Hi friends!
Actually, as per my experience in HR in India, HR interviews often involve fake answers, smiles, attitudes, and preconceived expected responses from both HRs and candidates. It sometimes feels like HR interviews are merely a formality to progress with the recruitment process. Answers to common questions such as "Why do you want to join this company?" or "Why do you want to leave your current company?" tend to be artificial, rehearsed, and standardized. I used to find it monotonous hearing the same rehearsed responses in consecutive interviews, whether for volume or lateral hiring. Despite this, I could often sense different vibes from the candidates compared to what they were saying.
I understand that this has become the norm of the day, where we all tend to follow the same patterns. However, there should be an element of truth and genuineness in interviews so that we can truly explore different personalities and make informed decisions in terms of hiring and organizational development.
I am unsure who advocates for such standardization of interviews - is it the HR professionals or the candidates?
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
30Actually, as per my experience in HR in India, HR interviews often involve fake answers, smiles, attitudes, and preconceived expected responses from both HRs and candidates. It sometimes feels like HR interviews are merely a formality to progress with the recruitment process. Answers to common questions such as "Why do you want to join this company?" or "Why do you want to leave your current company?" tend to be artificial, rehearsed, and standardized. I used to find it monotonous hearing the same rehearsed responses in consecutive interviews, whether for volume or lateral hiring. Despite this, I could often sense different vibes from the candidates compared to what they were saying.
I understand that this has become the norm of the day, where we all tend to follow the same patterns. However, there should be an element of truth and genuineness in interviews so that we can truly explore different personalities and make informed decisions in terms of hiring and organizational development.
I am unsure who advocates for such standardization of interviews - is it the HR professionals or the candidates?
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Hussain,
However hard we may try to be perfect, it's not going to happen because no one can be 100% perfect. Standardization is a continuous process where fine-tuning is happening every day.
In my opinion:
1) HR (INTERVIEWER) should be very straightforward while promoting humor during the interview process to understand the candidate (interviewee) much better, rather than just being serious (HITLER FACE). This will help to reach a stage of understanding between HR & CANDIDATE.
2) Must look into criteria for recruiting the best candidate from all aspects rather than 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 the extra mile to achieve targets assigned, etc., rather than just convincing the HR by accepting the role for the sake of a good package. Of course, everyone wants to earn a better salary, but priority shouldn't be given to salary. In fact, the terms from the candidate should be like "I WILL PERFORM MY BEST AND REWARD MY PERFORMANCE, RELEVANTLY." This should come into the picture only after qualifying in all rounds.
The very best practice is to 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 have 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 the candidate's psychology while limiting responses to precision or proportional to the query posted. It should be a well-planned activity.
Kindly do let me know if I am wrong, as I want to correct myself.
With profound regards,
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
However hard we may try to be perfect, it's not going to happen because no one can be 100% perfect. Standardization is a continuous process where fine-tuning is happening every day.
In my opinion:
1) HR (INTERVIEWER) should be very straightforward while promoting humor during the interview process to understand the candidate (interviewee) much better, rather than just being serious (HITLER FACE). This will help to reach a stage of understanding between HR & CANDIDATE.
2) Must look into criteria for recruiting the best candidate from all aspects rather than 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 the extra mile to achieve targets assigned, etc., rather than just convincing the HR by accepting the role for the sake of a good package. Of course, everyone wants to earn a better salary, but priority shouldn't be given to salary. In fact, the terms from the candidate should be like "I WILL PERFORM MY BEST AND REWARD MY PERFORMANCE, RELEVANTLY." This should come into the picture only after qualifying in all rounds.
The very best practice is to 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 have 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 the candidate's psychology while limiting responses to precision or proportional to the query posted. It should be a well-planned activity.
Kindly do let me know if I am wrong, as I want to correct myself.
With profound regards,
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Friends,
I'm glad to see that HR professionals like you on the forum are so genuine and concerned about matters of interviews, candidates, their attitudes, and aptitudes. One thing is for sure: all we do is to ensure that the right candidates are inducted for the growth of the employer's company. I have a higher vision and foresee that all we do as employees is for the business run by our business heads. The owner who runs the business will always look out for the best people to join so that the company can reach the highest levels in business.
Under such circumstances, feedback and other information from previous employers, although very important from a business intelligence standpoint, should be viewed by an HR professional conducting the interview as intelligence inputs and as a gauge to understand the integrity of the candidate. It is essential for an HR professional to know what they are looking for in a candidate, considering the information (positive/negative feedback) provided by the candidate about previous employers. This is crucial now because the competition in the industry is tough, making talent easy to get but tough to find talent with loyalty, integrity, dedication, and humane understanding. The HR community faces greater challenges like this now.
Thanks and warm regards,
Majumdar Bk
From India, Vadodara
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I'm glad to see that HR professionals like you on the forum are so genuine and concerned about matters of interviews, candidates, their attitudes, and aptitudes. One thing is for sure: all we do is to ensure that the right candidates are inducted for the growth of the employer's company. I have a higher vision and foresee that all we do as employees is for the business run by our business heads. The owner who runs the business will always look out for the best people to join so that the company can reach the highest levels in business.
Under such circumstances, feedback and other information from previous employers, although very important from a business intelligence standpoint, should be viewed by an HR professional conducting the interview as intelligence inputs and as a gauge to understand the integrity of the candidate. It is essential for an HR professional to know what they are looking for in a candidate, considering the information (positive/negative feedback) provided by the candidate about previous employers. This is crucial now because the competition in the industry is tough, making talent easy to get but tough to find talent with loyalty, integrity, dedication, and humane understanding. The HR community faces greater challenges like this now.
Thanks and warm regards,
Majumdar Bk
From India, Vadodara
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Agreed, every candidate faces interviews for professional growth, and this formal question should not be asked by the interviewer. An interviewer should come with updated recruitment technologies in front of the candidate. Asking such a formal question shows incompetencies of the interviewer.
Sushil Garg
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sushil Garg
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
@Bijay: Well said!! I agree!
@Sushil: Please elaborate on updated recruitment technologies that can help recruiters gauge intelligence on subjective issues of the candidate's background and the real reason for job change!
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
@Sushil: Please elaborate on updated recruitment technologies that can help recruiters gauge intelligence on subjective issues of the candidate's background and the real reason for job change!
From Kuwait, Salmiya
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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, it's our prime responsibility to engage a person who is not only talented but also stable. No owner would like to engage a candidate who is very frequent in changing jobs, as is the trend in some parts of the Indian Industry. So the question should not be avoided if the candidate is a frequent changer. In my opinion, in the first year of a job, the company invests in the new employee. In the second year: the individual justifies his salary. Only in the 3rd year: the individual starts giving something back to the industry. So it's better to scrutinize 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Amarjeet Singh,
Greetings.
1) Referring to your operational strategy marked in bold, is it applicable to all employees (recruited) irrespective of their position in the hierarchy?
2) Does any organization need more than a year, or let's say 18 months, to justify employees' performance? (Not applicable for entry-level employees)
Considering your experience, I would appreciate it if you could shed some light on this arena. Kindly do consider my request.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Greetings.
1) Referring to your operational strategy marked in bold, is it applicable to all employees (recruited) irrespective of their position in the hierarchy?
2) Does any organization need more than a year, or let's say 18 months, to justify employees' performance? (Not applicable for entry-level employees)
Considering your experience, I would appreciate it if you could shed some light on this arena. Kindly do consider my request.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agreed with Amarjeet. This question should not be asked to an experienced professional. Sushil Garg DGM-IT M:8976046014
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 may be legitimate reasons for a person to change jobs frequently, an "unstable job history" ALWAYS rings alarm bells with me. 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??
---
I have corrected the spelling and grammar errors in the text and ensured proper paragraph formatting with single line breaks between paragraphs. The original meaning and tone of the message have been preserved. Let me know if you need any further assistance.
From Australia, Melbourne
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 may be legitimate reasons for a person to change jobs frequently, an "unstable job history" ALWAYS rings alarm bells with me. 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??
---
I have corrected the spelling and grammar errors in the text and ensured proper paragraph formatting with single line breaks between paragraphs. The original meaning and tone of the message have been preserved. Let me know if you need any further assistance.
From Australia, Melbourne
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Even I do agree with what Mr. Khader has to say. I would like to share that as an interviewer, many times it so happened that candidates do speak out themselves the reason for leaving their organization, and I don't think there is anything negative about it. It's all about our perception and identifying the qualities in a person. If his experience, attitude towards work, and other qualities are good and positive, then I don't think it should matter.
In fact, at times, I have observed that only those people speak out who have actually not been treated well by their ex-employer. There are people whose answers are very diplomatic during the interview, and if in case they get selected, they turn out to be the worst employees in the organization. So if one is being honest, it should be considered not to be bad always.
Thanks & Regards,
Bonhishikha Majumdar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Even I do agree with what Mr. Khader has to say. I would like to share that as an interviewer, many times it so happened that candidates do speak out themselves the reason for leaving their organization, and I don't think there is anything negative about it. It's all about our perception and identifying the qualities in a person. If his experience, attitude towards work, and other qualities are good and positive, then I don't think it should matter.
In fact, at times, I have observed that only those people speak out who have actually not been treated well by their ex-employer. There are people whose answers are very diplomatic during the interview, and if in case they get selected, they turn out to be the worst employees in the organization. So if one is being honest, it should be considered not to be bad always.
Thanks & Regards,
Bonhishikha Majumdar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.