Asking personal Questions at interviews??

[BONDGIRL]

That's it Truthseekeer, well said.

 

[MrMan]

I dont think thats true MrMan. A lot of CVs dont have age/marital status on them. If during an interview an interviewer asks a woman whether or not she is married/has kids - s/he is also figuring the chances of maternity leave. If a woman already has 3 kids, the youngest of which is 10, then she is less likely to go on maternity leave than a woman who has just married but has no children. You wont know any of that unless you ask at an interview.

So it is a more loaded question - which is why there are guidelines in place, to avoid people being put into an awkward spot.

Just as an aside - one NEVER knows why someone is turned down after an interview. I remember a friend telling me he had interviewed 10 people for a particular role and he turned down the most qualified person - because she was very overweight. In his opinion he felt that her weight would prevent her from doing the job as efficiently as someone fitter as it involved quite a bit of running about, up and down stairs etc... He also felt that someone with that amount of weight would be more prone to sick days etc... Unfair maybe, but thats the decision he made.

I also know a girl who was waiting for a bus back to dublin after interviewing in a company in kildare and the guy who interviewed her came along and offered her a lift back, which she accepted. During the lift he asked her out on a date. She was FUMING. She was offered the job but felt she couldnt possibly take it after he'd asked her out (she had said no).

So all sorts of 'human' stuff happens with interviewers, its just that a lot of it cannot be proven. You might feel you didnt get the job because you were a 30 year old just married woman, well maybe so, but maybe you didnt get it because there was a better candidate, you didnt sell yourself well, or you were just unlucky that day?

Why not just cut the risk out and don't hire a woman? If it is such an issue for employers they could easily sidestep the issue.
There is potential for every person to be discriminated against, but surely we are not all gone so soft that simple questions cannot be answered ort tactfully batted away.

 

[Complainer]

Why not just cut the risk out and don't hire a woman? If it is such an issue for employers they could easily sidestep the issue.

Because they will find themselves on the wrong end of an equality tribunal judgement. Because they will find that their male-dominated decision making and lack of diversity hurts their effectiveness.

There is potential for every person to be discriminated against, but surely we are not all gone so soft that simple questions cannot be answered ort tactfully batted away.

There is nothing soft about preventing discrimination.

 

[Staples]

surely we are not all gone so soft that simple questions cannot be answered ort tactfully batted away.

If there's a good reason for any any particular question, then there isn't a problem as long as it's asked of all interviewees.

A small bit of tact and commmon sense is required though.

 

[DB74]

So fancy a challenge? I'll set up a new FB account, and give you 3 days to take the 'ridiculously easy' actions to hack it? €100 to a charity of your choice if you succeed?

Here you are!

[broken link removed]

 

[MrMan]

Because they will find themselves on the wrong end of an equality tribunal judgement. Because they will find that their male-dominated decision making and lack of diversity hurts their effectiveness.


There is nothing soft about preventing discrimination.

Your suggesting that the best person on each occassion couldn't be a man which in itself is discrimination. How could a lack of diversity be construed by choosing men only, are you sayijng that woman are more suitable for some jobs?

It is soft to consider a question to be anything other than that - A question. To deem simple questions as a lead up to discrimination is fanciful. Some people enjoy creating drama and to see an innocent question turned into a possible lawsuit would suggest as much.

 

[MrMan]

If there's a good reason for any any particular question, then there isn't a problem as long as it's asked of all interviewees.

A small bit of tact and commmon sense is required though.

I would be against having a set of questions for everyone as I think it would be more beneficial to adapt the questions according to how you feel the interview is going.
If the candidate is open and forward with responses then great you have something to go on, but if they freeze a little or are stiff in their replies then they might need to be settled down and retreat a little from the formal approach. I can see how personal type questions can be used to try and relax the candidate (ask them questions they know the answers to first). A company wants to hire the right person and not simply trip up as many as they can and see who they are left with.

 

[Complainer]

Your suggesting that the best person on each occassion couldn't be a man which in itself is discrimination. How could a lack of diversity be construed by choosing men only, are you sayijng that woman are more suitable for some jobs?

No - I'm suggesting that if the best person on EVERY occasion is a man, then that is discrimination.

It is soft to consider a question to be anything other than that - A question. To deem simple questions as a lead up to discrimination is fanciful. Some people enjoy creating drama and to see an innocent question turned into a possible lawsuit would suggest as much.

Nonsense - taking a hard line to stop foolish interviewers asking questions that expose the company to risk is not soft. It is good management.

I'm getting a bit tired of this now. Clearly you have a bee in your bonnet about this and you consider yourself to be above the law. I'm not going to debate this with you any further.

Best of luck with your future recruitment.

 

[MrMan]

No - I'm suggesting that if the best person on EVERY occasion is a man, then that is discrimination.


Nonsense - taking a hard line to stop foolish interviewers asking questions that expose the company to risk is not soft. It is good management.

I'm getting a bit tired of this now. Clearly you have a bee in your bonnet about this and you consider yourself to be above the law. I'm not going to debate this with you any further.

Best of luck with your future recruitment.

I have been making my points about what should be the case, not what falls under possible equality law, I thought that might have been obvious.
Your first line really proves my point, if you say that a man cannot be the best on every occassion then you are bringing a discriminating attitude to the table. If there are 6 positions available and the first 5 go to men, it sounds like you would discount any other men for the role regardless of how good they were. Same goes for if it were 5 women the last would go to a man by your black and white rules.

We should strive for better or take your approach and follow a manual to the bitter end.

 

[BONDGIRL]

Had second interviw.. didn't like it... asked me lots of irrelevant questions... lots and lots of where do u see yourself in TEN yrs... just bored me and I felt very uneasy.. so if he rings back will be a big fat no from me !

 

[becky]

Bondgirl - I hate that question as well, gives the spoffers more scope to spoffe while the non spoofers find it unsettling.

I have yet to see someone get a job/not get a job based on their answer to that question.

 

[truthseeker]

Had second interviw.. didn't like it... asked me lots of irrelevant questions... lots and lots of where do u see yourself in TEN yrs... just bored me and I felt very uneasy.. so if he rings back will be a big fat no from me !

The only answer to this question (if being interviewed by potential future boss) is: In your position......or higher.

I always hate that question as well - its just silly, no one can possibly tell where theyll be in 10 years, depends on so many factors.

 

[MrMan]

The only answer to this question (if being interviewed by potential future boss) is: In your position......or higher.

I always hate that question as well - its just silly, no one can possibly tell where theyll be in 10 years, depends on so many factors.

I suppose its a safe question that won't bring a lawsuit and won't find out anything about the potential employee, just the type that some posters would prefer to be common in interviews (not you btw).

 

[Complainer]

Had second interviw.. didn't like it... asked me lots of irrelevant questions... lots and lots of where do u see yourself in TEN yrs...

Try answering "I hope to be a competent interview who can ask decent interview questions by then".

I suppose its a safe question that won't bring a lawsuit and won't find out anything about the potential employee, just the type that some posters would prefer to be common in interviews (not you btw).

PS It's me he's misrepresenting here.