Consultant Reveals Why Companies Don’t Hire The Best Candidate For The Job And What Job Interviews Are Really About
A job interview is a unique event that combines both captain obvious and utter mystery. While every job seeker knows they have to show their best, it’s still largely unclear what each position really needs and what the company is looking for. No wonder so many job interviews feel like a lottery, unless you really screw up. In that case, the game is over.
But @Rulewithruna, consultant and TikToker who often shares useful job tips on her account, explained how our understanding about what job interviews are for couldn’t be further from the truth. “Did you really think that the companies try to hire the best, most qualified candidates?” Runa asks in one of her videos. Duh! Of course we do!
“Well, they don’t,” Runa states, debunking everything we thought we knew about job interviews and sending a wave of disbelief on the internet before adding: “and I can let you know why.”
Scroll down for her eye-opening explanation of what recruiters are really looking for in candidates, and it may well change your tactics for the next interview.
The consultant and TikToker Runa claims that companies don’t actually need the best candidates, sending shockwaves online, but rather they look for people who are the least risky
Image credits: rulewithruna
Image credits: rulewithruna
This illuminating video Runa recently shared on her TikTok
@rulewithruna What interviews are really about: Part 1 📌🥂 #careertips #interviewtip #careertiktok #careeradvice #careercoach #jobtips #interviewquestions #careertok #interview #jobtok #interviewtok ♬ original sound – Runa | Career & Smallbiz Tips
In part 2 of the video series, Runa explained who looks for and hires the best candidates
Image credits: rulewithruna
Image credits: rulewithruna
Here is the full video of part 2
@rulewithruna Continued from @rulewithruna 👈 Part 1 💯📌#careercoach #careertips #careertiktok #careeradvice #jobtips #careertok #jobtok #startupadvice #tips ♬ original sound – Runa | Career & Smallbiz Tips
And this is what people had to comment about Runa’s point
As a recruiter, I"m just here to say this is b******t. We ALWAYS hire the person we think is the best person for the job.
If a company is more into politics, yes they will not go for the best. They will just look for minions to maintain the status quo. In healthcare it is a big bonus point if one is knowledgeable, hardworking and has good “soft skills”. Health authorities will not take the risk of getting sued with negligence and malpractice.
Load More Replies...
How is this shocking? That is literally what an interview is for. They have viewed your application/CV, and on paper you could do this job, so they want to speak to you to assess if you would be a good fit for the company and are likely to be worth the time and resource that would go into you as a new starter. Of course they are not going to go for the person with the highest qualification if they have never held down a job for more than a month, and they have another applicant who has a lesser qualification, but was in their previous role for 5 years and can rattle off numerous examples of how they benefited that company
Yea, because the 20-something "TikTok Star," who has never had a job, NEVER hired, fired, or trained anyone is an expert. PLEASE STOP SPEAKING. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR OPINION.
This still doesn't explain the ongoing popularity of "what's your greatest weakness?" though. Surely they realise that everyone has worked out the whole answer-with-a-weakness-that's-really-a-strength like "oh, I'm too much of a perfectionist" shtick. Or are they really expecting to catch someone out and have them answer "I have a tendency to disobey authority' or "sometimes I drink too much and try to burn down buildings"
Really? I always think this way of replying is lame and that nobody would hire a person who answers this way. Then again, I don't really know anybody who actually asks this question so maybe I don't know this mindset.
Load More Replies...
Too many managers at mid-level are hiring people who'll do the delivery and let them take the credit, so non-alpha people who don't present a risk to their own progression, rather than people who could become future leaders or have the power to influence.
Half of an interview is seeing whether that application or CV is an outright fabrication. Yes, you got your degree and yes, you worked at such and such for 3 years. BUT, were you a f**k up for those 3 years? Do you actually understand the vomit of keywords you spattered into your CV or are you lying? And with work from home being much more common, this kind of conversation is even more crucial. I often ask questions like "Can you elaborate on your project regarding X?" or "How did you use that application to solve your problem?" Being able to answer these questions shows they understand what they are telling you they know.
Not our hiring strategy but our office is set up differently. No one specializes or gets a degree in regulatory research, and anyone with experience is too expensive because they just go an work for industry and non-profits can't compete, so we look for younger smart people with little experience and we start them off entry level and move them up when other positions are available. The people in the higher positions will put in a few years then go to industry so our office is always a revolving door. I train non-stop. If someone qualified for the higher up positions comes in I am suspicious because we aren't competitive due to how the funding works so they could make more as a coordinator in any other department or work for a pharma company instead. Normally they apply then laugh when we tell them the salary range. I fight with HR all the time about not posting salary ranges because it waste so much of my time.
I worked in staffing for ten years. I found that companies are not looking for the best candidate, they are looking fir the safest. They also often start the culling process with someone in HR, who has no clue about the job description... but Sally HR is making decisions on the future of the company.
Depends what level 'Sally' in HR is. An HR representative at top level (I.e. on the board of directors) is extremely influencial re company strategy direction, allocation of people and would definitely be the right person to help in the 'culling process' - someone in HR also probably helped write the job description. It's fun to s**t on HR but just shows a lot of people have no idea what HR actually does
Load More Replies...
As the smartest person in most rooms and who also has a hard time keeping her mouth shut when she sees a disaster in the making, I think the post is true. Employers don't want the best and brightest. They want sychophants who won't question whatever their manager tells them to do even when they know how badly the manager is screwing up. Also, older people don't stand a chance. Employers know that older adults won't fall for the carrots they dangle to keep you willing to be exploited. We know that working ridiculous hours at onerous tasks won't even be appreciated, let alone rewarded. And let's face it. Most jobs don't require superlative skills. Mediocre skills are good enough, so employers hire on the person who meets the minimum qualifications but appears to be easily manipulated.
I do a lot of tech interviews for a company with 450+ developers. Im only interested in: do you have the brains (not the skill, you can learn the skill), do you fit as a person and will you be happy. If you don't check these, either you or we won't be happy working together and then it's a no.
sooo guys there is this thing my company does and it surely 100% applies to all other companies, trust me bro
I would not take any professional advice from someone that would wear those glasses.
Seen it all too often in the Civil Service, where there is high levels of fear that the 'over qualified' candidate will take 'their job' so they recruit people they don't see as a threat that will happily stay at the bottom, a prime candidate would have 'No ambition and FA interest''
Welcome to the 21st century, where obedience trumps intelligence. Not an ideal environment for the Isaac Newtons, the Einsteins, or the Henry Fords of this world.
... and that's why I don't work in engine development - aside from ICEs getting out of production some 10+ years ahead. Every company that has the means to truly improve such a ripe and well-developed machine is a big one. None of them are even close to what's possible in regard to efficiency and reliability, even of more complex machines, but operate on a diet of obedient halfengineers, whose other half is some pennycountery on the boss' behalf who do the exact cost-minimal solution that spares them from paying a fine. Better engineers may be able to provide this for cheaper, but those who love their stuff won't settle for this for very long.
I would say it's more that companies look for the "best candidate for the job" rather than the "best candidate". It's pretty obvious that corporate jobs require a corporate mindset and start-up jobs require an entrepreneurial mindset but it's more than that. If someone with a PhD applies for a clerical job, it'll be a matter of weeks before they decide that the job is boring and below their qualifications. In the same vein, someone who came from a start-up joining a corporation will get frustrated that you can't buy a box of pencils without getting the procurement department involved and the corporate guy in a start-up will be shocked with the hours and that they have to go way out of their job description to make it work.
I always solved the procurement issue for small items like pencils by buying my own, which generally saves them money. I mean, have you seen the prices in an office supply catalog? A little shopping around, and you can find bulk supplies a lot cheaper,. Personally, I would buy my package of 10 black Ticonderogas, plus anything else I may need, in August when school supplies are dirt cheap at Walmart. I always mark everything with my name and keep receipts to prove provenance. I also warn them, after trying for reimbursement, that if they refuse to reimburse me for buying my own—-and making them look good to their bosses for saving the company money—-then every single solitary god damned thing I bought is going to leave the office with me when I quit. (I also like having a desk with at least one drawer that locks, and still has the key, so I can lock my stuff up at the end of the day. So much stuff I bought would go missing because some unknown person “borrowed” it and didn’t return it. Then I’d see them with it, and suddenly their memory is fuzzy about where they got it, and I’m the a*****e for asking for MY property back!)
Load More Replies...
As a recruiter, I"m just here to say this is b******t. We ALWAYS hire the person we think is the best person for the job.
If a company is more into politics, yes they will not go for the best. They will just look for minions to maintain the status quo. In healthcare it is a big bonus point if one is knowledgeable, hardworking and has good “soft skills”. Health authorities will not take the risk of getting sued with negligence and malpractice.
Load More Replies... How is this shocking? That is literally what an interview is for. They have viewed your application/CV, and on paper you could do this job, so they want to speak to you to assess if you would be a good fit for the company and are likely to be worth the time and resource that would go into you as a new starter. Of course they are not going to go for the person with the highest qualification if they have never held down a job for more than a month, and they have another applicant who has a lesser qualification, but was in their previous role for 5 years and can rattle off numerous examples of how they benefited that company
Yea, because the 20-something "TikTok Star," who has never had a job, NEVER hired, fired, or trained anyone is an expert. PLEASE STOP SPEAKING. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR OPINION.
This still doesn't explain the ongoing popularity of "what's your greatest weakness?" though. Surely they realise that everyone has worked out the whole answer-with-a-weakness-that's-really-a-strength like "oh, I'm too much of a perfectionist" shtick. Or are they really expecting to catch someone out and have them answer "I have a tendency to disobey authority' or "sometimes I drink too much and try to burn down buildings"
Really? I always think this way of replying is lame and that nobody would hire a person who answers this way. Then again, I don't really know anybody who actually asks this question so maybe I don't know this mindset.
Load More Replies... Too many managers at mid-level are hiring people who'll do the delivery and let them take the credit, so non-alpha people who don't present a risk to their own progression, rather than people who could become future leaders or have the power to influence.
Half of an interview is seeing whether that application or CV is an outright fabrication. Yes, you got your degree and yes, you worked at such and such for 3 years. BUT, were you a f**k up for those 3 years? Do you actually understand the vomit of keywords you spattered into your CV or are you lying? And with work from home being much more common, this kind of conversation is even more crucial. I often ask questions like "Can you elaborate on your project regarding X?" or "How did you use that application to solve your problem?" Being able to answer these questions shows they understand what they are telling you they know.
Not our hiring strategy but our office is set up differently. No one specializes or gets a degree in regulatory research, and anyone with experience is too expensive because they just go an work for industry and non-profits can't compete, so we look for younger smart people with little experience and we start them off entry level and move them up when other positions are available. The people in the higher positions will put in a few years then go to industry so our office is always a revolving door. I train non-stop. If someone qualified for the higher up positions comes in I am suspicious because we aren't competitive due to how the funding works so they could make more as a coordinator in any other department or work for a pharma company instead. Normally they apply then laugh when we tell them the salary range. I fight with HR all the time about not posting salary ranges because it waste so much of my time.
I worked in staffing for ten years. I found that companies are not looking for the best candidate, they are looking fir the safest. They also often start the culling process with someone in HR, who has no clue about the job description... but Sally HR is making decisions on the future of the company.
Depends what level 'Sally' in HR is. An HR representative at top level (I.e. on the board of directors) is extremely influencial re company strategy direction, allocation of people and would definitely be the right person to help in the 'culling process' - someone in HR also probably helped write the job description. It's fun to s**t on HR but just shows a lot of people have no idea what HR actually does
Load More Replies... As the smartest person in most rooms and who also has a hard time keeping her mouth shut when she sees a disaster in the making, I think the post is true. Employers don't want the best and brightest. They want sychophants who won't question whatever their manager tells them to do even when they know how badly the manager is screwing up. Also, older people don't stand a chance. Employers know that older adults won't fall for the carrots they dangle to keep you willing to be exploited. We know that working ridiculous hours at onerous tasks won't even be appreciated, let alone rewarded. And let's face it. Most jobs don't require superlative skills. Mediocre skills are good enough, so employers hire on the person who meets the minimum qualifications but appears to be easily manipulated.
I do a lot of tech interviews for a company with 450+ developers. Im only interested in: do you have the brains (not the skill, you can learn the skill), do you fit as a person and will you be happy. If you don't check these, either you or we won't be happy working together and then it's a no.
sooo guys there is this thing my company does and it surely 100% applies to all other companies, trust me bro
I would not take any professional advice from someone that would wear those glasses.
Seen it all too often in the Civil Service, where there is high levels of fear that the 'over qualified' candidate will take 'their job' so they recruit people they don't see as a threat that will happily stay at the bottom, a prime candidate would have 'No ambition and FA interest''
Welcome to the 21st century, where obedience trumps intelligence. Not an ideal environment for the Isaac Newtons, the Einsteins, or the Henry Fords of this world.
... and that's why I don't work in engine development - aside from ICEs getting out of production some 10+ years ahead. Every company that has the means to truly improve such a ripe and well-developed machine is a big one. None of them are even close to what's possible in regard to efficiency and reliability, even of more complex machines, but operate on a diet of obedient halfengineers, whose other half is some pennycountery on the boss' behalf who do the exact cost-minimal solution that spares them from paying a fine. Better engineers may be able to provide this for cheaper, but those who love their stuff won't settle for this for very long.
I would say it's more that companies look for the "best candidate for the job" rather than the "best candidate". It's pretty obvious that corporate jobs require a corporate mindset and start-up jobs require an entrepreneurial mindset but it's more than that. If someone with a PhD applies for a clerical job, it'll be a matter of weeks before they decide that the job is boring and below their qualifications. In the same vein, someone who came from a start-up joining a corporation will get frustrated that you can't buy a box of pencils without getting the procurement department involved and the corporate guy in a start-up will be shocked with the hours and that they have to go way out of their job description to make it work.
I always solved the procurement issue for small items like pencils by buying my own, which generally saves them money. I mean, have you seen the prices in an office supply catalog? A little shopping around, and you can find bulk supplies a lot cheaper,. Personally, I would buy my package of 10 black Ticonderogas, plus anything else I may need, in August when school supplies are dirt cheap at Walmart. I always mark everything with my name and keep receipts to prove provenance. I also warn them, after trying for reimbursement, that if they refuse to reimburse me for buying my own—-and making them look good to their bosses for saving the company money—-then every single solitary god damned thing I bought is going to leave the office with me when I quit. (I also like having a desk with at least one drawer that locks, and still has the key, so I can lock my stuff up at the end of the day. So much stuff I bought would go missing because some unknown person “borrowed” it and didn’t return it. Then I’d see them with it, and suddenly their memory is fuzzy about where they got it, and I’m the a*****e for asking for MY property back!)
Load More Replies...
62
40