Is there really a job?

We are forever being bombarded with information about “winning interview techniques” and how to “make that lasting impression”, which is hopefully for the right reasons. From reviewing the resources I have acquired, the consistent themes are always about doing your research; knowing your proposed career direction; why this specific job; where you anticipate being in five years; preparing for likely interview questions and having some questions you would like answered.

There are plenty of reports of a candidate’s “typical negative feedback” supplied by employers. But remembering an interview is a two-way process, it is also about deciding if you want to work for the company. While employers have cited candidate’s having “a lack of interest and enthusiasm”, I have seen this reflected equally from the interview panel. Which surely beggars the question, “why did you call me for an interview?”

I would always anticipate being interviewed by at least the current post-holder and their manager. But ideally, an interview with the person I will be reporting to and their manager. Sometimes having a Human Resources function included, to ensure the interview process “is-a-fair-one” is quite usual. But being interviewed by a new and junior staff member, or a trainee, does not inspire much confidence. Ditto the recruiter who has not worked for the company very long. However, recruiting a new team could be their first assignment, so one needs to keep an open mind about that possibility. One recruitment agency constantly pushed the idea “You wouldn’t be at the interview if you didn’t have the attributes they were looking for”. But what is overlooked, as I have found in all my years of working and applying for jobs, is an extraordinary number of “time wasters”.

So what actually happens behind the scenes? These are some of the popular situations I have encountered. Either as an interview candidate or witnessed taking place in the companies where I worked.

Someone has threatened to leave the business

• Ultimately, the current post-holder did not leave. However:
• In the interim time they spent floundering, the company did not want to be caught short. That is without someone ready to take over the reins, with the existing post-holder available to handover or, worse still, “train-the-new-person”. Therefore:
• This would explain why, to quote one meidcal sales recruitment consultant’s favourite phrase, “the-job-evaporated”.

But maybe …

There was never a job to begin with

• The advertisement was just a fact-finding exercise, to see the calibre of potential candidates available. In other words “Testing-the-water”, or the cliché phrase currently in vogue, to ascertain the response rate.
• A good example of this was in one nursing journal. The advertisement I responded to proudly told us “we have two ex-nurses in our employment. Hence this advert”. This advert being in a nursing journal and boasting of “well-paid-opportunities” in an estate agent chain.
• Thirty years later, I am only just considering if the estate agent was really creating a database. In less techy days gone by, and pre-GDPR, “commercial intelligence” was good for a client to have. It was also good for selling-on, or stealing, by someone underhand leaving their company.

But it could also be about …

Marketing ploys

Another possibility l never considered, until a job-seeker shared their reflections on interview experiences, was of “marketing”. He theorized:

• A recruitment drive is a company’s marketing strategy. Thereby:
• It creates an illusion of being a progressive and expanding organisation, which they might not be. Hence:
• They need lots of dynamic new staff on board, which in reality they do not need, nor will they be hiring. So maybe:
• The recruiter is trying to prove themselves. Either, because they are new and they want to impress. Alternatively, they are incompetent and this is their last chance before getting fired!

But showing their boss they can produce “lots of amazing candidates”, which in reality they probably cannot, might be reflected in the next fiasco…

Recruiting alongside an advertised vacancy

Companies hiring staff sometimes write in their advertisements “No agencies”. Otherwise, recruiters start contacting them offering to help. So, I would think it odd if a company is simultaneously recruiting for their advertised role via an agency. With one exception:

• Some roles are very specialised. So the recruiter is trying to appeal to candidates that are not considering a job change. The number of applicants having the experience required might be small, hence sourcing them will be difficult. Therefore, a company will utilise every resource to find their applicant. But, the alternative situation is:
• A recruitment consultant is trying to push their own candidates on an employer, who is not seeking their help.
• Being “in-the-know” about advertised roles, the recruitment consultant is proactively getting prepared. In the process, they are telling their candidates “we are recruiting for a job at …” although they are not. Therefore the recruiter can come to the rescue, if they ever get that call about the advertised vacancy asking “help!”
• While the above is commendable as an interpretation of “business generation” [HA-HA-HA], the recruiter is creating the illusion “we are recruiting for a job at …”. One for which the organisation will allegedly be “still-reviewing-CVs” and consequently saying “No decisions have been made yet” because the recruiter was never involved.

The above example of “business generation” might also result in …

"Forced interviews"

Being contacted multiple times may result in a company getting really fed up with a recruitment consultant’s pestering. Therefore, what I’ve seen happen many times is:

• The organisation agrees to interview the candidate, just to shut someone up.
• In my bosses case it was, as he put it, “tit-for-tat time wasting!” The aftermath being:
• The candidate hassles the recruiter, who in turn hassles the organisation, because they told the hopeful candidate “There’s a job at …” when clearly they knew there was not.

A polar opposite of the “forced” interview might be…

The interview experience

It is often stressed, when searching for jobs, how you can “get-valuable-interview-experience”. Theoretically, a good experience even if you did not get the job. A dress-rehearsal, if you like, for the successful interview. If you fluff-it, in some way you never considered being prepared for, “you-know-what-to-do-next-time”. But:

• Sometimes an interview, unwittingly, presents you as guinea pig fodder! Effectively, being shortlisted is providing you to a junior or trainee. Giving them an opportunity to practice interviewing candidates. Something for their appraisal, or for some other project to practice and reflect on. Maybe, just for the sake of it, “giving-them-something-to-do”.
• This situation can become apparent when an interviewer is inappropriately junior to the job they are recruiting for. It can also become apparent when an interviewer arrives flustered and unprepared and does not know basic details about the job, or why you are a good fit. However, this might get masked by a sheet of “standard-interview-questions”.

So what have we learnt?

Job gurus may tell you “Going for interviews is a numbers game” and “by-the-law-of-averages” a positive outcome will eventually be achieved. But are they trying to convince themselves, or you? If you can gain a run of interviews, in a short period of time, you can get an idea of interview questions currently in vogue. Interview practice means your subsequent interviews may be better.

So, how do you avoid the time waster’s and spot their red flags? A good question! Sometimes you may never know. Good questions I would recommend asking at an interview are:

• How many times have you recruited for this role in the past five years?
• Why is the current post-holder leaving?
• What challenges has the current post-holder faced?

Answers to those questions might disclose some hidden meaning. Initial red flags might be encoded in vague answers containing the following:

• She didn’t really need to work full-time. [Was the job “too much for her?”]
• It wasn’t really about the money. [Was the job just “a hobby?”]
• She left to look after her elderly mother. [Potential red flag to the job being awful!]

But once you’ve had the interview, or an initial interview, a company that subsequently “ummms” and “ahhhs”, as outlined below, might suggest they are not taking their recruitment processes seriously. Is that because they are not serious about recruiting? We are constantly told that recruiters are “very-busy-people”, but so are the applicants.

I work on the assumption any company serious about hiring me should be biting my hand off: To get me hired, and committed to starting, before anyone else does. For most of my jobs, that was how it happened after an interview … unless I got offered the job on the spot.

But an organisation, or recruitment consultant, stringing it out with:

• “They’re still interviewing”
• “They haven’t made any decisions”
• “I need to chase them again”
• “They are interested”
• “We only got generic feedback”

are all suggestions to me that no decision-makers were involved in the process; the company is not interested in hiring or they just want some candidates in reserve for “who-knows-what”. In other words, “time wasters”.