Hi Friends !!
Actually .. As per my India's HR experience.. HR interviews are minimized to fake answers, smiles, attitude, preconceived expected answers by HRs and from the candidates.
As if HR interviews are some crappy formality to get on with the recruitment process !! Answers to questions like :
Why you want to join this company ?? , Why you want to leave your current company ??
Are usually fake, parroted, standardized. I used to get bored listening to same jazz in back to back interviews in volume or lateral hiring !! even though I could sense different vibes from the candidate from what was answered !!
I understand this is norm of the day, we all do the same .. ! but there has to be some truth and genuineness, so that we can explore different personalities and make a near-good decision in hiring or organizational development !
I dont know .. ! who promotes for such standarization of interviews !! is it HRs .. or Candidates ?
From Kuwait, Salmiya
27Actually .. As per my India's HR experience.. HR interviews are minimized to fake answers, smiles, attitude, preconceived expected answers by HRs and from the candidates.
As if HR interviews are some crappy formality to get on with the recruitment process !! Answers to questions like :
Why you want to join this company ?? , Why you want to leave your current company ??
Are usually fake, parroted, standardized. I used to get bored listening to same jazz in back to back interviews in volume or lateral hiring !! even though I could sense different vibes from the candidate from what was answered !!
I understand this is norm of the day, we all do the same .. ! but there has to be some truth and genuineness, so that we can explore different personalities and make a near-good decision in hiring or organizational development !
I dont know .. ! who promotes for such standarization of interviews !! is it HRs .. or Candidates ?
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Dear Mr. Hussain,
However hard we may try to be perfect, its not going to happen because, NONE CAN BE 100% PERFECT. STANDARDIZATION is a continuous process where FINE TUNING is happening everyday.
In my opinion,
1) HR(INTERVIEWER) should be very STRAIGHT FORWARD while promoting HUMOR during the INTERVIEW PROCESS to understand the candidate(interviewee) much better, rather just being SERIOUS(HITLER FACE). This will help to reach a STAGE OF UNDERSTANDING between HR & CANDIDATE.
2) Must look into criterion for RECRUITING THE BEST CANDIDATE from all ASPECTS rather playing games with the applicants by asking STUPID QUERIES.
3) HR should identify the ability in candidates - Whether the candidate is giving PRIORITY to his roles/responsibilities, willing to ACCEPT CHALLENGES and ready to TRAVEL EXTRA MILE to achieve TARGETS assigned, etc., rather just convincing the HR by accepting the ROLE for the sake of GOOD PACKAGE. Ofcourse, everyone wants to earn better salary, but, priority shouldn't be given to SALARY. Infact, the terms from the candidate should be like "I WILL PERFORM MY BEST AND REWARD MY PERFORMANCE, RELEVANTLY". This should come into picture only after qualifying in all rounds.
The very best practice is, let the IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR hire the RIGHT CANDIDATE as per his requirements. HR can extend his support to complete the RECRUITMENT PROCESS, successfully.
Regarding CANDIDATES, i had noticed that, irrespective of their YEARS OR DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, QUALIFICATIONS, etc., they are very much EAGER to grab the opportunity. Hence, they are prepared to manipulate things. Since candidates response is proportional to the QUERIES posted, it is the ability(GREAT SKILL) of the HR to pose RELEVANT QUERIES to understand CANDIDATE'S PSYCHOLOGY while limiting responses to PRECISION or PROPORTIONAL TO QUERY POSTED. It should be WELL PLANNED ACTIVITY.
Kindly do let me know, if i am wrong, as i want to correct myself.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
However hard we may try to be perfect, its not going to happen because, NONE CAN BE 100% PERFECT. STANDARDIZATION is a continuous process where FINE TUNING is happening everyday.
In my opinion,
1) HR(INTERVIEWER) should be very STRAIGHT FORWARD while promoting HUMOR during the INTERVIEW PROCESS to understand the candidate(interviewee) much better, rather just being SERIOUS(HITLER FACE). This will help to reach a STAGE OF UNDERSTANDING between HR & CANDIDATE.
2) Must look into criterion for RECRUITING THE BEST CANDIDATE from all ASPECTS rather playing games with the applicants by asking STUPID QUERIES.
3) HR should identify the ability in candidates - Whether the candidate is giving PRIORITY to his roles/responsibilities, willing to ACCEPT CHALLENGES and ready to TRAVEL EXTRA MILE to achieve TARGETS assigned, etc., rather just convincing the HR by accepting the ROLE for the sake of GOOD PACKAGE. Ofcourse, everyone wants to earn better salary, but, priority shouldn't be given to SALARY. Infact, the terms from the candidate should be like "I WILL PERFORM MY BEST AND REWARD MY PERFORMANCE, RELEVANTLY". This should come into picture only after qualifying in all rounds.
The very best practice is, let the IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR hire the RIGHT CANDIDATE as per his requirements. HR can extend his support to complete the RECRUITMENT PROCESS, successfully.
Regarding CANDIDATES, i had noticed that, irrespective of their YEARS OR DECADES OF EXPERIENCE, QUALIFICATIONS, etc., they are very much EAGER to grab the opportunity. Hence, they are prepared to manipulate things. Since candidates response is proportional to the QUERIES posted, it is the ability(GREAT SKILL) of the HR to pose RELEVANT QUERIES to understand CANDIDATE'S PSYCHOLOGY while limiting responses to PRECISION or PROPORTIONAL TO QUERY POSTED. It should be WELL PLANNED ACTIVITY.
Kindly do let me know, if i am wrong, as i want to correct myself.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Hi Friends,
I'm Glad to see that Hr professionals like you on the forum are so geniune and concerned on matters of interviews, candidates, their attitudes and aptitudes,But One thing is for sure this all we do to ensure that right candidates are inducted in for the growth of employer company .I have a little higher vision and foresee that all we do as a employee, is for the bussiness run by our bussiness heads.The owner who runs the bussiness will always lookout for the best of the best people to join in so that the company can reach to highest levels in bussiness, under such circumstances feedback and other informations from previous employers although very important from the bussiness intelligence point of view but an hr professional while conducting the interview must know that what actually he is looking out for, in the candidate keeping in mind that information (+ve/-ve feedback) given by the candidate regarding the previous employer should be viewed as intelligence inputs and as a guage to understand the integrity of the candidate.This is the need of the time now because the competition in the industry is so tough that talent is easy to get but it tough to get Talent with loyalty, integrity, dedication and humane understanding. Hr Community has the greater challenges like this now.
Thanks and warm regards,
Majumdar Bk
From India, Vadodara
I'm Glad to see that Hr professionals like you on the forum are so geniune and concerned on matters of interviews, candidates, their attitudes and aptitudes,But One thing is for sure this all we do to ensure that right candidates are inducted in for the growth of employer company .I have a little higher vision and foresee that all we do as a employee, is for the bussiness run by our bussiness heads.The owner who runs the bussiness will always lookout for the best of the best people to join in so that the company can reach to highest levels in bussiness, under such circumstances feedback and other informations from previous employers although very important from the bussiness intelligence point of view but an hr professional while conducting the interview must know that what actually he is looking out for, in the candidate keeping in mind that information (+ve/-ve feedback) given by the candidate regarding the previous employer should be viewed as intelligence inputs and as a guage to understand the integrity of the candidate.This is the need of the time now because the competition in the industry is so tough that talent is easy to get but it tough to get Talent with loyalty, integrity, dedication and humane understanding. Hr Community has the greater challenges like this now.
Thanks and warm regards,
Majumdar Bk
From India, Vadodara
Agreed, Every candidate face Interview for his professional growth and this formal question should not be asked by the Interviewer. An Interviewer should come with the updated recruitment technologies in front of the candidate. Asking such formal question shows in-competencies of the Interviewer.
Sushil Garg
From India, Pune
Sushil Garg
From India, Pune
@Bijay : Well said !! I agree !
@Sushil : Please elaborate on Updated recruitment technologies, which can help recruiters gauge intelligence on subjective issues of the candidate's background ! and real reason for job change !
From Kuwait, Salmiya
@Sushil : Please elaborate on Updated recruitment technologies, which can help recruiters gauge intelligence on subjective issues of the candidate's background ! and real reason for job change !
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Hi John,
Now we have had enough on this topic and what I feel from this discussion is
that you are right to an extent that we should avoid this question . But at the same time its our prime responsibility to engage a person who is not only talented but also stable also. No owner would like to engage a candidate who is very frequent in changing the jobs as is the trend atleast in some parts of Indian Industry.
So the question should not be avoided if the candidate is a frequent changer as in my opinion,
In the first year of job: The company invests on the new employee.
In the second Year : The individual justifies his salary.
Only in the 3rd year : The individual starts giving something back to Industry.
So its better to scrutiny in the first stage and be sure. If the candidate is stable enough say for 2-3 years then we can avoid this question. This is what I feel , I may be wrong also.
Amarjeet Singh
DGM HR, EX-Lawyer
09416000573
From India, Mumbai
Now we have had enough on this topic and what I feel from this discussion is
that you are right to an extent that we should avoid this question . But at the same time its our prime responsibility to engage a person who is not only talented but also stable also. No owner would like to engage a candidate who is very frequent in changing the jobs as is the trend atleast in some parts of Indian Industry.
So the question should not be avoided if the candidate is a frequent changer as in my opinion,
In the first year of job: The company invests on the new employee.
In the second Year : The individual justifies his salary.
Only in the 3rd year : The individual starts giving something back to Industry.
So its better to scrutiny in the first stage and be sure. If the candidate is stable enough say for 2-3 years then we can avoid this question. This is what I feel , I may be wrong also.
Amarjeet Singh
DGM HR, EX-Lawyer
09416000573
From India, Mumbai
Dear Mr. Amarjeet Singh
Greetings.
1) Referring your operational strategy marked in bold, is it applicable to all Employees(recruited) irrespective of their position in HIERARCHY?
2) Does any organisation needs more than a year or lets say 18months time to justify employees performance? (Not applicable for entry level employees)
Considering your experience, i would appreciate if can you throw some light in this arena. Kindly do consider my request.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Greetings.
1) Referring your operational strategy marked in bold, is it applicable to all Employees(recruited) irrespective of their position in HIERARCHY?
2) Does any organisation needs more than a year or lets say 18months time to justify employees performance? (Not applicable for entry level employees)
Considering your experience, i would appreciate if can you throw some light in this arena. Kindly do consider my request.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Amerjeet,
I agree with what you are saying up to a point. If you have a robust recruitment and selection process in place, then you are more likely to get the right sort of person who will turn out to be an asset to the company and "earn his keep" and enhance the bottom line so to speak.
Whilst there maybe legitimate reasons for a person to change jobs frequently, an "unstable job history" ALWAYS rings alarm bells with me and unless I could find a very good reason to interview this person, I automatically reject the application. One short term job I could accept as there may have been extenuating circumstances, but not a consistent history of job changes within short time frames. It indicates a lack of loyalty, maybe an unwillingness to dig in for the long haul, or a person who just applies for the wrong type of jobs.
I would never ever tell an interviewer I left my last job because I hated the manager or the company wouldn't give me such and such etc. Many interviewers would get the idea that you are a difficult person and a troublemaker (even if you are not) and you do not want to let them think that.
I have worked with some of the nastiest, most horrible managers you could ever meet, yet I never tell anyone about them. When I am asked questions about dealing with difficult people, etc, I just talk about being professional, getting on with the job and making sure that my work is beyond reproach. Yes, some may see it as being evasive, but I see it as being professional.
The other thing that has not been mentioned in our discussion here is the fact that you never know who knows who in this world now. So you could end up bagging a former manager who turns out to be a friend or acquaintance of the person who is interviewing you. What are your chances of getting that job then??
From Australia, Melbourne
I agree with what you are saying up to a point. If you have a robust recruitment and selection process in place, then you are more likely to get the right sort of person who will turn out to be an asset to the company and "earn his keep" and enhance the bottom line so to speak.
Whilst there maybe legitimate reasons for a person to change jobs frequently, an "unstable job history" ALWAYS rings alarm bells with me and unless I could find a very good reason to interview this person, I automatically reject the application. One short term job I could accept as there may have been extenuating circumstances, but not a consistent history of job changes within short time frames. It indicates a lack of loyalty, maybe an unwillingness to dig in for the long haul, or a person who just applies for the wrong type of jobs.
I would never ever tell an interviewer I left my last job because I hated the manager or the company wouldn't give me such and such etc. Many interviewers would get the idea that you are a difficult person and a troublemaker (even if you are not) and you do not want to let them think that.
I have worked with some of the nastiest, most horrible managers you could ever meet, yet I never tell anyone about them. When I am asked questions about dealing with difficult people, etc, I just talk about being professional, getting on with the job and making sure that my work is beyond reproach. Yes, some may see it as being evasive, but I see it as being professional.
The other thing that has not been mentioned in our discussion here is the fact that you never know who knows who in this world now. So you could end up bagging a former manager who turns out to be a friend or acquaintance of the person who is interviewing you. What are your chances of getting that job then??
From Australia, Melbourne
HI,
Even I do agree with what Mr.Khader has to say.
Well I would like to share that as an interviewer many times it so happened that candidates do speak out them selves the reason for leaving their organization and i dont think there is any thing negative about it.
its all about our perception and identifying the qualities in a person,if his experience and attitude towards work and other qualities is good & positive then I dont think it should matter.
Infact at times have observed that only those people speak out who have actually not been treated well by their ex employer.
And there are people whose answers are very diplomatic during the interview and if in case get selelcted they turn out to be the worst employee in the org.So if one is being honest, should be considered not to be bad always.
Thanks & Regards
Bonhishikha Majumdar
From India, Mumbai
Even I do agree with what Mr.Khader has to say.
Well I would like to share that as an interviewer many times it so happened that candidates do speak out them selves the reason for leaving their organization and i dont think there is any thing negative about it.
its all about our perception and identifying the qualities in a person,if his experience and attitude towards work and other qualities is good & positive then I dont think it should matter.
Infact at times have observed that only those people speak out who have actually not been treated well by their ex employer.
And there are people whose answers are very diplomatic during the interview and if in case get selelcted they turn out to be the worst employee in the org.So if one is being honest, should be considered not to be bad always.
Thanks & Regards
Bonhishikha Majumdar
From India, Mumbai
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Negative Feedback.pdf