In reply to Steve Bridger:

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that candidates shouldn't do their research on organisations - just that ultimately it is the employer who makes the choice about who they want to work for them, the candidate can of course reject the offer but they don't get to make the initial decision.

I like candidates to ask questions at interview about the job, the people, the culture etc. it's important that they understand who we are and how we operate and that they're comfortable with this. However if a candidate interrogates me at length, at a certain point I'm going question whether they are the right fit for us and probably end up rejecting them.

So the balance of power ultimately will always sit with the employer - no matter who smart the candidate is at 'interviewing' the organisation.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

Steve, see my response above. This is not a matter of theory -v- reality, but of response to need (by the employer) -v- misdirected endeavour (by the candidate).

If you can propose a means by which the selection of one candidate from many can be made by those many candidates' choices then you are a lot cleverer than I am!

There are already many candidates who are brilliant interviewees, but when appointed turn out to be rubbish at the job! (Which is why we see so many postings about people being dismissed after their (legally fictional) "probation" period.

Knowing which employers are good or bad is therefore useful to a candidate, but will not help one iota towards being employed (or retained) by a good one if the necessary job-skills are lacking.

See a good job you can do and then check-out the employer; don't spend hundreds of hours checking out good employers who you can then only wish you had the skills to work for!

Is that rationally flawed? Has my logic finally fallen off with the last of my hair?

P :-)

In reply to Peter:

I see your point, but I think you're going off topic. Let's try and explore how the "candidates" can hold some power.

In reply to Emma:

An interesting and useful contribution Emma

It will be interesting to see if Catherine conducts primary research into this area and what she throws up in both the literature review and any surveys, opinion questionnaire or other evidence.

Whilst I tend to think that the balance is tilted more one way than the other I do accept that there is a balance of sorts and either party can and should walk away if they feel the role isn't right for them.

It would be interesting to see some evidence as to at what stage candidates walk away (and how many as a % do) and if you could then follow up these candidates and see why they walked that would add even more value.

My sense is that a far higher % of candidates get rejected by organisations than the number of organisations who get rejected (once they are in the process) by candidates.

So my working assumption would be that by the interview stage its an uneven balance but at earlier stages....there maybe more of a balance with candidates not even applying to organisations they dont wish to work for. testing that against various demographics and types of role would probably make a fascinating PhD thesis let alone 7000 words!

In reply to Steve Bridger:

It sounded rather like it: "I don't like that answer at all, it's very one-sided". Given earlier comments about the causes of one-sided-ness I find it offensive by association and would much appreciate conformation it was not so intended from the person who made it.

In reply to Peter:

Come on, Peter... I'm not going to ask Sharné to apologise for something I've already said does not require one. I also do not want to put off people posting for the first time on the Community.

In reply to Keith:

That I would agree with Keith, but it is a very different proposal than that made, which seeks to assume that identifying poor workplaces (for whatever cause) influences the choice of who is appointed. It does not. I alters only who accepts appointment and (as you rightly identify) that choice is rarely made during interview and (as Emma points out) if pursued by a candidate to excess during interview can influence any offer being made.

The PhD aspiration might also be strengthened by researching how many wasted applications might be avoided by checking of employers before making them (and subsequently not following though to interview) and how this might reduce the vast stacks of inappropriate applications offered for some roles!

P

In reply to Steve Bridger:

Steve, you are turning this into a confrontation which it need not be.

The context of the remark implied, I felt, that the earlier cause of "one sidedness" was POSSIBLY been applied to me. I felt, and feel, that it would have been appropriate for Sharne to confirm it was not. I was NOT formally complaining about the remark. Had I been so I would have made it VERY clear.

Just as I now remind you that discrimination is an issue determined by the perception of the victim, not the intent of the perpetrator, so if I had felt the comment was DELIBERATY suggesting I was a sexist dinosaur I have the right to say so and to pursue the matter.

Sharne caused me mild affront in her comment regarding what I had explained (I thought) quite clearly (and have expanded upon since), an apology would have been nice, not necessary. You (and Sharne's "likes" of your comments) are on the edge of making one necessary.

Please don't.

In reply to Peter:

P.S. I had not noticed this was your first positing Sharne. Welcome to the Community in spite of having (very) slightly ruffled my feathers. :-) Than k you for the "like" of my last to Keith. Do you now see where I'm coming from regarding the issues of "choice" at the point of offer and acceptance?

In reply to Peter:

Peter - I'm putting my foot down on this one. Sorry. In this post, Sharné said "Correct Steve, I didn't imply anything." That should have been the end of it.

I want to close off this thread now, which is a shame. No more exchanges. 

Hi Catherine you've sparked a really interesting debate here about your proposed dissertation subject! Hope you've found some value in all the insightful points of view from community members :)

In reply to Johanna:

I thought I'd 'locked' the thread to new comments ;)