes with a great track record is left high and dry, it really is frustrating and depressing for those of us who want to work and who would be an asset to any organization.

[chickenbutt]

Apple - I can't help wondering if maybe their sense of urgency doesn't match yours. Clearly, and understandably, you want to get a job and get going.

Maybe their 'we'll call you back for an interview' is about next week. I think what I'd do with that sort of thing is what I always do - I politely ask if they have an idea of the scope of time and (making it look like you are concerned about them) I want to make sure that I'm available for you. They would probably say something like 'we are doing our callbacks next week or on Friday, etc'. At least you could have an idea.

[brewhaha]

I'd hire her. She would good at making excuses and giving people the runaround when I don't want to deal with them right away.

[sunala]

Going shopping is a ridiculous reason to cancel an interview. She may be dumb as dirt, but at least she's honest

[Havarti]

My guess is that she is doesn't really want the the interview, or the job. She is likely collecting unemployment income and is not allowed to refuse an interview to keep collecting her money. I have heard this happens fairly frequently, although usually for lower wage jobs. If she is offered a job fairly comparable to what she had, she is not allowed to turn it down. If she wants to sit home and collect unemployment she has to make herself undesirable to anyone showing interest. Just a guess, but that is what I think is going on here.