I recently applied for a post at a organisation where in advert no date
for interview was mentioned. I have been offered interview on one date,
but cannot make it. I have asked for a different date or to just attend
for a few hours on the day at great inconvenience to me. The
organisation has just said sorry to bad and want me to decline the
interview. 

This seems very unfair, do I have the right to ask for a different day
now I have been selected for interview ?

Thanks, Richard




-- 
Surfidea

On Wed,  6 Aug 2008 18:15:05 +0100, Surfidea
 wrote:

>
>I recently applied for a post at a organisation where in advert no date
>for interview was mentioned. I have been offered interview on one date,
>but cannot make it. I have asked for a different date or to just attend
>for a few hours on the day at great inconvenience to me. The
>organisation has just said sorry to bad and want me to decline the
>interview. 
>
>This seems very unfair, do I have the right to ask for a different day
>now I have been selected for interview ?
>

No.

It may seem unfair.

It may even *be* unfair.

But unless the reason you cannot attend on that day is one of those
covered by anti-discrimination legislation, there is absolutely no
requirement on them to be "fair".


If you want a job with them, then it is up to you to fit in with their
requirements for interview, not up to them to fit in with yours.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Plasma is another matter.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On 6 Aug, 18:15, Surfidea  wrote:
> I recently applied for a post at a organisation where in advert no date
> for interview was mentioned. I have been offered interview on one date,
> but cannot make it. I have asked for a different date or to just attend
> for a few hours on the day at great inconvenience to me. The
> organisation has just said sorry to bad and want me to decline the
> interview.

This probably means that they have an internal candidate and have
asked a few outsiders just for show.

A few years ago I applied for a job at Warwick University. They phoned
me at 5pm on a Tuesday and asked if I could come for interview at 10am
the following day. I said that I couldn't - I lived several hundred
miles away - but that I could do 12 noon. They said they would let me
know.

And did, four days later with a letter saying that my application had
been cancelled because I had "failed to make myself available for
interview". The job, unsurprisingly, went to an internal candidate.
Who made such a balls up of it that articles appeared in the national
press.

Ian

On 6 Aug, 19:15, Surfidea  wrote:
> I recently applied for a post at a organisation where in advert no date
> for interview was mentioned. I have been offered interview on one date,
> but cannot make it. I have asked for a different date or to just attend
> for a few hours on the day at great inconvenience to me. The
> organisation has just said sorry to bad and want me to decline the
> interview.
>
> This seems very unfair, do I have the right to ask for a different day
> now I have been selected for interview ?
>
> Thanks, Richard
>
> --
> Surfidea

If the interview process involves some long presentation or
examination, or requires you to hang around for a possible second
interview, then it really isn't possible to allow you to attend for
part of the day, or to change the date for all the other candidates.

Employers these days want people who can put the job before everything
else, and whingeing about interview dates won't put you in a good
light.

The best you can do is to write saying you are really keen to work for
them, but can't attend on that date as it's your mother's funeral/a
job-related examination (or other very good reason) and could they let
you know if a similar position comes up in the future?

Chris

Surfidea wrote:

> 
> I recently applied for a post at a organisation where in advert no
> date for interview was mentioned. I have been offered interview on
> one date, but cannot make it. I have asked for a different date or to
> just attend for a few hours on the day at great inconvenience to me.
> The organisation has just said sorry to bad and want me to decline the
> interview. 
> 
> This seems very unfair, do I have the right to ask for a different day
> now I have been selected for interview ?
> 
> Thanks, Richard

No

--

Surfidea 's wild
thoughts were released on Wed,  6 Aug 2008 18:15:05 +0100
bearing the following fruit:

>
>I recently applied for a post at a organisation where in advert no date
>for interview was mentioned. I have been offered interview on one date,
>but cannot make it. I have asked for a different date or to just attend
>for a few hours on the day at great inconvenience to me. The
>organisation has just said sorry to bad and want me to decline the
>interview. 
>
>This seems very unfair, do I have the right to ask for a different day
>now I have been selected for interview ?
>
>Thanks, Richard

It takes a lot of time to sift through CVs, organise
interview, do the interviews and choose a candiate.

It cannot be an open ended process otherwise no-one would
get employed and the poor interview would never get back to
his job.

Looking at it from the emploers point of view it is unfair
of candidates to expect to be able to pick and choose when
an interview happens and hold the whole process up.

So don't take it personally, it's just business ;-)


--
Jan Hyde (VB MVP)

https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Jan.Hyde

"Jan Hyde (VB MVP)"  wrote in message 
news:fhql94li061f3mkkhb6m3mtqa6ij1kd41f@4ax.com...
>
> It takes a lot of time to sift through CVs, organise
> interview, do the interviews and choose a candiate.

I am not completely sure that this is apocryphal, but I heard of an employer 
who threw half the applications in the bin unopened, as he only wanted to 
employ lucky people.

GB wrote:
> I am not completely sure that this is apocryphal, but I heard of an employer 
> who threw half the applications in the bin unopened, as he only wanted to 
> employ lucky people.

When I worked for a local council, one of the members of the selection 
panel went through the applications trying to guess the applicants' 
star-signs.

Unless a link between sexuality or disability and star-sign can be 
demonstrated, I don't think it's illegal.

Owain

On 7 Aug, 13:35, "Jan Hyde (VB MVP)"
 wrote:

> Looking at it from the emploers point of view it is unfair
> of candidates to expect to be able to pick and choose when
> an interview happens and hold the whole process up.

Look at it from the employer's point of view. Any competent and
reasonably senior person is likely to have work commitments which
cannot be dropped at a few days' notice for a job interview. So if you
want to get someone good, you have to offer some flexibility in
interviews - not having a back-up date may make the lives of the
interviewers easier but it's an awful good way to miss good
candidates.

Ian

The Real Doctor wrote:
> On 7 Aug, 13:35, "Jan Hyde (VB MVP)"
>  wrote:
> 
>> Looking at it from the emploers point of view it is unfair
>> of candidates to expect to be able to pick and choose when
>> an interview happens and hold the whole process up.
> 
> Look at it from the employer's point of view. Any competent and
> reasonably senior person is likely to have work commitments which
> cannot be dropped at a few days' notice for a job interview. So if you
> want to get someone good, you have to offer some flexibility in
> interviews - not having a back-up date may make the lives of the
> interviewers easier but it's an awful good way to miss good
> candidates.
> 
Of course employers, faced with a candidate significantly better than 
the others, will be flexible in order to recruit them.

Where there are other candidates as equally good, or better, why should 
they? Those forming the interview panel also have commitments. It can be 
hard enough to arrange a date that suits all of them. A room may need to 
be booked. Video recording may need to be arranged. Setting up all that 
again because one applicant cannot attend is not cost effective, if the 
result isn't going to be a significantly better employee.

So, it does all depend on the job description. If it is going to attract 
large numbers of good candidates, any reason to reject someone is a good 
reason.

--
Sue

On Aug 7, 1:50 pm, "GB"  wrote:
> "Jan Hyde (VB MVP)"  wrote in messagenews:fhql94li061f3mkkhb6m3mtqa6ij1kd41f@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > It takes a lot of time to sift through CVs, organise
> > interview, do the interviews and choose a candiate.
>
> I am not completely sure that this is apocryphal, but I heard of an employer
> who threw half the applications in the bin unopened, as he only wanted to
> employ lucky people.

I think you'll find that was David Brent in "The Office" :-)
Jon.

On Thu,  7 Aug 2008 19:50:09 +0100, The Real Doctor put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On 7 Aug, 13:35, "Jan Hyde (VB MVP)"
> wrote:
>
>> Looking at it from the emploers point of view it is unfair
>> of candidates to expect to be able to pick and choose when
>> an interview happens and hold the whole process up.
>
>Look at it from the employer's point of view. Any competent and
>reasonably senior person is likely to have work commitments which
>cannot be dropped at a few days' notice for a job interview. So if you
>want to get someone good, you have to offer some flexibility in
>interviews - not having a back-up date may make the lives of the
>interviewers easier but it's an awful good way to miss good
>candidates.

If you are hiring a new department head in a major company, yes, that
makes sense - you want to make every effort to ensure that you get the
right person. But if you're hiring supermarket shelf stackers then
it's their problem if they can't turn up to an interview - they're ten
a penny down the job centre. Most jobs will be somewhere in between
these two extremes, of course, but it's ultimately the employer's
decision as to how much they're prepared to be flexible when it comes
to the interview.

Mark

"The Real Doctor"  wrote in message 
news:365e67af-3ebd-4dd2-a4e6-d045745a4427@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 7 Aug, 13:35, "Jan Hyde (VB MVP)"
>  wrote:
>
>> Looking at it from the emploers point of view it is unfair
>> of candidates to expect to be able to pick and choose when
>> an interview happens and hold the whole process up.
>
> Look at it from the employer's point of view. Any competent and
> reasonably senior person is likely to have work commitments which
> cannot be dropped at a few days' notice for a job interview. So if you
> want to get someone good, you have to offer some flexibility in
> interviews - not having a back-up date may make the lives of the
> interviewers easier but it's an awful good way to miss good
> candidates.
>
As they did in your example.
Look at it from the employee's PoV.  If the employer are so closed minded 
about the internal, then would you want to work there anyway?

On 7 Aug, 22:55, "mert1639"  wrote:

> Look at it from the employee's PoV.  If the employer are so closed minded
> about the internal, then would you want to work there anyway?

Indeed. From what I have subsequently heard, not working at Warwick
University was a Very Good Career Move ...

Ian

In message <g7fqsi$nid$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at 
22:55:04 on Thu, 7 Aug 2008, mert1639  
remarked:
>Look at it from the employee's PoV.  If the employer are so closed minded
>about the internal, then would you want to work there anyway?

.. about the interview?

But looking at it from the employer's point of view: the last two 
occasions when I was on the employer's side we needed to arrange a full 
day of "events" including a panel of around eight people, mainly 
non-exec board members and folk of similar standing. So although we gave 
the candidates plenty of notice, there wasn't any realistic possibility 
of interviewing on another day - especially when the protocol is to make 
the offer and have it accepted on the day; or if not accepted be able to 
make the offer to the runner-up if they are also suitable. (In at least 
one of the positions it was expected that the candidate would 
simultaneously be applying for other positions and so a degree of 
immediate certainty is useful for all parties, including the other 
employers he might be awaiting interviews for).

At the other end of the spectrum, when I interviewed for a PA about 
seven years ago I was the only interviewer, I saw the candidates for 
quite a short time, spread over a week when they came at times 
convenient for themselves, and we made the offer by phone at the end of 
the week.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:3xssZoAnEAnIFAWJ@perry.co.uk...
> In message <g7fqsi$nid$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at 
> 22:55:04 on Thu, 7 Aug 2008, mert1639  remarked:
>>Look at it from the employee's PoV.  If the employer are so closed minded
>>about the internal, then would you want to work there anyway?
>
> .. about the interview?
>
> But looking at it from the employer's point of view: the last two 
> occasions when I was on the employer's side we needed to arrange a full

No you didn't NEED to do this.

Is it really necessary to subject a dozen people to a full board of 
interviews.

Surely anyone with any sense would screen the applicants to narrow the 
possibles down to two or three and then select a date convenient to all of 
them.

tim

The Real Doctor  wrote:


> 
> This probably means that they have an internal candidate and have
> asked a few outsiders just for show.

Or they want someone in post as soon as possiblle, aren't so aren't
motivated to fit in around an unexceptional candidate

or 

The have an interview panel which is difficult to get together, have
managed to find a date, and can't plausibly reconvene it within a
sensible timescale

Both just as plausible - in my experience more plausivble - as the
internal candidate scenario.

tim.....  wrote:

> "Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
> news:3xssZoAnEAnIFAWJ@perry.co.uk...
> > In message <g7fqsi$nid$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at
> > 22:55:04 on Thu, 7 Aug 2008, mert1639  remarked:
> >>Look at it from the employee's PoV.  If the employer are so closed minded
> >>about the internal, then would you want to work there anyway?
> >
> > .. about the interview?
> >
> > But looking at it from the employer's point of view: the last two 
> > occasions when I was on the employer's side we needed to arrange a full
> 
> No you didn't NEED to do this.
> 
> Is it really necessary to subject a dozen people to a full board of 
> interviews.

Sometimes - I'm interviewing for a post in November where the interview
proceedure is laid down in statute, and to comply with various
regulations we'll have to have a panel of 10 people.

On Aug 7, 1:35 pm, "Jan Hyde (VB MVP)"
 wrote:
> Surfidea 's wild
> thoughts were released on Wed,  6 Aug 2008 18:15:05 퍝
> bearing the following fruit:
>
>
>
> >I recently applied for a post at a organisation where in advert no date
> >for interview was mentioned. I have been offered interview on one date,
> >but cannot make it. I have asked for a different date or to just attend
> >for a few hours on the day at great inconvenience to me. The
> >organisation has just said sorry to bad and want me to decline the
> >interview.
>
> >This seems very unfair, do I have the right to ask for a different day
> >now I have been selected for interview ?
>
> >Thanks, Richard
>
> It takes a lot of time to sift through CVs, organise
> interview, do the interviews and choose a candiate.
>
> It cannot be an open ended process otherwise no-one would
> get employed and the poor interview would never get back to
> his job.
>
> Looking at it from the emploers point of view it is unfair
> of candidates to expect to be able to pick and choose when
> an interview happens and hold the whole process up.
>
> So don't take it personally, it's just business ;-)


When we (big multinational) employ people we certainly don't take such
a high-handed approach.  We find interview dates that suits.  We want
the best people and they are not necessarily people who can drop
everything and come just when it's convenient for us.

Their attitude tells you a lot about what sort of employer they would
be.

Robert

On 13 Aug, 14:35, RobertL  wrote:

> When we (big multinational) employ people we certainly don't take such
> a high-handed approach.  We find interview dates that suits.  We want
> the best people and they are not necessarily people who can drop
> everything and come just when it's convenient for us.

Absolutely. When I interview - two tranches of posts a year - we
always have at least one back-up date available. We don;t want  to
miss out on good people simply because an interview date is impossible
for them. Organisations which put their own administrative convenience
over recruiting the right people are probably worth selling shares in.

Ian

In message 
, at 
16:25:09 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor 
 remarked:
>> When we (big multinational) employ people we certainly don't take such
>> a high-handed approach.  We find interview dates that suits.  We want
>> the best people and they are not necessarily people who can drop
>> everything and come just when it's convenient for us.
>
>Absolutely. When I interview - two tranches of posts a year - we
>always have at least one back-up date available. We don;t want  to
>miss out on good people simply because an interview date is impossible
>for them. Organisations which put their own administrative convenience
>over recruiting the right people are probably worth selling shares in.

That's all very well in the private sector, but public sector 
appointments often have strict rules that effectively preclude having a 
flexible interview process. Trivially, you are only supposed to ask the 
same questions of all the applicants, which is a bit of a nuisance if 
halfway through you think of a "killer question" you failed to ask the 
earlier candidates. Convening the panel with the required number of 
"impartial outsiders" is also difficult if all the interviews aren't 
done at the same time (which may nevertheless be over a few consecutive 
days).
-- 
Roland Perry

On 13 Aug, 16:40, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message
> , at
> 16:25:09 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor
>  remarked:

> >Absolutely. When I interview - two tranches of posts a year - we
> >always have at least one back-up date available. We don;t want  to
> >miss out on good people simply because an interview date is impossible
> >for them.
>
> That's all very well in the private sector, but public sector
> appointments often have strict rules that effectively preclude having a
> flexible interview process. Trivially, you are only supposed to ask the
> same questions of all the applicants...

That's a myth put about by the drones who inhabit HR departments. If
you want to ask the same questions of all candidates you stick 'em on
the form. The whole point of interviews is to be able to ask different
questions of different candidates.

Ian

In message 
, at 
17:30:10 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor 
 remarked:
>> That's all very well in the private sector, but public sector
>> appointments often have strict rules that effectively preclude having a
>> flexible interview process. Trivially, you are only supposed to ask the
>> same questions of all the applicants...
>
>That's a myth put about by the drones who inhabit HR departments. If
>you want to ask the same questions of all candidates you stick 'em on
>the form.

I don't think that the sort of questions I had in mind are really 
appropriate for an application form.

>The whole point of interviews is to be able to ask different
>questions of different candidates.

You are sure that applies to public appointments? The idea seems to be 
to have a demonstrably level playing field - hence the identical 
questions issue.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:UeeUyU6SIxoIFA5r@perry.co.uk...
> In message 
> , at 
> 17:30:10 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor  
> remarked:
>>> That's all very well in the private sector, but public sector
>>> appointments often have strict rules that effectively preclude having a
>>> flexible interview process. Trivially, you are only supposed to ask the
>>> same questions of all the applicants...
>>
>>That's a myth put about by the drones who inhabit HR departments. If
>>you want to ask the same questions of all candidates you stick 'em on
>>the form.
>
> I don't think that the sort of questions I had in mind are really 
> appropriate for an application form.
>
>>The whole point of interviews is to be able to ask different
>>questions of different candidates.
>
> You are sure that applies to public appointments? The idea seems to be to 
> have a demonstrably level playing field - hence the identical questions 
> issue.

The thing about public authorities is that it is rare for the best business 
minds to want to work for them.  So as they only get the average to pick 
from in the first place, compromising their choice by mucking about with 
interview dates isn't going to make much difference.

On 13 Aug, 18:00, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message
> , at
> 17:30:10 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor
>  remarked:

> >The whole point of interviews is to be able to ask different
> >questions of different candidates.
>
> You are sure that applies to public appointments? The idea seems to be
> to have a demonstrably level playing field - hence the identical
> questions issue.

I am not aware - but am happy to be enlightened - that employment law
is different for public and private appointments.

Everybody wants to be fair. The problem is with the second raters who
work in HR (I have /never/ met a bright HR person) who assume that
"fair" must mean "treated in exactly the same way". The way round this
is to ask them if the organisation's diversity policy specifies that
everyone must be treated identically. They will realise that it
doesn't and go away muttering as their tiny little HR (2.2 in
Psychology) brains try to hold two different opinions at once.

Ian

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message 
> , at 
> 17:30:10 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor 
>  remarked:
>>> That's all very well in the private sector, but public sector
>>> appointments often have strict rules that effectively preclude having a
>>> flexible interview process. Trivially, you are only supposed to ask the
>>> same questions of all the applicants...
>>
>> That's a myth put about by the drones who inhabit HR departments. If
>> you want to ask the same questions of all candidates you stick 'em on
>> the form.
> 
> I don't think that the sort of questions I had in mind are really 
> appropriate for an application form.
> 
>> The whole point of interviews is to be able to ask different
>> questions of different candidates.
> 
> You are sure that applies to public appointments? The idea seems to be 
> to have a demonstrably level playing field - hence the identical 
> questions issue.

I've only known one HR department that has insisted on an agreed script 
of questions to be used for each candidate - not that it affected 
anything, as the decision was made whilst doing individual guided tours 
round the building, before the interviews :)

What is far more common is a list of essential and desirable job-related 
skills and experience, with a weighting factor agreed for each. That 
list is then divided up between the members of the interview panel, so 
the whole list was covered but with a lead panel member for each. 
Questions other than relevant to something on the list are not 
permitted. After each interview, marks are discussed and agreed for item 
on the list and weighting factors applied. The job is offered to the one 
with the highest total score. Who, coincidently, was always the one that 
would have got the job based solely on the conducted tour conversation 
held previously. :)

However, the dominant thing is always whether it is a buyers' or 
sellers' market. For a gap year placement and over 1000 applications - 
any excuse to lose a few more was taken. For a key position - the rules 
became very, very flexible.. the guy who does best on the walk around 
still gets the job, though :)..

--
Sue

In message , at 19:00:10 on Wed, 13 
Aug 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>>> That's all very well in the private sector, but public sector
>>>> appointments often have strict rules that effectively preclude having a
>>>> flexible interview process. Trivially, you are only supposed to ask the
>>>> same questions of all the applicants...
>>>
>>>That's a myth put about by the drones who inhabit HR departments. If
>>>you want to ask the same questions of all candidates you stick 'em on
>>>the form.
>>
>> I don't think that the sort of questions I had in mind are really
>> appropriate for an application form.
>>
>>>The whole point of interviews is to be able to ask different
>>>questions of different candidates.
>>
>> You are sure that applies to public appointments? The idea seems to be to
>> have a demonstrably level playing field - hence the identical questions
>> issue.
>
>The thing about public authorities is that it is rare for the best business
>minds to want to work for them.  So as they only get the average to pick
>from in the first place, compromising their choice by mucking about with
>interview dates isn't going to make much difference.

While the sort of people I'm talking about (Head of a 1500 student 
Comprehensive School with £6M a year budget) are no Bill Gates, it's an 
£80K a year job at pretty much the top of their profession. And the 
culture is that you interview all the candidates over the same two days, 
because almost all the panel are volunteers with other jobs to do, and 
there's a strict deadline to meet because of the notice the successful 
candidate has to give to his previous employer.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry  wrote in 
news:zFjtkTCnu0oIFAtg@perry.co.uk:

> 
> While the sort of people I'm talking about (Head of a 1500 student 
> Comprehensive School with œ6M a year budget) are no Bill Gates, it's an 
> œ80K a year job at pretty much the top of their profession. And the 
> culture is that you interview all the candidates over the same two days, 
> because almost all the panel are volunteers with other jobs to do, and 
> there's a strict deadline to meet because of the notice the successful 
> candidate has to give to his previous employer.

Having just done something very much like that as an inteviewer/selector 
(head teacher at a primary) I couldn't agree more. As it happened all our 
shortlisted candidates attended the selection, if they'd called beforehand 
and said that they couldn't attend when required then unless the 
circumstances were particularly exceptional our view would have that they 
didn't want the job enough.

It's not just a matter of organisation, it's even just a matter of finances  
it's also a mater of fairness. All candidates should tested under the same 
circumstances.

-- 

Regards,

Periander

On 13 Aug, 22:55, Periander  wrote:
> Having just done something very much like that as an inteviewer/selector
> (head teacher at a primary) I couldn't agree more. As it happened all our
> shortlisted candidates attended the selection, if they'd called beforehand
> and said that they couldn't attend when required then unless the
> circumstances were particularly exceptional our view would have that they
> didn't want the job enough.

How exceptional would it have to be? And what would you do if the
circumstances were exceptional?

> It's not just a matter of organisation, it's even just a matter of finances
> it's also a mater of fairness. All candidates should tested under the same
> circumstances.

Like not having to mis something important to suit the convenience of
the interviewers?

Ian

The Real Doctor wrote:
> On 13 Aug, 22:55, Periander  wrote:
>> Having just done something very much like that as an inteviewer/selector
>> (head teacher at a primary) I couldn't agree more. As it happened all our
>> shortlisted candidates attended the selection, if they'd called beforehand
>> and said that they couldn't attend when required then unless the
>> circumstances were particularly exceptional our view would have that they
>> didn't want the job enough.
> 
> How exceptional would it have to be? And what would you do if the
> circumstances were exceptional?

At a rough guess, something "compassionate", fixed and unavoidable, 
where other people would suffer disproportionately, should the candidate 
attend the interview. eg daughter's wedding, parent's memorial service, 
spouse's investiture.

> 
>> It's not just a matter of organisation, it's even just a matter of finances
>> it's also a mater of fairness. All candidates should tested under the same
>> circumstances.
> 
> Like not having to mis something important to suit the convenience of
> the interviewers?
> 

Such sessions often involve considerable *inconvenience* to the 
interviewers, as it is.

It's rather like the standard "birthday" statistics oddity of a group in 
a room - finding a "convenient" date for a number of interviewers is 
seldom possible and some end up having to change existing arrangements 
to suit.

  Add half a dozen candidates, each with their own diaries, and it is 
almost inevitable that *someone* will have to be inconvenienced. Who is 
depends on the situation - if the absolutely clear favourite is only 
available on Feb 29th at 8pm, then guess when the interview will be?

--
Sue

The Real Doctor  wrote in
news:06a5831d-7f37-4c3b-aa73-a397ed465f3b@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com: 

> On 13 Aug, 22:55, Periander  wrote:
>> Having just done something very much like that as an
>> inteviewer/selector (head teacher at a primary) I couldn't agree
>> more. As it happened all our shortlisted candidates attended the
>> selection, if they'd called beforehand and said that they couldn't
>> attend when required then unless the circumstances were particularly
>> exceptional our view would have that they didn't want the job enough.
> 
> How exceptional would it have to be?

Very

> And what would you do if the
> circumstances were exceptional?

Delay the entire process if possible without being unfair to the other 
candidates.

>> It's not just a matter of organisation, it's even just a matter of
>> finances it's also a mater of fairness. All candidates should tested
>> under the same circumstances.
> 
> Like not having to mis something important to suit the convenience of
> the interviewers?

Taking the current example of recruiting a head teacher, the process 
starts almost a year in advance of the anticipated start date (there are 
particular contractual obligations in respect of head teachers), during 
that year, funds are spent on advertising, governors take time away from 
thier own occupations to manage, oversee and impliment the process. The 
two day selection (or however long it is) is the tip of the iceburg ... 

-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

In message 
, at 
23:00:17 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor 
 remarked:
>> Having just done something very much like that as an inteviewer/selector
>> (head teacher at a primary) I couldn't agree more. As it happened all our
>> shortlisted candidates attended the selection, if they'd called beforehand
>> and said that they couldn't attend when required then unless the
>> circumstances were particularly exceptional our view would have that they
>> didn't want the job enough.
>
>How exceptional would it have to be? And what would you do if the
>circumstances were exceptional?

We waited twenty minutes for one of the candidates because he was caught 
in a traffic jam. It would not have been possible to re-arrange the 
day's timetable by much more than that.

>> It's not just a matter of organisation, it's even just a matter of finances
>> it's also a mater of fairness. All candidates should tested under the same
>> circumstances.
>
>Like not having to mis something important to suit the convenience of
>the interviewers?

What's more important than an interview for a career-changing job?

You seem to be trying to balance the "need of the candidate" versus the 
"need of the employer". A kind of buyers vs sellers market. What I'm 
saying is that you try to rise above that by doing things in a well 
understood, but relatively inflexible, way.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <EcJok.479716$Ev5.469617@fe09.news.easynews.com>, at 23:30:08 
on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Palindrome  remarked:
> Add half a dozen candidates, each with their own diaries, and it is 
>almost inevitable that *someone* will have to be inconvenienced. Who is 
>depends on the situation - if the absolutely clear favourite is only 
>available on Feb 29th at 8pm, then guess when the interview will be?

There's also the consideration that in many public appointments the 
candidates are positively looking for a new job. They've decided they 
want to move [1] from being a deputy head to being a head, or that the 
time has come to be the Chief Exec (rather than departmental head) at a 
County Council, and they will have some idea of the commitment to that 
process that's required. And try quite hard not to book too many 
'competing' events during the relevant window of opportunity.

[1] Or when we recruited the former Information Commissioner to be 
Telecoms Ombudsman, their term of office was up. In that case I think 
the panel chair was the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (in 
Quango-land everyone mucks in), with no doubt quite a crowded diary of 
their own.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 23:35:03 
on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Periander  remarked:
>Taking the current example of recruiting a head teacher, the process
>starts almost a year in advance of the anticipated start date (there are
>particular contractual obligations in respect of head teachers), during
>that year, funds are spent on advertising, governors take time away from
>thier own occupations to manage, oversee and impliment the process. The
>two day selection (or however long it is) is the tip of the iceburg ...

We squeezed our process into half a term, because we started a bit late 
due to uncertainty over the status of the retirement of the previous 
head. As a result we had a severe time limitation at the end, and had to 
have the interviews on almost the last two days of term.

It all only came together because I was able to volunteer to do things 
like hand-carry filled-in application forms exactly when the deadline 
expired (noon on a specific day), from the Education Office to the 
individuals on the shortlisting panel, etc etc.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 13 Aug, 23:35, Periander  wrote:
> The Real Doctor  wrote innews:06a5831d-7f37-4c3b-aa73-a397ed465f3b@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:

> > How exceptional would it have to be?
>
> Very

Ofsted inspection of current school?

> > And what would you do if the
> > circumstances were exceptional?
>
> Delay the entire process if possible without being unfair to the other
> candidates.

Sounds sensible.

> > Like not having to mis something important to suit the convenience of
> > the interviewers?
>
> Taking the current example of recruiting a head teacher, the process
> starts almost a year in advance of the anticipated start date (there are
> particular contractual obligations in respect of head teachers), during
> that year, funds are spent on advertising, governors take time away from
> thier own occupations to manage, oversee and impliment the process. The
> two day selection (or however long it is) is the tip of the iceburg ...

Some job advertisements give the dates of the interviews. That has
always struck me as a Good Idea.

Ian

On 14 Aug, 08:55, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message
> , at
> 23:00:17 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor
>  remarked:

> >Like not having to mis something important to suit the convenience of
> >the interviewers?
>
> What's more important than an interview for a career-changing job?

A question which more-or-less defines the sort of person who should /
not/ be employed for some jobs!

Ian

In message 
, at 
12:15:03 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor 
 remarked:

>> > How exceptional would it have to be?
>>
>> Very
>
>Ofsted inspection of current school?

Something that would be quite fun is a snap Ofted inspection of the 
school doing the interviewing.

>Some job advertisements give the dates of the interviews. That has
>always struck me as a Good Idea.

Yes, I think our advert gave the week. I've also seen adverts where the 
entire timetable, including shortlisting panels and interview panels, 
has been disclosed up front. And if not in the advert itself, in the 
papers sent to candidates.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
, at 
12:25:09 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor 
 remarked:
>> >Like not having to mis something important to suit the convenience of
>> >the interviewers?
>>
>> What's more important than an interview for a career-changing job?
>
>A question which more-or-less defines the sort of person who should /
>not/ be employed for some jobs!

Not sure what you mean. How will you ever get new Head Teachers if the 
process isn't seeded by Deputy-Heads wanting a career-changing move?
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry  wrote in news:ltPouUOV5
$oIFA8f@perry.co.uk:

> In message , at 23:35:03 
> on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, Periander  remarked:
>>Taking the current example of recruiting a head teacher, the process
>>starts almost a year in advance of the anticipated start date (there are
>>particular contractual obligations in respect of head teachers), during
>>that year, funds are spent on advertising, governors take time away from
>>thier own occupations to manage, oversee and impliment the process. The
>>two day selection (or however long it is) is the tip of the iceburg ...
> 
> We squeezed our process into half a term, because we started a bit late 
> due to uncertainty over the status of the retirement of the previous 
> head. As a result we had a severe time limitation at the end, and had to 
> have the interviews on almost the last two days of term.

And if you hadn't found a suitable candidate ... 

We were lucky, our head gave us a full year to get ready which allowed to 
to plan and prepare for a second recruitment round if we didn't get what we 
wanted the first time about.

-- 

Regards,

Periander

Roland Perry  wrote in news:rmobcRbOmBpIFA06
@perry.co.uk:

> 
> Yes, I think our advert gave the week. I've also seen adverts where the 
> entire timetable, including shortlisting panels and interview panels, 
> has been disclosed up front. And if not in the advert itself, in the 
> papers sent to candidates.

We did that as part of the pack we sent out to candidates. The adverts cost 
enough as they were :-)

-- 

Regards,

Periander

The Real Doctor  wrote in
news:90b20227-89f7-4e40-949e-a5639e86cf43@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: 

> On 13 Aug, 23:35, Periander  wrote:
>> The Real Doctor  wrote
>> innews:06a5831d-7f37-4c3b-aa73-a397ed465f3b@
79g2000hsk.googlegroups.co
>> m: 
> 
>> > How exceptional would it have to be?
>>
>> Very
> 
> Ofsted inspection of current school?

None due however from the last one ...

"This is a good school. It provides pupils with a good education and the 
quality of teaching and learning is good. Pupils achieve well in a 
positive and supportive ethos and standards are well above nationally 
expected levels in English, mathematics and science. The school is well 
managed and has very strong leadership. It gives good value for money."

>> > And what would you do if the
>> > circumstances were exceptional?
>>
>> Delay the entire process if possible without being unfair to the
>> other candidates.
> 
> Sounds sensible.
> 
>> > Like not having to mis something important to suit the convenience
>> > of the interviewers?
>>
>> Taking the current example of recruiting a head teacher, the process
>> starts almost a year in advance of the anticipated start date (there
>> are particular contractual obligations in respect of head teachers),
>> during that year, funds are spent on advertising, governors take time
>> away from thier own occupations to manage, oversee and impliment the
>> process. The two day selection (or however long it is) is the tip of
>> the iceburg ... 
> 
> Some job advertisements give the dates of the interviews. That has
> always struck me as a Good Idea.

Yup, when possible I'd agree. It's not always possible though.

-- 
Regards,

Periander

"Palindrome"  wrote in message 
news:EcJok.479716$Ev5.469617@fe09.news.easynews.com...
> The Real Doctor wrote:
>> On 13 Aug, 22:55, Periander  wrote:
>>> Having just done something very much like that as an inteviewer/selector
>>> (head teacher at a primary) I couldn't agree more. As it happened all 
>>> our
>>> shortlisted candidates attended the selection, if they'd called 
>>> beforehand
>>> and said that they couldn't attend when required then unless the
>>> circumstances were particularly exceptional our view would have that 
>>> they
>>> didn't want the job enough.
>>
>> How exceptional would it have to be? And what would you do if the
>> circumstances were exceptional?
>
> At a rough guess, something "compassionate", fixed and unavoidable, where 
> other people would suffer disproportionately, should the candidate attend 
> the interview. eg daughter's wedding, parent's memorial service, spouse's 
> investiture.

Oh so an important business meeting isn't enough?

Would you like your prospective employee to cancel such a meeting when (s)he 
is working for you because someone else decides that their meeting is more 
important?

I don't know where the rest of you are coming from, but when I apply for the 
jobs the one and *only* reason why I might not be able to make a particular 
date for an interview is because my current employer's schedule came first!

tim

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:fXmGwGc1nBpIFARj@perry.co.uk...
> In message 
> , at 
> 12:25:09 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor  
> remarked:
>>> >Like not having to mis something important to suit the convenience of
>>> >the interviewers?
>>>
>>> What's more important than an interview for a career-changing job?
>>
>>A question which more-or-less defines the sort of person who should /
>>not/ be employed for some jobs!
>
> Not sure what you mean. How will you ever get new Head Teachers if the 
> process isn't seeded by Deputy-Heads wanting a career-changing move?

I think he means someone who schedules his arrival so tightly probably isn't 
a good choice.

Of course he could have been stuck for 4 hours?

tim

tim..... wrote:
> "Palindrome"  wrote in message 
> news:EcJok.479716$Ev5.469617@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>> The Real Doctor wrote:
>>> On 13 Aug, 22:55, Periander  wrote:
>>>> Having just done something very much like that as an inteviewer/selector
>>>> (head teacher at a primary) I couldn't agree more. As it happened all 
>>>> our
>>>> shortlisted candidates attended the selection, if they'd called 
>>>> beforehand
>>>> and said that they couldn't attend when required then unless the
>>>> circumstances were particularly exceptional our view would have that 
>>>> they
>>>> didn't want the job enough.
>>> How exceptional would it have to be? And what would you do if the
>>> circumstances were exceptional?
>> At a rough guess, something "compassionate", fixed and unavoidable, where 
>> other people would suffer disproportionately, should the candidate attend 
>> the interview. eg daughter's wedding, parent's memorial service, spouse's 
>> investiture.
> 
> Oh so an important business meeting isn't enough?

Nope.
> 
> Would you like your prospective employee to cancel such a meeting when (s)he 
> is working for you because someone else decides that their meeting is more 
> important?

Employees are supposed to bring solutions to problems - not just 
problems - to their boss.

A capable employee will find a way to both get the time off for the 
interview and achieve his purpose within his current organisation.

> 
> I don't know where the rest of you are coming from, but when I apply for the 
> jobs the one and *only* reason why I might not be able to make a particular 
> date for an interview is because my current employer's schedule came first!
> 
Oh, that is generally the most easy clash to fix. A reasonably competent 
person will anticipate that circumstances may dictate that they cannot 
be present themselves at all times, because of accident, illness or 
intent.  They put systems in place to cater for that, before the event, 
not after.

It is not in the best interest of any company to make yourself so 
indispensable that damage to the company results if you are away for a 
few days.

--
Sue

In message , at 19:05:06 on Thu, 14 
Aug 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>> At a rough guess, something "compassionate", fixed and unavoidable, where
>> other people would suffer disproportionately, should the candidate attend
>> the interview. eg daughter's wedding, parent's memorial service, spouse's
>> investiture.
>
>Oh so an important business meeting isn't enough?
>
>Would you like your prospective employee to cancel such a meeting when (s)he
>is working for you because someone else decides that their meeting is more
>important?

If the candidate is double-booked then something has to give. In a 
formal recruitment scenario it'll be his interview - if he is unable to 
rearrange or cancel that business meeting. It interview panels can be 
re-arranged (according to you), why not business meetings?

>I don't know where the rest of you are coming from, but when I apply for the
>jobs the one and *only* reason why I might not be able to make a particular
>date for an interview is because my current employer's schedule came first!

So you'd go to the interview rather than your daughter's wedding?
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:40:10 
on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Periander  remarked:
>> We squeezed our process into half a term, because we started a bit late
>> due to uncertainty over the status of the retirement of the previous
>> head. As a result we had a severe time limitation at the end, and had to
>> have the interviews on almost the last two days of term.
>
>And if you hadn't found a suitable candidate ...

We would have needed to re-run the process, delayed in effect by a whole 
term, and have the new starter arrive the following Xmas rather than 
September. Not a very good outcome, but we can't always get what we 
want.

-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:45:07 
on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Periander  remarked:
>> Yes, I think our advert gave the week. I've also seen adverts where the
>> entire timetable, including shortlisting panels and interview panels,
>> has been disclosed up front. And if not in the advert itself, in the
>> papers sent to candidates.
>
>We did that as part of the pack we sent out to candidates. The adverts cost
>enough as they were :-)

The adverts with the entire timetable were the online version for a job 
in the commercial sector. You could look on it as giving all potential 
candidates advance views of the same pack as those who apply, I suppose.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:05:09 on Thu, 14 
Aug 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>>> >Like not having to mis something important to suit the convenience of
>>>> >the interviewers?
>>>>
>>>> What's more important than an interview for a career-changing job?
>>>
>>>A question which more-or-less defines the sort of person who should /
>>>not/ be employed for some jobs!
>>
>> Not sure what you mean. How will you ever get new Head Teachers if the
>> process isn't seeded by Deputy-Heads wanting a career-changing move?
>
>I think he means someone who schedules his arrival so tightly probably isn't
>a good choice.

I didn't read that in at all.

>Of course he could have been stuck for 4 hours?

If you'd seen the instructions on how to find the school, it would be no 
surprise that people might be late :(

And Nottingham's a bit like that in the morning. When I did my small 
claims action at the County Court a year ago, the "other side" were 
about half an hour late too, because of traffic - which cheesed the DJ 
off a bit.
-- 
Roland Perry

The Real Doctor  posted
>On 13 Aug, 18:00, Roland Perry  wrote:
>> In message
>> , at
>> 17:30:10 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor
>>  remarked:
>
>> >The whole point of interviews is to be able to ask different
>> >questions of different candidates.
>>
>> You are sure that applies to public appointments? The idea seems to be
>> to have a demonstrably level playing field - hence the identical
>> questions issue.
>
>I am not aware - but am happy to be enlightened - that employment law
>is different for public and private appointments.

It isn't, but public bodies such as LAs very often have their own 
self-imposed rules that Must be Obeyed. The requirement that all 
candidates must be interviewed identically has in the past few years 
become one of these (though it is still unevenly obeyed).

Amusingly, the practice is referred to by LA staff as "Equal 
Opportunities", thereby conflating it with the genuine legislative 
requirement that employers mustn't discriminate against people on 
grounds of race etc.

This confusion has led many people in the public sector to believe that 
their so-called "Equal Opportunities" method of interviewing is also a 
legal requirement.

>
>Everybody wants to be fair. The problem is with the second raters who
>work in HR (I have /never/ met a bright HR person) who assume that
>"fair" must mean "treated in exactly the same way". The way round this
>is to ask them if the organisation's diversity policy specifies that
>everyone must be treated identically. They will realise that it
>doesn't and go away muttering as their tiny little HR (2.2 in
>Psychology) brains try to hold two different opinions at once.

Exactly. Like many of the hard-of-thinking who work in the public 
sector, they subscribe to the Nominalist Fallacy - the theory that iif 
two things are referred to by the same name then they must be the same 
thing.

-- 
Les
"God will save her, fear you not, be you the men you've been.
Get you the sons your fathers got and God will save the Queen."

"Palindrome"  wrote in message 
news:DO_ok.460278$I42.392245@fe04.news.easynews.com...
> tim..... wrote:
>> "Palindrome"  wrote in message 
>> news:EcJok.479716$Ev5.469617@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>>> The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>> On 13 Aug, 22:55, Periander  wrote:
>>>>> Having just done something very much like that as an 
>>>>> inteviewer/selector
>>>>> (head teacher at a primary) I couldn't agree more. As it happened all 
>>>>> our
>>>>> shortlisted candidates attended the selection, if they'd called 
>>>>> beforehand
>>>>> and said that they couldn't attend when required then unless the
>>>>> circumstances were particularly exceptional our view would have that 
>>>>> they
>>>>> didn't want the job enough.
>>>> How exceptional would it have to be? And what would you do if the
>>>> circumstances were exceptional?
>>> At a rough guess, something "compassionate", fixed and unavoidable, 
>>> where other people would suffer disproportionately, should the candidate 
>>> attend the interview. eg daughter's wedding, parent's memorial service, 
>>> spouse's investiture.
>>
>> Oh so an important business meeting isn't enough?
>
> Nope.
>>
>> Would you like your prospective employee to cancel such a meeting when 
>> (s)he is working for you because someone else decides that their meeting 
>> is more important?
>
> Employees are supposed to bring solutions to problems - not just 
> problems - to their boss.
>
> A capable employee will find a way to both get the time off for the 
> interview and achieve his purpose within his current organisation.
>
>>
>> I don't know where the rest of you are coming from, but when I apply for 
>> the jobs the one and *only* reason why I might not be able to make a 
>> particular date for an interview is because my current employer's 
>> schedule came first!
>>
> Oh, that is generally the most easy clash to fix. A reasonably competent 
> person will anticipate that circumstances may dictate that they cannot be 
> present themselves at all times, because of accident, illness or intent. 
> They put systems in place to cater for that, before the event, not after.

Oh, so I'm expected to take a sickie am I?

How many sickies do you want me to take when I am working for you?

> It is not in the best interest of any company to make yourself so 
> indispensable that damage to the company results if you are away for a few 
> days.

Who said "a few days" was a problem.  It a *specific* day that is the 
problem, what if someone from the US office is coming over for an important 
meeting on the day in question?

tim
>
> --
> Sue
>
>
>
>

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:UXYEQ9FNyHpIFARu@perry.co.uk...
> In message , at 19:05:06 on Thu, 14 Aug 
> 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>> At a rough guess, something "compassionate", fixed and unavoidable, 
>>> where
>>> other people would suffer disproportionately, should the candidate 
>>> attend
>>> the interview. eg daughter's wedding, parent's memorial service, 
>>> spouse's
>>> investiture.
>>
>>Oh so an important business meeting isn't enough?
>>
>>Would you like your prospective employee to cancel such a meeting when 
>>(s)he
>>is working for you because someone else decides that their meeting is more
>>important?
>
> If the candidate is double-booked then something has to give. In a formal 
> recruitment scenario it'll be his interview - if he is unable to rearrange 
> or cancel that business meeting. It interview panels can be re-arranged 
> (according to you), why not business meetings?

Because the business meeting was arranged first.  I don't expect anything to 
be cancelled.  I expect the person coming second to fit around whatever is 
already booked.

IMHO it is rude of someone to say: we want you to come for an interview and 
here is the date you should come, without first asking if it is convenient.

And if that's how they treat me before I am working for them, I don't want 
to.

>>I don't know where the rest of you are coming from, but when I apply for 
>>the
>>jobs the one and *only* reason why I might not be able to make a 
>>particular
>>date for an interview is because my current employer's schedule came 
>>first!
>
> So you'd go to the interview rather than your daughter's wedding?

I wouldn't expect the interview to be on a Saturday

tim

tim..... wrote:
> "Palindrome"  wrote in message 
> news:DO_ok.460278$I42.392245@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>> tim..... wrote:
>>> "Palindrome"  wrote in message 
>>> news:EcJok.479716$Ev5.469617@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>>>> The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>>> On 13 Aug, 22:55, Periander  wrote:
>>>>>> Having just done something very much like that as an 
>>>>>> inteviewer/selector
>>>>>> (head teacher at a primary) I couldn't agree more. As it happened all 
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> shortlisted candidates attended the selection, if they'd called 
>>>>>> beforehand
>>>>>> and said that they couldn't attend when required then unless the
>>>>>> circumstances were particularly exceptional our view would have that 
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> didn't want the job enough.
>>>>> How exceptional would it have to be? And what would you do if the
>>>>> circumstances were exceptional?
>>>> At a rough guess, something "compassionate", fixed and unavoidable, 
>>>> where other people would suffer disproportionately, should the candidate 
>>>> attend the interview. eg daughter's wedding, parent's memorial service, 
>>>> spouse's investiture.
>>> Oh so an important business meeting isn't enough?
>> Nope.
>>> Would you like your prospective employee to cancel such a meeting when 
>>> (s)he is working for you because someone else decides that their meeting 
>>> is more important?
>> Employees are supposed to bring solutions to problems - not just 
>> problems - to their boss.
>>
>> A capable employee will find a way to both get the time off for the 
>> interview and achieve his purpose within his current organisation.
>>
>>> I don't know where the rest of you are coming from, but when I apply for 
>>> the jobs the one and *only* reason why I might not be able to make a 
>>> particular date for an interview is because my current employer's 
>>> schedule came first!
>>>
>> Oh, that is generally the most easy clash to fix. A reasonably competent 
>> person will anticipate that circumstances may dictate that they cannot be 
>> present themselves at all times, because of accident, illness or intent. 
>> They put systems in place to cater for that, before the event, not after.
> 
> Oh, so I'm expected to take a sickie am I?

How on Earth did you draw that conclusion from what I wrote? That was in 
your mind, not mine. Are you interpreting my words as a suggestion that 
you should deliberately break a leg, as an alternative?

> 
> How many sickies do you want me to take when I am working for you?

If you are infectious, I would much rather you took a sickie than 
"soldiered on" and spread it around..
> 
>> It is not in the best interest of any company to make yourself so 
>> indispensable that damage to the company results if you are away for a few 
>> days.
> 
> Who said "a few days" was a problem.  It a *specific* day that is the 
> problem, what if someone from the US office is coming over for an important 
> meeting on the day in question?
> 
Well, D'Oh, yeah. Of course it is the specific day(s) of the interview 
that are the problem.

But, with any luck, the interview is going to be successful and your 
existing company will somehow have to manage without you, from some 
quite close date in the future.

An important meeting is a good opportunity to give your deputy the 
chance to show what they are made of. It takes more effort, of course, 
preparing them, grooming them, encouraging them for such things. The 
simplest and quickest solution is to never delegate. It is usually the 
worst solution; worst for you, worst for your deputy, worst for your 
company and worst for your family.

So you explain to your US office colleague that you do greatly value 
staff development and that you intend that your deputy handles this 
meeting.  That you have total confidence in his ability - after all, you 
trained him yourself...

--
Sue

tim..... wrote:
> "Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
> news:UXYEQ9FNyHpIFARu@perry.co.uk...
>> In message , at 19:05:06 on Thu, 14 Aug 
>> 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>>> At a rough guess, something "compassionate", fixed and unavoidable, 
>>>> where
>>>> other people would suffer disproportionately, should the candidate 
>>>> attend
>>>> the interview. eg daughter's wedding, parent's memorial service, 
>>>> spouse's
>>>> investiture.
>>> Oh so an important business meeting isn't enough?
>>>
>>> Would you like your prospective employee to cancel such a meeting when 
>>> (s)he
>>> is working for you because someone else decides that their meeting is more
>>> important?
>> If the candidate is double-booked then something has to give. In a formal 
>> recruitment scenario it'll be his interview - if he is unable to rearrange 
>> or cancel that business meeting. It interview panels can be re-arranged 
>> (according to you), why not business meetings?
> 
> Because the business meeting was arranged first.  I don't expect anything to 
> be cancelled.  I expect the person coming second to fit around whatever is 
> already booked.
> 
> IMHO it is rude of someone to say: we want you to come for an interview and 
> here is the date you should come, without first asking if it is convenient.
> 
> And if that's how they treat me before I am working for them, I don't want 
> to.

That does seem to be a good reason why they should ask you when you 
wouldn't be available.

> 
>>> I don't know where the rest of you are coming from, but when I apply for 
>>> the
>>> jobs the one and *only* reason why I might not be able to make a 
>>> particular
>>> date for an interview is because my current employer's schedule came 
>>> first!
>> So you'd go to the interview rather than your daughter's wedding?
> 
> I wouldn't expect the interview to be on a Saturday
> 
Maybe you wouldn't expect her to get married in New Zealand, either. 
Unfortunately children can be very unreliable, when it comes to such things.

--
Sue

On 14 Aug, 12:45, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message
> , at
> 12:25:09 on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor
>  remarked:
>
> >> >Like not having to mis something important to suit the convenience of
> >> >the interviewers?
>
> >> What's more important than an interview for a career-changing job?
>
> >A question which more-or-less defines the sort of person who should /
> >not/ be employed for some jobs!
>
> Not sure what you mean. How will you ever get new Head Teachers if the
> process isn't seeded by Deputy-Heads wanting a career-changing move?

You wouldn;t. But I don;t think anyone who puts career advancement
over everything else is terribly suitable as a head teacher. Or as
anything, really.

Ian

In message , at 22:00:25 on Thu, 14 
Aug 2008, tim.....  remarked:

>I expect the person coming second to fit around whatever is
>already booked.

If that's your expectation, then you will miss many opportunities in 
life. This interview being one of them.

>IMHO it is rude of someone to say: we want you to come for an interview and
>here is the date you should come, without first asking if it is convenient.

>And if that's how they treat me before I am working for them, I don't want
>to.

In that case a win-win situation, so what are you worried about?

(But in some professions it will virtually guarantee that you won't ever 
get an interview).

>> So you'd go to the interview rather than your daughter's wedding?
>
>I wouldn't expect the interview to be on a Saturday

Not every wedding is on a Saturday. Answer the question.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
, at 
01:30:11 on Fri, 15 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor 
 remarked:
>>How will you ever get new Head Teachers if the
>> process isn't seeded by Deputy-Heads wanting a career-changing move?
>
>You wouldn;t. But I don;t think anyone who puts career advancement
>over everything else is terribly suitable as a head teacher. Or as
>anything, really.

I'm surprised you think that taking one day off is symptomatic of 
"putting everything else" ahead of the day job.

Especially in a profession where it's accepted that people have to be 
interviewed like this, and where they are positively encouraged to 
advance their careers.

Maybe you are also unaware of the fairly sophisticated procedures in 
place that make it unlikely that a school is seriously inconvenienced if 
one member of staff is off for one day - even the Head, who is actually 
quite likely to be taking all sorts of "days away" at very short notice 
in the course of their job. In general they cope very well, even when 
given just an hour's notice.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <jU1pk.490832$Ev5.169125@fe09.news.easynews.com>, at 23:05:05 
on Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Palindrome  remarked:
>Maybe you wouldn't expect her to get married in New Zealand, either. 
>Unfortunately children can be very unreliable, when it comes to such 
>things.

You are Bob Geldorf, AICMFP.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <6ghpe7L+6DpIFwmc@obviously.invalid>, at 15:25:04 on Thu, 14 
Aug 2008, Big Les Wade  remarked:
>>I am not aware - but am happy to be enlightened - that employment law
>>is different for public and private appointments.
>
>It isn't, but public bodies such as LAs very often have their own 
>self-imposed rules that Must be Obeyed. The requirement that all 
>candidates must be interviewed identically has in the past few years 
>become one of these (though it is still unevenly obeyed).
>
...
>
>This confusion has led many people in the public sector to believe that 
>their so-called "Equal Opportunities" method of interviewing is also a 
>legal requirement.

And how does one get around this in a practical situation when the LA's 
appointed legal representative insists this is the way it must be done? 
(Let's assume for a moment that the panel have differing views and wish 
to press the point?)
-- 
Roland Perry

"tim....."  wrote in message 
news:6gja4lFg7ro1U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Palindrome"  wrote in message
> news:EcJok.479716$Ev5.469617@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>> The Real Doctor wrote:
>>> On 13 Aug, 22:55, Periander  wrote:
>>>> Having just done something very much like that as an 
>>>> inteviewer/selector
>>>> (head teacher at a primary) I couldn't agree more. As it happened all
>>>> our
>>>> shortlisted candidates attended the selection, if they'd called
>>>> beforehand
>>>> and said that they couldn't attend when required then unless the
>>>> circumstances were particularly exceptional our view would have that
>>>> they
>>>> didn't want the job enough.
>>>
>>> How exceptional would it have to be? And what would you do if the
>>> circumstances were exceptional?
>>
>> At a rough guess, something "compassionate", fixed and unavoidable, where
>> other people would suffer disproportionately, should the candidate attend
>> the interview. eg daughter's wedding, parent's memorial service, spouse's
>> investiture.
>
> Oh so an important business meeting isn't enough?
>
> Would you like your prospective employee to cancel such a meeting when 
> (s)he
> is working for you because someone else decides that their meeting is more
> important?
>
> I don't know where the rest of you are coming from, but when I apply for 
> the
> jobs the one and *only* reason why I might not be able to make a 
> particular
> date for an interview is because my current employer's schedule came 
> first!

Presumably you`re never sick then?  Or how about having a crash/being run 
over on your way to the interview?  How about a close relative dying and you 
attending the funeral?  All of those can happen on a normal working day as 
well, so if your current employer can cope without you for those reasons, 
why not for an interview?

In message 
, at 
19:10:07 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor 
 remarked:
>I am not aware - but am happy to be enlightened - that employment law
>is different for public and private appointments.

I think some of this is also to do with public bodies being more "risk 
averse", and not wanting to repeat mistakes they have seen elsewhere as 
a result of claims from unsuccessful candidates. In the private sector 
there is less of a collective memory of such things and they are in any 
event more likely to take the "so sue me" approach (whether wisely or 
not is another matter).
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <g83isc$bn9$1@registered.motzarella.org>, at 10:40:08 on Fri, 
15 Aug 2008, Simon Finnigan  remarked:

>How about a close relative dying and you attending the funeral?

He'd insist they had the funeral on a Saturday. Anything else would be 
rude of them, especially as their event was planned after the other.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry  posted
>In message 
>, at 
>19:10:07 on Wed, 13 Aug 2008, The Real Doctor 
> remarked:
>>I am not aware - but am happy to be enlightened - that employment law
>>is different for public and private appointments.
>
>I think some of this is also to do with public bodies being more "risk 
>averse", and not wanting to repeat mistakes they have seen elsewhere as 
>a result of claims from unsuccessful candidates. In

To be fair, the public sector also has a fiduciary duty to taxpayers 
that has no exact equivalent in the private sector.

-- 
Les
"God will save her, fear you not, be you the men you've been.
Get you the sons your fathers got and God will save the Queen."

"Simon Finnigan"  wrote in message 
news:g83isc$bn9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> "tim....."  wrote in message 
> news:6gja4lFg7ro1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Palindrome"  wrote in message
>> news:EcJok.479716$Ev5.469617@fe09.news.easynews.com...
>>> The Real Doctor wrote:
>>>> On 13 Aug, 22:55, Periander  wrote:
>>>>> Having just done something very much like that as an 
>>>>> inteviewer/selector
>>>>> (head teacher at a primary) I couldn't agree more. As it happened all
>>>>> our
>>>>> shortlisted candidates attended the selection, if they'd called
>>>>> beforehand
>>>>> and said that they couldn't attend when required then unless the
>>>>> circumstances were particularly exceptional our view would have that
>>>>> they
>>>>> didn't want the job enough.
>>>>
>>>> How exceptional would it have to be? And what would you do if the
>>>> circumstances were exceptional?
>>>
>>> At a rough guess, something "compassionate", fixed and unavoidable, 
>>> where
>>> other people would suffer disproportionately, should the candidate 
>>> attend
>>> the interview. eg daughter's wedding, parent's memorial service, 
>>> spouse's
>>> investiture.
>>
>> Oh so an important business meeting isn't enough?
>>
>> Would you like your prospective employee to cancel such a meeting when 
>> (s)he
>> is working for you because someone else decides that their meeting is 
>> more
>> important?
>>
>> I don't know where the rest of you are coming from, but when I apply for 
>> the
>> jobs the one and *only* reason why I might not be able to make a 
>> particular
>> date for an interview is because my current employer's schedule came 
>> first!
>
> Presumably you`re never sick then?  Or how about having a crash/being run 
> over on your way to the interview?  How about a close relative dying and 
> you attending the funeral?  All of those can happen on a normal working 
> day as well, so if your current employer can cope without you for those 
> reasons, why not for an interview?

I am sure that there are lots of unforeseen circumstances.  I was talking 
about know appointments.

tim

>
>

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:Gx7gp9SCQUpIFAgy@perry.co.uk...
> In message , at 22:00:25 on Thu, 14 Aug 
> 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>
>>I expect the person coming second to fit around whatever is
>>already booked.
>
> If that's your expectation, then you will miss many opportunities in life. 
> This interview being one of them.

I have no chances of getting this interview as I don't have any of the 
skills required to do the job.

OTOH, for jobs that I can do, if an LA puts unnecessary hoops in the way of 
my getting the job, that is their loss.

>>IMHO it is rude of someone to say: we want you to come for an interview 
>>and
>>here is the date you should come, without first asking if it is 
>>convenient.
>
>>And if that's how they treat me before I am working for them, I don't want
>>to.
>
> In that case a win-win situation, so what are you worried about?
>
> (But in some professions it will virtually guarantee that you won't ever 
> get an interview).
>
>>> So you'd go to the interview rather than your daughter's wedding?
>>
>>I wouldn't expect the interview to be on a Saturday
>
> Not every wedding is on a Saturday. Answer the question.

I fail to see what the answer to this question will do to help my point, 
which is "that by not being prepared to accept a business reason as an 
excuse for non attendance you run the risk of getting an employee who will 
compromise his employer's position in pursuit of his own goals".

Do you really want that?

tim

On 15 Aug, 10:15, Roland Perry  wrote:

> And how does one get around this in a practical situation when the LA's
> appointed legal representative insists this is the way it must be done?
> (Let's assume for a moment that the panel have differing views and wish
> to press the point?)

Just ask different questions in the interview and see what happens.
Since when has the role of governors been "to do what  they're told"
anyway. If you want to take it up with them in advance then -
seriously - point out that asking everybody the same questions is not
in accord with current best practice in diversity and quote their
diversity policy at them.

However, this is an area where amateur interviewers will always be at
a disadvantage.

Ian

tim..... wrote:
> "Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
> news:Gx7gp9SCQUpIFAgy@perry.co.uk...
>> In message , at 22:00:25 on Thu, 14 Aug 
>> 2008, tim.....  remarked:
>>
>>> I expect the person coming second to fit around whatever is
>>> already booked.
>> If that's your expectation, then you will miss many opportunities in life. 
>> This interview being one of them.
> 
> I have no chances of getting this interview as I don't have any of the 
> skills required to do the job.
> 
> OTOH, for jobs that I can do, if an LA puts unnecessary hoops in the way of 
> my getting the job, that is their loss.
> 
>>> IMHO it is rude of someone to say: we want you to come for an interview 
>>> and
>>> here is the date you should come, without first asking if it is 
>>> convenient.
>>> And if that's how they treat me before I am working for them, I don't want
>>> to.
>> In that case a win-win situation, so what are you worried about?
>>
>> (But in some professions it will virtually guarantee that you won't ever 
>> get an interview).
>>
>>>> So you'd go to the interview rather than your daughter's wedding?
>>> I wouldn't expect the interview to be on a Saturday
>> Not every wedding is on a Saturday. Answer the question.
> 
> I fail to see what the answer to this question will do to help my point, 
> which is "that by not being prepared to accept a business reason as an 
> excuse for non attendance you run the risk of getting an employee who will 
> compromise his employer's position in pursuit of his own goals".
> 
> Do you really want that?

Probably not but that is something that can be assessed if the 
individual does turn up for interview.  It may be that, for any of many 
reasons, the individual is prepared to compromise his current employer 
because he really does want the job on offer.  If that is the only 
reason the risk of employing him is very much reduced (and one can 
perhaps assume that if he goes absent for the odd day or so at some 
future date he *might* be having an interview for another job.  "Did you 
get the job then" used to be an almost standard enquiry from their peers 
if someone was absent for a day, or even a half day, particularly if 
they returned particularly smartly dressed.

My own view on interviewing is that a first sift is done on the 
application paper work.  Apparent non starters are rejected then.  If 
there are still a significant number of applicants then a further sift 
takes place - "must see",  "probably should see", and "might be useful". 
  In general a special effort is likely to *only* be made for those 
candidates categorised as "must see", and possibly only for those who 
"really must be seen".

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]