• Replies 75 replies
  • Subscribers 2 subscribers
  • Views 10553 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Really, really weird interview...

Teresa

I've just had a second interview with a local medium-sized company for the role of HR manager. First interview was standard with several 'Give an example of when you...' and 'What would you do if...' questions. So far, so good.

I was one of two asked back for a second interview. The second interview, which with the same two interviewers as before but also the CEO, was an hour of 'If you were an animal, what would it be', 'Who would you most like to have round for dinner', 'Where's your ideal holiday', and 'What's your perfect weekend'. 

Eh??? Did I miss the CIPD's briefing on new questioning regime?

Were they just trying to see if I'd fit in (which is what I was told) or were there ulterior motives behind each of the questions. Because I said 'hedgehog' to the animal question does this mean I'm prickly and hide from conflict; should I have said something more aggressive like Rottweiler or polecat? As 'Italy' was my ideal holiday does that mean I'm unadventurous and conventional; should I have gone backpacking in the Andes or building schools in Malawi? By the end of the hour I was absolutely drained. 

Joking aside, it was actually a surreal experience and made me wonder what I was getting myself into. Luckily, I didn't get the job. Anyone else had - or conducted - an interview like this?

  • in reply to Kätlin
    HI Katlin

    Just to point out that being discriminated against in this manner may well not be 'fair recruitment' but in itself it doesn't risk Tribunal action because affinity with particular wild animals isn't a 'protected characteristic' and therefore it wouldn't be *unlawful* discrimination if an employer discriminated against eg a hedgehog person and instead preferred eg someone with polecat or ferret or skunk or whatever identification. (And - being even more pedantic, but it's a similar important aspect of employment law - Tribunals don't have any powers at all to fine anyone appearing before them - they only have powers to order them to pay in full or part compensation claims directly to claimants according to the legal rules applying to each particular claim.)
  • in reply to David
    David, I think Miss Tiggywinkle and Toad of Toad Hall would have something to say about that... ;)
  • in reply to David
    Thank you David for clarifying the distinction between a fine and ordering that a compensation be paid, I will keep it in mind :)

    As for discrimination, what I meant was not that identifying with a certain animal can be classed as a protected characteristic. But, in a hypothetical scenario, if one of the candidates did have a protected characteristic, and they challenged not being given the job, surely it would be really difficult for the company to prove that the decision was not based on that characteristic if the interview questions were nonsense? If you have a proper interview and score the answers in a fair and consistent way, that gives you the proof you need to say that a candidate didn't get the job due to not having the skills, qualifications, experience, knowledge of a specialist area, ability to answer specific scenario questions etc. That will be impossible to do if they questions were silly, as there is no way of quantifying the responses to them.
  • in reply to Kätlin
    Hi again Kaitlin

    But a Tribunal wouldn’t normally substitute their own views about the silliness or otherwise of the selection process for the preferred selection criteria of the employer. If they were happy that there had been some manner of selection process that however wacky was unconnected with any unlawful discrimination then they probably wouldn’t wish to intrude
  • in reply to David
    It's true though that the burden of proof shifts to the employer when there is a case for discrimination - so the employer's daft questions will make it much harder for them to demonstrate that there isn't a case than if they had sensible and structured criteria they were working to.
  • in reply to Nina Waters
    I'm well aware of the shifting burden of proof, but as I said, *if* the employer can demonstrate that they used selection criteria unconnected with any protected characteristic, the Tribunal is unlikely to want to interfere, however 'daft' they appear to be - eg astrology or graphology or affinity with particular countryside flora and /or fauna
  • 'If you were an animal .....'. A previous boss commented once that HR Consultants should answer 'Seagull' to that question (fly in, swoop about, make a lot of noise, s**t on everyone, and then fly off with your chips).
  • I once walked into an interview where I was asked to take a seat and there were no chairs in the whole room apart from the one the interviewer was sitting on.... apparently it was a "test" to see what i would do. I didn't take the job.
  • in reply to Alun
    Maybe there wasn't really a job either ;)

    Weird.
  • in reply to Alun
    I once interviewed for a very senior role with a trustee who was in banking. He was astounded when I set up the room with a chair for the candidate we would be interviewing. He made it clear that in their organisation, candidates aren't given the luxury of a seat (this was clearly despite the fact that the interview was quite lengthy, for our most senior role and that the rest of the panel would be seated).

    But hey, maybe it wasn't that weird if we weren't actually hiding the chair!