The Unspoken Truth About Job Interviews

Hiring Manager: “I can be somewhat narcissistic, but it's a trait that has contributed to the success in my current position. I tend to criticize others and shift blame for circumstances beyond their control. I often enlist HR's help to attribute my shortcomings to my subordinates”

Candidate: “Alright. Let me compare my notes with the seven other hiring managers, and I will get back to you regarding whether I should choose the lesser of the evils or accept the evil that offers the highest compensation.”

This conversation, of course, would never happen in a typical job interview set up. Why? Because interview process can be inherently biased, imbalanced and unfair.

The job interview is often the crucial moment in the hiring process, widely regarded as the definitive way to assess a candidate's fit for a role, or to evaluate the company's alignment with the candidate's aspirations. It's a partially rehearsed theatrical representation of characteristics, events, abilities and qualities that both employers and job seekers approach with a blend of anticipation and apprehension.

However, beneath the surface of this ostensibly crucial exchange lies a fundamentally flawed process. It disproportionately focuses on the "stripping the candidate bare" with probing questions, which the candidate often navigates by offering well-rehearsed, standard answers. Mind you, employers expect no different; the process seems to be designed to ensure the candidate's memory is intact, rather than get to know the candidate.

The job interview format in Australia, in its current form, serves more as a one-sided conversation than a fair assessment of the suitability of the role within the broader context of the organization for the applicant. The process often carefully omits parts or the entire version of the employer's state of play, such as company culture, the qualities of the hiring managers, employee turnover rates, employee feedback, and overall profitability. This lack of transparency can leave candidates with an incomplete understanding of what it's truly like to work for the organization and of course lead to poor hiring decisions.

Here are some critical areas where employers often mislead candidates through insufficient or selective disclosures:

1. Company Culture

Employers sometimes paint an overly optimistic picture of their company culture. They may emphasize perks like flexible hours and team-building activities while downplaying issues such as high-stress environments, lack of diversity, or poor work-life balance. This can lead candidates to have unrealistic expectations and experience dissatisfaction once they join the company.

I was once headhunted for a job where the HR Manager proudly highlighted their employee survey results, which supposedly showed the highest rate of job satisfaction. When I inquired about the total number of employees and how many participated in the survey, I made a mental note that the results were statistically insignificant, and the survey could not be relied upon on the back of the distressing financial results filed in the ASX, while the company was going for the next round of crowd funding.

2. Role Expectations

Job descriptions often omit details about the actual day-to-day responsibilities and challenges of the position. Candidates might be led to believe that the role involves more strategic or interesting tasks than it does in reality, leading to disengagement and frustration when the job does not meet their expectations.

I have firsthand experience with how this unfolds. After seven days into my role at Diona Pty Ltd, I found myself stepping in for my hiring manager, the CFO, who went on prolonged stress leave for about three months. It didn't take long to understand why. In the financial year 2022, Diona Pty Ltd lost $18 million in cash and continued to face losses due to underperformance. Working in finance felt like being in a "cash pressure cooker."

3. Management Styles

The qualities and management styles of direct supervisors can significantly impact an employee’s experience. Employers might gloss over potential conflicts or fail to mention high turnover rates among the team, which could be indicative of deeper managerial issues.

In my case with Diona Pty Ltd, the CFO's absence meant that I had to report directly to the Managing Director, who was known for his volatile and aggressive management style.

4. Growth Opportunities

Candidates are frequently attracted by promises of career advancement and professional development. When these opportunities don't materialize as quickly or as readily as suggested, employees can feel misled and undervalued, which may lead to increased turnover.

5. Company Performance

Employers may avoid discussing the company's financial health, employee turnover rates, or recent layoffs. Lack of transparency about the company's stability can leave candidates unprepared for future challenges and uncertain about their job security.

6. Employee Feedback

Many organizations do not share genuine employee feedback during the hiring process. Negative reviews or low morale within the company are rarely disclosed, giving candidates an incomplete picture of the working environment. This can lead to a mismatch between the expectations set during the hiring process and the reality of working for the company.

The Facade of Fair Play

Getting back to the interview process itself, interviews are designed to present an illusion of fair play, where both parties—the interviewer and the interviewee—are ostensibly on equal footing. However, this perceived balance is often a mere illusion. The employer controls the environment, the questions, and the criteria for evaluation, thereby setting the stage to their advantage. Common interview tactics, such as behavioral questions or stress interviews, can be manipulative, placing undue pressure on candidates. These methods often favor individuals who can perform well under artificial conditions rather than those who may thrive in the actual job setting. Furthermore, discriminatory practices, whether intentional or subconscious, can and they often do seep into the process, skewing the results and often disadvantaging candidates from diverse backgrounds.

In my profession, numerous obstacles are created by major players in the industry. These barriers often serve to highlight the perceived superiority of certain individuals over others. CPA Australia has effectively established itself as an institution that promotes the notion that its members are superior accountants across the nation. Furthermore, the Big Four auditing firms have elevated the standards even higher, implying that those who have dedicated years working for these firms, often for less than minimum wage, are superior accountants compared to others.

The Myth of Comprehensive Assessment

One of the most significant shortcomings of job interviews is their inability to capture the full extent of a candidate's potential and experience. Interviews typically focus on a narrow set of criteria, such as past job performance, educational background, and the ability to respond to hypothetical scenarios. This approach often overlooks other crucial aspects of a candidate's suitability, such as cultural fit, adaptability, and long-term potential. For instance, a candidate with a non-traditional career path or gaps in employment may possess invaluable skills and experiences that are not readily apparent through standard interview questions. These nuances are often lost in the rigid structure of conventional interviews, leading to missed opportunities for both the candidate and the employer.

The Unseen Storyline

What remains largely invisible during the interview process is the narrative and internal dynamics of the employer and hiring manager. The interview is not merely an assessment of the candidate; it is also a reflection of the company's culture, values, and internal priorities. However, this side of the story is seldom disclosed to the candidate. The employer's perspective shapes the entire process, from the job description to the interview questions to the final decision-making criteria. This creates a bias that can overshadow the candidate's qualities and potential contributions. Additionally, the personal biases and preferences of the hiring manager can significantly influence the outcome, further skewing the process.

Ever Changing Goal Post

The qualities advertised and those sought by employers often shift with each interview. While job descriptions may emphasize specific skills or experiences, the interview process frequently uncovers evolving priorities and unique qualities that employers value. This hidden agenda and shifting expectations waste countless hours as candidates meticulously tailor their resumes to stated criteria, only to be disqualified by undisclosed ones. To add to the frustration, candidates often receive impersonal rejection emails from recruiters, stating, “Unfortunately, you were unsuccessful on this occasion.” So, the next time you receive an automated email, pause before blaming yourself and diminishing your self-esteem.

May I also note that when you seek a quote from a tradesman, any tradesman in Australia, you typically end up paying for his time even if you don't use his services. When recruiters or hiring employers solicit resumes from hundred plus applicants and put a quarter of them through various numbers of assessments and then decide to go on with an internal candidate, they do so in the knowledge that thousand men hours can be chewed up in the process with candidates entering into this space in good faith and uncompensated.

Stay tuned for more.

Sincerely Yours

Narghiza E.