• Replies 15 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 7695 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Challenging recruitment decisions

Andre
I wanted to ask that if as a candidate I either do not have full professional confidence in the person(s) making the decision, felt they let unnecessary personal / subjective factors influence their choice of candidate, or simply feel that they got it wrong, in terms I was the strongest candidate and they took the wrong or a weaker person etc. 
Although this can be a professionally sensitive and often a potentially embarrassing area for discussion, and I also recognise that legally, no one can force an organisation to take them (unless there is evidence of open discrimination which in case would be settled at an employment tribunal):
* Is it professionally and ethically  considered the right or moral thing to do to, to challenge the judgement of an interviewer(s) and ask to take the matter higher up to their superiors to either review their decision or offer me the opportunity of a second interview with a different person(s)? 
* Is it normally the case that once a company have decided that they do not wish to employ you (for whatever reasons), it is usually very difficult to try and get them to reverse that decision or have a change of mind? 
Answers I have received in the past in relation to this are:
 
Hi Andre,

To answer both of your questions:

1. There is no benefit in challenging the judgment of an interviewer and taking your case to their superior. Remember: you are the outsider in an interview situation. Companies will stand behind their employees' decision. And you will appear to be a troublemaker who will make their lives difficult should they hire you. 
2. Once they have decided not to hire you, it is impossible to get them to change their mind. The best you could hope for is that you get a call back, based on someone else not taking the position you applied for. In that case, you would be called back because they saw something they liked. Complaining about the process will not make you someone they like.

It's tough, but you have your take your knocks and move on to the next opportunity, hopefully having learned from each interview. And it's important to always remain courteous, not matter how you feel you have been treated because, as I say, you never know when someone else might turn down a job and it is then offered to the next preferred person in the queue.

Hope this helps. 
What are all thoughts on the matter, bearing in mind that we all have monthly outgoings to cover so if one does not get a job, it always has certain consequences and a knock on effect? 
Parents

  • People often say that a job interview is a two way process in terms that the employer is interviewing the candidate and the candidate is interviewing the employer.

    However, here is the catch. The employer ultimately decides, so whilst a candidate is free to decline a job offer extended to them, they cannot force the job if they feel they are right for it but the employer does not.

    Other people decide and maybe think about how many different types of jobs and opportunities you have lost and would have personally and professionally excelled in, but because 'other people decide and choose,' you never got a look in.

    It's not in your direct control as you may perform excellently on the day but someone else has the final word and say.  

  • in reply to Andre
    But unless you are going to suggest 'work trials' for every single candidate, then although the interview process isn't perfect by any means, its all we've got.

    And if I'm the employer I will decide who will work for me - similarly, as you say, the employee can refuse.

    How else can it possibly be?
    .
  • in reply to David Perry

    Affirmative action and quotas to help get people into jobs as they have in the US and which also work.

  • in reply to Andre
    The courts in the USA have pretty much removed quotas and affirmative action is aimed at ensuring that the workforce represents the population in terms of gender and ethnicity. That won't help someone who has the relevant qualification, but not the skill set for a role.

    The other thing to bear in mind, is that the employment only has a fixed amount of role available. Someone may have performed excellently, but someone else may have performed slightly better. I was once involved in interviews, where there were two excellent candidates. Both could easily have been appointed to the job, but we only had one job. One had slightly more experience in a particular element of the role, so we selected that candidate.

    The key thing we have to remember is that as a candidate, we have no idea who else has applied, the skills, knowledge and experience of those people and also how they performed in the interview. Therefore we cannot possibly know that we are the most suitable candidate. If someone could not see this and was trying to argue that the interviewer made the wrong decision, it means that they can only really see situations from their own point of view (They believe that they are the best person for the job and therefore the other person must be wrong if they do not see that). Being unable to see situations from others' point of view is always going to make it difficult for someone to progress and particularly in HR, where you constantly have to see the situation from other people's point of view.
Reply
  • in reply to Andre
    The courts in the USA have pretty much removed quotas and affirmative action is aimed at ensuring that the workforce represents the population in terms of gender and ethnicity. That won't help someone who has the relevant qualification, but not the skill set for a role.

    The other thing to bear in mind, is that the employment only has a fixed amount of role available. Someone may have performed excellently, but someone else may have performed slightly better. I was once involved in interviews, where there were two excellent candidates. Both could easily have been appointed to the job, but we only had one job. One had slightly more experience in a particular element of the role, so we selected that candidate.

    The key thing we have to remember is that as a candidate, we have no idea who else has applied, the skills, knowledge and experience of those people and also how they performed in the interview. Therefore we cannot possibly know that we are the most suitable candidate. If someone could not see this and was trying to argue that the interviewer made the wrong decision, it means that they can only really see situations from their own point of view (They believe that they are the best person for the job and therefore the other person must be wrong if they do not see that). Being unable to see situations from others' point of view is always going to make it difficult for someone to progress and particularly in HR, where you constantly have to see the situation from other people's point of view.
Children
No Data