general Why Job Interviews Are Pointless

[Guest]

If you need to make an income, chances are you need a job, and if you need a job that means you need to go through the dreaded job interview. I think a good majority of people hate these, and it's reasonable as to why. Many people believe these are fair determinations of who would be best for the job, but the truth is that job interviews actually are virtually completely random and do not really determine who is actually best for a job in the slightest and actually completely prevent certain types of people from getting jobs they would otherwise be qualified for.

 

Interviews are only checking a 10-30 minute scope of a person

 

Is it possible to really get an idea of how good a person is in 10-30 minutes? Every team has a bad game but if you only graded a team on one game then the worst team could be considered the best and the best team could be considered the worst. 10-30 minutes isn't enough time to grade a person on if they are qualified for a job and realistically it's not enough time to determine if a person is worthy of work.

 

Extroverts have an unfair advantage

 

If someone is introverted they are automatically at a disadvantage for the position. Interviewers expect people to talk and be lively with them, which isn't even a sign of work ethic. Introverts more or less are far less likely to get a job because they don't interview as well simply because they are not people that are comfortable warming up to people so quickly.

 

Most employers choose candidates based upon references anyways

 

A lot of interviews are only formalities. Most employers will choose someone based upon whom put in a good word for them, or if someone already in the company put in some nice words for them. A lot of the time the interview is just to see if they'll change their mind.

 

 

I can think of so many other reasons, but what are some of the reasons that you feel job interviews are completely pointless?

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

The interview isn't there to showcase your qualifications, the interviewer has probably already seen your CV (or resume if you prefer).  What the interview does do is allow the employer to see you in person, how you carry yourself, and conduct yourself.  It certainly won't give you any deep insight into that individual, but it may allow you to weed out a few people who are grossly unsuitable for the job in a way that isn't made apparent on their CV.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Concerned Bystander

[Guest]

The interview isn't there to showcase your qualifications, the interviewer has probably already seen your CV (or resume if you prefer).  What the interview does do is allow the employer to see you in person, how you carry yourself, and conduct yourself.  It certainly won't give you any deep insight into that individual, but it may allow you to weed out a few people who are grossly unsuitable for the job in a way that isn't made apparent on their CV.

 

Except it won't.

 

Most people are not themselves on their interview as they are going to try and make themselves seem better than they are and most people are nervous on an interview. So really it's not going to really weed out many people. The entire process is flawed.

[Discordian 6,013]

A lot of the time it's your personality they want, not your qualifications. In a lot of jobs, particularly no-experience or entry level jobs, they can pick just about anyone and get the same results but they don't wanna hire someone who isn't going to be easy to work with for both the managers as well as other employees.

 

People with qualifying skills are a dime a dozen. Personality and synergy are the important parts to make the machine run smoothly.

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

Except it won't.

 

Most people are not themselves on their interview as they are going to try and make themselves seem better than they are and most people are nervous on an interview. So really it's not going to really weed out many people. The entire process is flawed.

 

Do you write on you CV that you have obscene or offensive tattoos on your face?  I would expect not.  That's exactly the sort of thing that might make you grossly unsuitable for certain customer-facing jobs, and the only way the prospective employer will find that out is by seeing you in person.  That's perhaps a fairly extreme example, but it serves the purpose of the point I'm trying to make.

In addition, an interview allows the prospective employer to discuss with the interviewee their aspirations, what they expect to gain from the company, their future intent and a whole host of other factors, and to decide if the candidates intentions are compatible with what the employer expects from them.

 

There is an awful lot more to hiring someone than just their qualifications.

[Malinter 3,064]

Alot of people in work more often than not had friends or family already working in the company. It is practically a reference right to the bosses ear. I've heard this is often the case as much as 70% of the time.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Malinter

[Guest]

 

 

A lot of the time it's your personality they want, not your qualifications.

 

Which is a poor method for finding employees. I can fake my personality, I can't fake my qualifications because you can always call my school, jobs I previously worked at etc. to verify I actually worked those jobs and have that education, etc. I can fake my personality all day and night. On top of this, even if I am faking my personality at an interview, you can just find out I'm full of it via old jobs, etc. So really an interview doesn't give you a scope of a person's personality at all.

 

 

 

In a lot of jobs, particularly no-experience or entry level jobs, they can pick just about anyone and get the same results but they don't wanna hire someone who isn't going to be easy to work with for both the managers as well as other employees.

 

Except most employers don't really base the criteria of what they'd consider easy to work with via personality off of anything. What is the easiest personality to work with? Can anyone pinpoint the exact personality? On top of this, as I said: you can fake your personality at the interview, especially since you have time to prepare for the interview before the interview. Extroverts automatically will be deemed better "people" because of being extroverted, but is that really a fair judge of if they will produce better work? Not really. You can't even gauge a person's personality in 10-30 minutes anyways.

 

 

 

People with qualifying skills are a dime a dozen. Personality and synergy are the important parts to make the machine run smoothly.

 

Actually people who can perform the job are more important than people who want to perform the job. I can want to be a doctor all day, but being qualified and having a good track record is better.

 

 

 

Do you write on you CV that you have obscene or offensive tattoos on your face?  I would expect not.  That's exactly the sort of thing that might make you grossly unsuitable for certain customer-facing jobs, and the only way the prospective employer will find that out is by seeing you in person.  That's perhaps a fairly extreme example, but it serves the purpose of the point I'm trying to make.

 

Except not really... Since companies have the right to terminate people within the first 90 days most of the time with no questions asked. This could simply be solved by asking over the phone when giving the person the job. "Before I give you this job do you have any tattoos, markings, etc. that would be otherwise offensive?" if they lie then you are obviously going to know the first day they come in and you can fire them instantly at no costs.

 

That and such clauses are actually mostly abused to enforce unfair hiring practices. Sure you can weed out the people with swastika tattoos, but to be honest... How many times is it used to do that vs. weeding out people who are deemed "unprofessional" for completely non-offensive reasons such as having an "odd" hair color, or having a nose ring, etc. It's really just abused to force the idea of what is "professional" when how you dress outside of work so long as it's not offensive shouldn't make you more or less worthy of a job. For example, I have rainbow hair and many jobs would see that as "unprofessional", but really... Is it? Who decides this? Is there any scale that determines the quality of work from someone who has rainbow hair would be less than that of someone without?

 

Offensive markings, sure I can see how that would disturb the work place, but most of the time this kind of practice is just abused to keep people who don't conform to a specific idea of what is professional from entering the professional world when in reality there is no real reason why someone with a rainbow haircut can not be a CEO of the company, or why someone with a nose ring can't be an HR manager, etc. It's literally just there so that businesses can force employees to conform even when they are not at work. It's a control scheme to get employees to have to act like they are at work even when not at work.

 

How is it fair to not hire someone because of a tattoo that is non-offensive? You're telling them that they have to never get a tattoo even on their free time.

 

 

 

In addition, an interview allows the prospective employer to discuss with the interviewee their aspirations, what they expect to gain from the company, their future intent and a whole host of other factors, and to decide if the candidates intentions are compatible with what the employer expects from them.

 

Except literally everyone knows these questions will come up at an interview and has pre-prepared answers to them even if a majority of the time they're total bullshit. It doesn't really give you any more of an idea of how dedicated someone is.

 

 

 

There is an awful lot more to hiring someone than just their qualifications.

 

Correct, but interviews aren't really determining anything. 

[BritishBrony2012 719]

Before I got a job, a year and few months since I lost my first job, do find interview pointless. They say no experiecne needed but they go after more experience. Also when they say questions, you need a question for them to say, so no any question you got no job? I do admit queston I most say is when the money come in and feel that reason i unable to get a job.

[Guest]

Before I got a job, a year and few months since I lost my first job, do find interview pointless. They say no experiecne needed but they go after more experience. Also when they say questions, you need a question for them to say, so no any question you got no job? I do admit queston I most say is when the money come in and feel that reason i unable to get a job.

 

That's another problem. If you got fired from a job, it will be held against you for many job interviews to come even if the reason is not your fault or the reason that your former employer is saying is false. Hell there is nothing really stopping them from saying you were the worst employee ever if they just didn't like you. Sure people will say the "law" will stop them, but how can you prove it? The person turning you down for a job isn't going to tell you what he/she heard, so you'll never be able to prove it.

 

Job hiring is tilted almost entirely in favor of the employer and the potential employee has enough stacked against them to where they shouldn't have to do this song and dance performance to prove nothing more than they know how to interview. Interviews only prove one thing: you know how to interview.

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

 

 

Except not really... Since companies have the right to terminate people within the first 90 days most of the time with no questions asked.

 

Which means you have to go through the entire recruitment process all over again, which, believe it or not, employers don't want to be doing on a regular basis.  They want to get the right candidate the first time, and you cannot get any sort of measure of a person beyond their qualifications without meeting that person.

 

 

 

That and such clauses are actually mostly abused to enforce unfair hiring practices. Sure you can weed out the people with swastika tattoos, but to be honest... How many times is it used to do that vs. weeding out people who are deemed "unprofessional" for completely non-offensive reasons such as having an "odd" hair color, or having a nose ring, etc.

 

Like or not, some companies have a particular image that they want their employees to project.  These people are the representatives of them, and of their brand.  They want people who will make the right impression on their customers, and they will choose people based on (among other things) being able to present and conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.

[silvadel 1,393]

Actually the worst thing that can happen to you is to have a reference that you think is on your side, but despises you instead.  Odds are you will never know who.

[GeekySonic 1,150]

I don't really know what to think on the subject. I've had a total of 5 job interviews in my life. The very first one got me a job. In that interview, I didn't prepare at all. I answered every question truthfully off the top of my head.

 

And I was pretty introverted. But I got the job, and I was required to interact with customers every day. I got used to it. Good at it, actually.

 

Here in Washington, I went all-out preparing. I dressed super nice, was polite as possible, showed up early, had a good resume, and answered the questions with as much thought as I could.

 

Not once have I ever been called back. There could be something I'm not realizing, or just more experienced people getting the jobs.

 

But yeah, the traditional stuff that they taught me to do at school hasn't worked, yet.

[Discordian 6,013]

@@Key Sharkz,

 

You're right that there is no specific standard. "Easy to work with" isn't a specific personality. That's why it's the supervisor's job to test the personalities of the people they interview. They want to match the personalities that work there with the personality that's going to start working there. It's not a set in stone thing.

 

And of course you can fake your personality but the interviewer has ways of telling what is and isn't fake and even if they can't just the knowledge that you can put up a front while you're on the job is sometimes enough. It means they know you can keep yourself in control and not lash out at coworkers or customers. They don't have to know who you are, just who you're going to be.

 

That's precisely the purpose of the interview process. If things were so easily quantified then we wouldn't need interviewers. Jobs would literally be first come, first serve.

[Guest]

 

 

You're right that there is no specific standard. "Easy to work with" isn't a specific personality. That's why it's the supervisor's job to test the personalities of the people they interview.

 

How does asking people questions they know you're going to ask determine personality at all? Everyone will pre-determine their answers before the interview and game them towards the questions. They're not going to show their real self, they are going to show the mask that you expect out of them.

 

 

 

And of course you can fake your personality but the interviewer has ways of telling what is and isn't fake

 

Except not really... Since they don't know you before hand they have no point of reference. Many interviewers are not verse in psychology or anything like that. Not to mention lie detection is not even an exact science. There is huge room for error.

 

 

 

They don't have to know who you are, just who you're going to be.

 

But an interview doesn't determine that. Someone could turn around and be terrible after they get the job.

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

 

 

How does asking people questions they know you're going to ask determine personality at all? Everyone will pre-determine their answers before the interview and game them towards the questions. They're not going to show their real self, they are going to show the mask that you expect out of them.

 

That's why an interviewer shouldn't just drone out a list of questions in a set format.  An interview should flow in a natural conversational manner, with relevant questions raised according to the answers given.

[Guest]

That's why an interviewer shouldn't just drone out a list of questions in a set format.  An interview should flow in a natural conversational manner, with relevant questions raised according to the answers given.

A good portion of job interviews ask the same questions though or the same type of questions. The age old "where do you see yourself in 5 years?" Also unless the interviewer is trained in human psychology he can't interpret answers to mean anything.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Guest

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

A good portion of job interviews ask the same questions though or the same type of questions. The age old "where do you see yourself in 5 years?" Also unless the interviewer is trained in human psychology he can't interpret answers to mean anything.

 

Obviously there are set questions, a list of things that the interviewer will want to know about every candidate, but those should be interspersed among more personally tailored questions, that is how you build the best impression you can of the person in the short time allowed.

[Guest]

Obviously there are set questions, a list of things that the interviewer will want to know about every candidate, but those should be interspersed among more personally tailored questions, that is how you build the best impression you can of the person in the short time allowed.

First impressions are often wrong though and don't even give you a good idea of how good a worker someone would be. It's all superficial crap that really isn't determining if someone is the best fit for the job, it's just a song and dance that we've made up and continue to do because we can't think of something better.

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

First impressions are often wrong though and don't even give you a good idea of how good a worker someone would be. It's all superficial crap that really isn't determining if someone is the best fit for the job, it's just a song and dance that we've made up and continue to do because we can't think of something better.

 

Meeting someone before you employ them gives you the best chance of getting the right person.  If you just throw all of the CVs you receive into the air and pluck one out at random then to quote yourself from another topic you "may as well have thrown a dart to decide."

Edited June 25, 2016 by Concerned Bystander

[Discordian 6,013]

Remember that they can always just fire you if it turns out you were faking. It's literally in the stuff you sign that you can be terminated if any of the information you provide is false. Kind of a failsafe against faking your way through.

 

But as I said, the interview process is necessary for precisely the fact that the skills needed for the job can always be found in another person. The idea is to find the right person, or a compatible person at the very least.

[Anneal 2,194]

First impressions are often wrong though and don't even give you a good idea of how good a worker someone would be. It's all superficial crap that really isn't determining if someone is the best fit for the job, it's just a song and dance that we've made up and continue to do because we can't think of something better.

Interviewers are good at detecting people's "superficial crap", though. If it's a good company they won't accept someone who's trying to flatter and make them feel good. Most jobs require you to be extroverted or at least be able to socialize with others, so extroverts are not getting an "unfair advantage", they're meeting a requirement. Showing up at an interview for being a real estate agent or a flight attendent or a journalist...or basically any sort of occupation where it's impossible not to socialize or even talk with co-workers and the like and being "introverted" is concerning. It's a harsh truth, but if you can't socialize then you can't get into most jobs.

[Discordian 6,013]

Interviewers are good at detecting people's "superficial crap", though. If it's a good company they won't accept someone who's trying to flatter and make them feel good. Most jobs require you to be extroverted or at least be able to socialize with others, so extroverts are not getting an "unfair advantage", they're meeting a requirement. Showing up at an interview for being a real estate agent or a flight attendent or a journalist...or basically any sort of occupation where it's impossible not to socialize or even talk with co-workers and the like and being "introverted" is concerning. It's a harsh truth, but if you can't socialize then you can't get into most jobs.

Even a lot of seemingly introvert-centric jobs like, say, web development require you to be able to talk to people. You have to be able to discern what your customers want, how to talk professionally to any company you contract with, etc.

 

Everyone needs to learn a bit of extroversion. Being introverted is fine on your down time but out in the working world it won't get you far.

[Sir Xarthas VI 470]

I had an interview three days ago with this same topic in mind.

Want to know how it went? I'll quote a few lines from it (I'm not changing any words around, these are exactly how they were said):

 

Interviewer: Why do you wish to work here?

Me: I need the income. Preferably without being taxed out the ass for it, but what can you do...

Interviewer: Okay.... Given the circumstances, how would you treat a subject that was intentionally causing a problem in the open, and attracting a lot of attention?

Me: If it were someone who were annoying me personally, I'd probably just walk up to them, jab them in the neck, and walk away. But if they're bothering someone else... Oh wait, I'd do the same either way. Jab to the neck. Doesn't hurt them, but incapacitates them instantly.

Interviewer: Good. If I were to show you a sky-view picture of an area, and set two points on it, point A being you, and point B being someone whose attracting too much attention, how would you reach them without attracting attention to yourself?

Me: *gives most viable answer*

Interviewer: There are better ways than this.

Me: Obviously you're still in training. Sometimes the most obvious ways are the most subtle. Depends on what the person would be doing, though.

Interviewer: ......... Agreed. Final question: If a person were to walk up to you and put a knife to your throat, how would you handle the situation?

Me: Grab wrist, twist, disarm, incapacitate.

Interviewer: Good!

 

Should probably mention I was applying for a job at a security/bodyguard company (small local one). Don't know if I got the job yet, but I probably did. I answered the questions honestly, but with no care for how the interviewer felt about me. Could think I'm the worst person ever, but if I get the job done, then it doesn't matter. Granted, I'm not applying to some retail corporation, so my situation is a bit different. But I've had interviews in the past with retail corporations and I've always done them the same way. The interviewer could think I'm the worst person ever, but as long as I get the job done, they wont care. Usually I use a different emotion to answer every question, though. Just to throw them off their game.

Edited June 25, 2016 by ~ Akatsuki ~

[PiratePony 8,473]

I don't think they're pointless. Sometimes your resume and experience on paper doesn't speak enough about you as a person, and there's intangible things that you cannot experience other than in person.

 

I just went through three interviews with a company and didn't get the job...it sucked. But I'd much rather have gone through that than my resume alone, as I seem unqualified for a lot of things on paper, even though I'm highly capable to learn and adapt quickly to several jobs if given the chance. There are jobs I've worked in the past with no experience, because in interview I can show tenacity and adaptability.

 

And I'm a big introvert, so it's possible to build interview techniques as a skill.

[Invincible 2,090]

Most interviews are conducted in order to appraise you and understand you as a person.

 

The interviewers aren't stupid, okay? They know you want the job, that's why you bothered to show up at all. Bear in mind that, as you say, nobody is themselves at a job interview. Might as well make the most of what they do see in a person.

 

I think you're kind of right about references, as they carry a lot of weight in this game, but this is an advantage you have to work for anyway.