If the employee is a great fit and had the necessary experience, what led you to reject him? What element of the nervousness didn't convince the hiring manager they were the right person for the job?

If that genuinely was the reason they were rejected, then that's the feedback you must give. I would certainly mention the fact you didn't think he asked enough questions as that is something he can work on for future applications.

However, I would say that being nervous in an interview might actually be a sign he really wanted the job - I only tend to get nervous in interviews when I really think it's the perfect job for me. If I'm not sure about the job I'll come across cool, calm and collected!

Hi Iwona

I agree with Lesley that nerves for me are never really a downside to a candidate as long as the rest of the interview went fine. Clearly not too nervous an individual if they have asked for feedback instead of just accepting the decision.

Anyway I digress, I think I'd word it as something like "another candidate just slightly had the edge as they asked a number of questions very relevant to the role which we felt demonstrated their understanding of the role and our business more than other candidates".

(PS - could it be they didn't ask enough questions because the interview actually covered all they wanted to know? Could it be the other candidate asked more questions because they actually needed clarity on some aspects, or didn't understand the role? )

In reply to Samantha:

Agree wholeheartedly with colleagues: unless brash self confidence etc is an essential requirement for the role, it's incomprehensible to me that someone otherwise suitable gets rejected just for being nervous. Often, such candidates prove far more genuine than those with a shiny veneer of self assurance.

And if you tell someone they didn't get the job because they were nervous and if the nervousness is connected with any 'protected characteristic' then it's an unlawful discrimination claim waiting to happen.

Hi Iwona,

Personally, I wouldn't like to be a candidate facing your company. In answer to your question; all you can be is honest in feeding back. I would hope you'd tell them the truth.

You won't overlook nervousness during an interview when someone has relevant experience and is a great cultural fit. Are you looking for the preverbial unicorn? What questions did you expect? Did you/someone else not provide this information (role/team) already?

You've had to reject ALL the candidates from this process. Is that not telling?

If I was coaching your candidate through this process (I work in recruitment), and the feedback they got was they didn't ask enough questions, I would tell them they had dodged a bullet from a company with unrealistic expectations.

Kind regards,
Laura

In reply to Laura Fazackarley:

Just spotted all candidates were rejected.

I take back my earlier comment about saying another candidate pipped them to the post!

If this candidate was better than any of the others but missed out due to nerves/not asking enough questions (due to nerves?) , would it be worth getting them back in for a brew with the team/co-workers to see how they are when they are relaxed and not in whats always a stressful situation for even the most confident of people who just hide it better? We've done this, I haven't been present as its been more of a "meet the team" and me being there would change the dynamics but I've caught up with the team afterwards to see what they think.

I've never been surprised yet that someone who was pretty much shaking like a leaf in an interview is absolutely nothing like that in a 'normal' situation.

I try very hard to encourage all of our managers to use a points-based competency question system (I go as far as to write them suggested questions relevant to the role). This doesn't need to take away instinct or gut from the process (in fact, it shouldn't: those feelings are important) but it does mean that, if a candidate is rejected and asks for feedback (frankly, I think that if you interview someone, you should *offer* feedback, not wait to be asked) then you can immediately produce the score sheet and spot the areas in which their answers were weak or lacked convincing evidence of comptence.

Incidentally, this also has the effect of at least partly overcoming prejudice arising from a candidate's manner or appearance. If their answers to the questions were strong and well-evidenced then the way they presented those answers will often be overlooked or at least treated as another competency, measured alongside all the others.

Remember: if you base decisions on how well someone performed at interview, what you'll get is employees who are good at interviews.

Hi Iwona

I have just noticed that this was your first ever post.

While I have to agree with the responses thus far, I hope you will come back and post again. I think this forum comes into its own when people disagree and we get to see other points of view. My experience is that people usually manage to disagree respectfully, but it might not have been quite the response you were hoping for.

I think the reason you are finding it hard to explain the rejection is that it is for a flimsy reason.

You haven't entered a biography but are you in a stand alone HR role? Were you interviewing with a particularly assertive line manager who took against the candidate?

Hi Iwona and welcome to the Community, even if we do seem to have been a little critical of this first posting (but I hope you would agree, constructively so)

I think most of the key points are covered above: Interviews are not simply a matter of candidates (or interviewers) "ticking boxes" or asking the right number of questions or not seeming nervous. If we had not worked for months, or were returners after illness or other absence, would not we all be anxious to please, and perhaps not demand too many answers from our interviewers?

One of the best junior appointments I even made was a candidate who seemed disinterested until I gave up on the structured interview I had intended (I agree with Robey that "scoring" interviews is a good way to ensure that genuinely essential and desirable issues are accounted for and assessed fairly and meaningfully) and asked why, with his excellent experience and knowledge, he was not more engaged with the role on offer?

His answer was that he knew he would not get the job, as a previous (bullying) manager would give a reference recording his dismissal for violence. He had, it seems, been cornered by this manager and pushed past him to get away from his abusive haranguing. The manager slipped and fell, then had the now-candidate disciplined for "punching" him to the floor. (Witnesses to the incident notwithstanding).

So, just to be contrary, I appointed him!

He turned out to be an excellent worker and within 12 months had been promoted to a supervision role.

....And in your case, all is not lost. If his nerves were the only reason for not appointing, why not say that you had concerns regarding his apparent lack of confidence, but on reviewing the interviews you would like to offer him the role, if he is still interested?

It's your game and your ball: You chose who gets to catch it (note that is NOT a reference to that so-called-game currently inescapable on our TV screens).

You're allowed to change your mind!

P

In reply to Samantha:

"...would it be worth getting them back in for a brew with the team/co-workers to see how they are when they are relaxed and not in whats always a stressful situation for even the most confident of people who just hide it better?"

Excellent suggestion, Samantha.

In reply to Peter:

Peter: (note that is NOT a reference to that so-called-game currently inescapable on our TV screens)." It doesn't appear on our TV screen - i've never even heard of it.  Oh,,,, I just typed this and realise you are probably talking about football.   Ho, Ho, silly me.

Iwona

Welcome to the community. :-)

Out of interest was the job for someone working/reporting to you or someone else? I'd be interested in what the person they were going to report to thought of the candidates?
David

Just to be contrary myself (and though I whole-heartedly agree with what's been said above), I think there may be another aspect to this. I've been in many interviews where I've suspected that someone hasn't done themselves justice because of their nerves - we all have.

But sometimes, where a role depends on good communication skills and all you have to go on is an off-tempo interview where the candidate hasn't managed to connect with the interviewers, you can't be sure that their poor communication was down to nerves. It probably was, but maybe not. Making a decision that it was "just nerves" wouldn't be right without further evidence.

If you are genuinely in the situation where no one ticks all the boxes, the suggestion to get the candidate back in for an informal chat with the team, a tour of the site, etc, might give you the opportunity to check that properly. You certainly can't lose.

Finally, I agree that I'm more nervous in interviews when I really want the job - but I've also been more nervous in interviews when the interview set up has put me off balance for one reason or another. It might be a good opportunity to review the process and the personalities involved - because if all the candidates failed because they were too nervous, it probably wasn't about them.

In reply to Lesley:

I completely agree that it is normal to get nervous at interviews; however he was super-nervous throughout the whole interview. This role requires an individual to think on their feet, being able to stay calm in stressful situations and solve difficult problems. This is also a managerial position and the hiring manager was concerned that the indiviudal might not be able to communicate effectively with the team while under pressure.

In reply to Samantha:

Thank you for your advice. I do agree that he might not have asked many questions as the inteview could have covered all the important aspects; however it was perceived as if he was not interested in the role/team.

In reply to David:

Thank you for your reply David, as mentioned previously this role requires an individual to be very confident and calm. The fact that the candidate was very nervous was not the main reason why he was rejected.