Asking personal Questions at interviews??

BONDGIRL said:
Surprise today.. for phone call for 2nd interview face to face. Dam it I'm good lol.
Click to expand...


Good luck!

For a laugh, why don't you turn the tables on them on the whole personal questions thing?

As soon as you sit down ask them how often they have sex.
 
MrMan said:
Of course equality is great but I can tell if you are a woman and generally what race you are by just looking at you. When people then presume that questions are leading to a case of discrimination it goes to show how soft we have become.
I would imagine those that do discriminate on any basis have pre conceived notions that will be held before an interview ever takes place so your basically damned in the first place, but when an interviewer tries to get under your skin to find out who is really sitting before them people cry foul and that makes no sense personally to me.
Click to expand...

I really don't think it's anything to do with soft. Quite the opposite - it takes significant guts to stand up to an interviewer. It is nothing to do with pre-conceived notions - the reason to avoid these issues during interviews is to avoid any possibility of discrimination.

But regardless, perhaps you might explain why you think it necessary to find out someone's family/marital status in an interview situation?
 
Complainer said:
I really don't think it's anything to do with soft. Quite the opposite - it takes significant guts to stand up to an interviewer. It is nothing to do with pre-conceived notions - the reason to avoid these issues during interviews is to avoid any possibility of discrimination.

But regardless, perhaps you might explain why you think it necessary to find out someone's family/marital status in an interview situation?
Click to expand...

How does it take guts when you can stand up and say 'I feel uncomfortable with that question as it seems to have an underlying tone to it that may lead to discrimination' cue alarm bells and 'oh God we have to hire this person regardless of how poor their interview was'.

It's not necessary but it might soften them up and take them away from the rehearsed answers, a curve ball as some might say. It wouldn't bother me 'Am I married' 'No', 'Any kids' 'No'. It's not exactly a case of prying into personal life.
 
MrMan said:
How does it take guts when you can stand up and say 'I feel uncomfortable with that question as it seems to have an underlying tone to it that may lead to discrimination' cue alarm bells and 'oh God we have to hire this person regardless of how poor their interview was'.
Click to expand...
It takes guts because you know the interviewer won't like to be challenged.

MrMan said:
It's not necessary but it might soften them up and take them away from the rehearsed answers, a curve ball as some might say. It wouldn't bother me 'Am I married' 'No', 'Any kids' 'No'. It's not exactly a case of prying into personal life.
Click to expand...
So do you think that any half-competent interviewer could come up with other 'curve balls' that don't put the employer at risk? Would that be hard?

In my opinion, it is EXACTLY a case of prying into personal life.
 
MrMan said:
How does it take guts when you can stand up and say 'I feel uncomfortable with that question as it seems to have an underlying tone to it that may lead to discrimination' cue alarm bells and 'oh God we have to hire this person regardless of how poor their interview was'.

It's not necessary but it might soften them up and take them away from the rehearsed answers, a curve ball as some might say. It wouldn't bother me 'Am I married' 'No', 'Any kids' 'No'. It's not exactly a case of prying into personal life.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not responsible for conducting interviews. You're likely to cost the company a lot in lawsuits.

Bear in mind that there can be a big difference in the interpretation of the answers depending on the gender of the interviewee. e.g. going down the stereotyping route -
Male interviewee - married = likely to be more solid and dependable
Female interviewee - married = likely to start a family and be out on maternity leave, and then taking time off to look after children.
I'm not saying these are correct, or that the interviewer is considering this, but that is how it can be interpreted.
 
Seagull said:
I hope you're not responsible for conducting interviews. You're likely to cost the company a lot in lawsuits.

Bear in mind that there can be a big difference in the interpretation of the answers depending on the gender of the interviewee. e.g. going down the stereotyping route -
Male interviewee - married = likely to be more solid and dependable
Female interviewee - married = likely to start a family and be out on maternity leave, and then taking time off to look after children.
I'm not saying these are correct, or that the interviewer is considering this, but that is how it can be interpreted.
Click to expand...

Let me worry about my professional life.

On the subject of interpretation, the possibility for possible discrimination is so broad that it really negates most of it. Are you married doesn't mean 'are you planning on maternity leave' because as most of us are aware that marriage is not necessary for pregnancy.
If the problem of hiring a woman between 18-40 was that the employer was afraid she might have paid leave to have kids then no question needs to be asked because the possibility is already known.
CV's are misleading and never show negative traits (intentionally anyway) and people are their most polished selves during interviews so there should be plenty of room for a company to try and paint a more accurate picture of who they are condering for a post.
 
Complainer said:
It takes guts because you know the interviewer won't like to be challenged.


So do you think that any half-competent interviewer could come up with other 'curve balls' that don't put the employer at risk? Would that be hard?

In my opinion, it is EXACTLY a case of prying into personal life.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean to insult you I'm sure it did take guts to stand up for yourself in that interview.

The fact that you seem so riled up at an innocent question would suggest to me that any other curve balls might not be the best way to go.
 
Bear in mind that the interview process is a two way affair. It's the interviewees first exposure to the company as well as the company's introduction to the interviewee. It's not necessarily a case of being upset by the question itself, as surprise that an interviewer would be so unprofessional as to even ask the question. It raises questions about the standards of the company, and whether you actually want to work at a place that sloppy. You can very easily wind up driving away the best candidates as they will have other offers from more professional interviewers.
 
Seagull said:
Bear in mind that the interview process is a two way affair. It's the interviewees first exposure to the company as well as the company's introduction to the interviewee. It's not necessarily a case of being upset by the question itself, as surprise that an interviewer would be so unprofessional as to even ask the question. It raises questions about the standards of the company, and whether you actually want to work at a place that sloppy. You can very easily wind up driving away the best candidates as they will have other offers from more professional interviewers.
Click to expand...

It's the first that an interviewer sees of the candidate and not the other way round. If a candidate decides that a question is 'sloppy' and therefore decides that they could not prosper in such an unprofessional environment given that they were asked 'are you married' it might just be to the companies benefit that a person who takes such a highly strung position on trivial matters goes elsewhere.
 
Complainer said:
Seeing an interview as a one-way process is a really good sign of a bad interviewer.
Click to expand...

Was spin doctor the post you interviewed for?

A candidate will (usually) have researched the company, looked at facts and figures and have given themselves a general feel for what they are walking into. The interviewer has the candidates own written account of their professional lives to look at before they meet.
The candidate is looking at the company and the role they would like to fulfill, the interviewer is looking at the individual and trying to ascertain whether or not they will be an asset.
 
Just to throw this into the debate....

A candidate's ability to perform a certain job role maybe affected by their lack of a third level qual (for example) and therefore, make them unsuitable for the role.

Also...

A candidate's ability to perform a certain job role maybe affected by their having three children under the age of five (for example) and therefore, make them unsuitable for the role.


Explain to me how these situations are different and why the question is irrelevant in an interview.

...and before anyone says it, I know the law on interview questions... I'm talking ethics.
 
PetrolHead said:
A candidate's ability to perform a certain job role maybe affected by their having three children under the age of five (for example) and therefore, make them unsuitable for the role.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could explain what is meant by this? How does having kids make you unsuitable for any role?
 
Agree with Complainer.

If having three children under five makes you unsuitable to a certain position, would it be different if you were the dad or the mom?:rolleyes:
 
Vanilla said:
If having three children under five makes you unsuitable to a certain position, would it be different if you were the dad or the mom?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Not implying any difference. Just making the point that there are many factors beyond education and previous experience that either add or detract from a candidates ability to undertake a certain role and yet questioning these areas is banned.

Doesn't make much sense really.
 
PetrolHead said:
Not implying any difference. Just making the point that there are many factors beyond education and previous experience that either add or detract from a candidates ability to undertake a certain role and yet questioning these areas is banned.

Doesn't make much sense really.
Click to expand...

Technically, nothing is banned. You can ask whatever questions you like.

Legally, you cannot discriminate on grounds of marital status or family status or disability or....

Asking questions about these matters exposes the employer to the risk of a claim of discrimination.

But regardless, I'm still confused about your point "that there are many factors beyond education and previous experience that either add or detract from a candidates ability to undertake a certain role and yet questioning these areas is banned"

Are you suggesting that having three kids may 'add or detract from a candidates ability'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top