Forum Topic

George,Perhaps because I agreed with it?  Your first paragraph is exactly a point I had made previously, your third and fourth paragraphs I agreed with also, and matched, in a significant part, a lot of my own experience.Apart from deciding I was a recruitment consultant, despite never having said I was, was the only thing I felt you were incorrect on.Interesting perspective from you that somehow YOUR personal view equates to 'reality', but the personal view of others does not.So, you would only employ people with the same opinions as yours then?  Sorry, but seems rather narrow minded to me.We can go around and around here, but the crux of the issue is merely a difference of opinion on one thing only.  On that one thing, several people have appointed themselves Judge, Jury and Executioner, despite a complete absence of facts and knowledge (about me) and jumped on some sort of a bandwagon.The opinion I hold is not illegal.  Neither is it immoral, or unethical in any way.  The only thing it may not conform to is some sort of political correctness.  Sorry about that.Once again, the apologies I have offered previously to hurt feelings have been completely ignored and no one seems to be prepared to put a up a genuine defence of the PS.  That does not make the PS bad or indefensible, I just wonder at why it is easier to have a pop at my opinion, (as opposed to me, I'm sure) than to have a reasonable debate.Once again, I am happy to leave it there.  Agreeing to disagree is a perfectly acceptable end to a debate.

Asif Rana ● 4858d

Neither Claire nor anything else is saying that the public sector is amazing, or that every public sector worker is top notch in every say.You're now digging an even bigger hole by implying that working for McDonalds or Burger King is beneath you.Are you sure you've never been a candidate on the Apprentice ? ;-)I'm the first one to say that from my experience of working for 10 years in the public sector, within every Council is a minority of people, working across all departments, who are basically steady eddie's, they lack a degree of drive, passion and willingness to propel their careers further, but they are solid employees who can be relied upon to do relatively straightforward roles that other, more determined employees, wouldn't be satisfied with.  But the only thing that matters is that the steady eddie's within the public sector have a role to play.  In my time I've encountered many people working in the public sector who would flounder in the private sector, and also vice versa.After graduating I worked in the public sector for 10 years, it doesn't mean I have, or ever had, a public sector mentality.  But I was never a steady eddie and always wanted to progress up the ladder.  I've now been in the private sector for over 4 years and my role brings me into daily interaction with the public sector and I'll always say that my public sector background is a great asset to my role within the private sector.  Read my frequent posts on here and I'll both strongly criticise and strongly defend the public sector.

Adam Beamish ● 4859d

Claire,As stated already I am happy to do the same.  Just to answer your questions here only:On the specific question, on your post to Ian Silver, at 19:30 on the 18th, you appeared to be complaining about a lack of "addressing the issues with intelligent debate" from him.  My response about, "Well, you had a chance to", was specifially in response to that.On the job side of things, I cannot believe that anyone here seriously believes that I actually work for either McDonalds, or Burger King, you least of all.  It was a tongue in cheek response to your question about who I work for.I have never attempted to become a civil servant.I appreciate your hurt feelings and I have apologised for that, more than once.  I will happily stand by those apologies as being fulsome and sincere, but you do seem to have ignored those somewhat.I am not the nasty, horrible, inadequate, arrogant, whatever it is you seem so keen to paint me as so and so, but I am sympathetic to your strong feelings on the subject, so that's why I may have been unclear - I didn't wish to go over the same ground, clarifying things would have just made you even more angry.I suggest (as we have gone way off topic) that a new thread be started, on the relative merits of otherwise of the PS? Only conditions would be to keep it civil and to be as inclusive as possible.  Happy to debate away with you on that.  We can either leave it here, or please feel free to start the new topic.  How does that sound?RegardsAsif

Asif Rana ● 4859d

I am joining late to this thread, probably because I am old enough to pre-date all this "interview techniques" crap.  When I left school and applied for jobs all you did was see an advert in what was probably the local paper, phone up, interview arranged, show up and the interviewer could see you first hand and form an opinion of you on the spot.  Job done - usually fairly and, in my case, successfully.At some point in the late 70s some new innovation called a "curriculum vitae" appeared on the scene wherein you had to try and be inventive about yourself and your experience and current circumstances etc.  That's when it all went wrong!  No one knows the right answer to most of the questions asked at interviews.  I do know that if you told the truth to most of them you would be unemployable.  In any event, the difficulty is in getting to the actual interview.  Of course most people would never get to the interview according to Asif's standards.  Enough said.In a working life spanning 40 plus years, I have never been turned down for a job after being interviewed.  That covers working for large companies (i.e. my first job working for Sir. James Goldsmith of Cavenham Foods, Trico Folberth, George Wimpey and Nabarro Nathanson Sols., as well as small high street firms.  Frankly half the time nowadays when I see jobs advertised I have no clue what the actual job being offered is.  They all have ridiculous titles that I am obviously too old to understand.  There are no secretaries they are all PAs and God only knows what the technological job descriptions mean.  I daresay most of the jobs advertised are for nothing more taxing than working in a call centre somewhere but the titles seem to suggest you would have to be some sort of nuclear physicist at the very least.Thank God I no longer have to go through this nonsense and I pity those that do.

Bernadette Paul ● 4859d

Sorry Claire,Didn't mean to offend, my comments were intended to be more general and not specific to you personally - apologies.My comment was based around people from the public sector generally. Knowing quite a few people who have worked variously in the Civil Service, NHS, Civic Centre, Transport and having had a tiny amount of experience in there myself, I would never even consider someone for interview, who had had many years of experience there.I would consider them too institutionalised and not experienced enough in 'real World' working, to really be able to fit in within an average commercial organisation.I feel sure that you will tell me that not everyone is like that and I would agree with that 100%.  But when selecting candidates for interview from a pile of CV's, that would count against them, in my eyes.This does not mean that the candidates aren't good enough, or not suited to the job, or are not perfectly competant.  Just means I wouldn't consider them.Appreciate if you do not agree with the why, but it is what I would do.  I am sure there are plenty of others out there who would do the complete opposite.  Again, sorry if my remarks caused offence.A large factor in interview technique is what sort of job you are looking for.  I mostly interview for office based admin staff, of varying levels, although have been involved in more high powered interviews also.The former requires some basic skills, but I tend to look for a work ethic, positive attitude, communication skills, and team working.  I need people to fit in and add value, so getting them to relax and talk about themselves is the best way.  Having said that, I don't tend to use the formulaic methods that we are talking about, but make it clear that I want them to talk about themselves.  The ball is in their court then.  I do think that standard, set questions have their place, but I start that right from the off, "How was your journey?" "Have you come far?"  If you can get someone to slip into an interview, without them even realising it, usually works well for me.Demonstrating skills is important too though:  The last person I hired pulled out his laptop and gave me a quick demonstration of his Excel skills, in answer to my question about them.  I was pleasantly surprised and despite spilling his glass of water at the outset of the interview, through nerves, relaxed sufficently and was offered the job.I will assume, if I may, that you hire for HR jobs, or are in HR yourself?  From your third paragraph?  I have no idea what 'diversity competancy' is and have to assume it's a Public Sector HR thing?I do actually agree with your points on problems with certain types of interview questions and so on and I am sympathetic to your general views on this subject.  I am sure we can happily agree to disagree on others.Thanks.Asif

Asif Rana ● 4860d

AsifWith all due respect I'm not sure what point you think I have missed. I was merely stating that I wouldn't know the best answer to this sort of question because where I worked did not have an interview system where that sort of question would ever be asked. In my opinion (as a trained interviewer of a number of years - and also a good one), competency based interviews tend to be formulaic and the only preparation demonstrated is remembering what was written on the application form and thinking of a second example rather than an actual knowledge of or ability to do a job. Add to this the gross differentials in the opinions of the interviewers who don't necessarily understand the system or answers themselves and the system becomes a flawed one. I once interviewed someone who broke 3 different employment and discrimination laws in his diversity competency answer and my co-interviewer wanted to give him top scores. It wasn't until I explained the answer given that it was agreed that the answer warranted bottom scores.Asking questions about the handling of common issues and difficulties within the specific role were banned as being hypothetical. In my experience, these types of interviews resulted in a large number of people being placed in roles that they were totally inappropriate for.Furthermore, I believe formulaic questions demonstrate a lack of imagination or interest on behalf of the interviewers and a good interviewer would be able to relax a candidate without use of a 40 year old question like the one asked in the original post.Therefore, as we appear to disagree on this issue I am happy to know that, despite you having no knowledge of me, my work history, abilities or knowledge, that I would never even get an interview for your company - whatever that may be - the money would suck and you're marvellous.

Claire Peleschka ● 4861d