INTERVIEW

Interview is a formal procedure and process meant for selecting a few suitable ones for a job or position. One attending an interview expects some features and qualities in the firm, company, organization or a workplace, which one wishes to enter for one’s livelihood or better opportunity than one has now. The employer or the one offering a source of livelihood or career growth to the one being interviewed also expects suitable qualifications, multiple skills and considerable experience from the candidate. It’s mostly a business deal rather than a personal affair. Both think from the perspective of ‘benefit’. Employer thinks, “What can he/she give to me as an employer in the short or long run?” Employee thinks, “What more do I get from this firm, better than similar ones and how can I build up my career through my short or long term association with this enterprise?” Both try to impress the other in an interview. The employer should impress the candidate explaining how he or she can be happy working in their unit. The employee should promote himself or herself substantially to impress the interviewer and get selected for the vacancy. Interview is an interesting act for the one conducting it but a difficult and testing one for those attending it. Asking any question randomly or specifically is easier than being ready with an exact answer or explanation for a question asked from the other end.

Generally an interviewer is a skilled and experienced one in a field of knowledge or work. He/she must be in a state of mind and body whereby he/she can impress the interviewee with intelligent and relevant questions, coupled with imposing personality of high degree of demeanour. Many times an interviewee feels tense and subdued in a place of interview due to the physical appearance, designation and status of the interviewer/s, ambience of the venue, nature and volume of questions posed, unfamiliarity with place and employees working there now and the need of that job in his or her life right now.

Generally interviews are conducted through the following ways:

a. Face-to-face interaction

b. Telephonic conversation

c. Web interface

HR staff of a firm or organization selects candidates for interviews in the following ways:

a. Search through online job portals

b. Print ads in dailies, weeklies or other periodicals

c. Ads on television channels

d. Public and private consultancies

e. Reference through present or old employees

f. Going to educational institutions and training institutes

g. Recommendations through internal and external agents of power and authority

h. Dependents of victims of mishaps in their companies or organizations

i. Commands by courts of law; central, state or local governments

I attended some interviews till now with different employers. I take the idea and practice of interview to select a candidate for a vacancy highly unreliable and ridiculous for the following reasons.

1. The HR folks consider qualifications of a candidate very important to call him/her for an interview. They should have suitable qualifications like B.Sc. M.Sc. M.Com and so on. How can we believe that one with a qualification certainly can handle a set of job responsibilities? I take my example. I did my M.A. English course in the University of Hyderabad. This is a famous university in India now for some reasons. There is no certainty that only highly intelligent and competent students always enter a university. Often worthless idiots may also get admission into prestigious educational institutions like IITs and IIMs also. I am very poor at English literature because I surveyed it nominally during these two academic years at the University of Hyderabad. I did not pursue those subjects before this course nor practiced it much after coming out of this university. Then, they did not teach me English grammar here either. It means I learnt very little from this university expect formal perusal of some books of literature and taking some periodical exams for the sake of marks and certificate. I entered this university out of my interest for English language but not because I had adequate knowledge of English literature. Because the certificate issued by such university has worth in the job market, I would have chosen this university rather than because I liked English language or literature deeply. My intention was to benefit from the fame of the university and certificate from this place rather than learning and improving myself substantially in English language and literature through what I studied and did there for two years. It means I thought as a customer but not as a passionate lover of English. If English was my passion and if I had adequate command of this subject, I would have studied in any university or postgraduate college. I tried to hide my inabilities through getting a certificate from this noted university. When my very intention in pursuing this course was false, how can anybody expect that I learnt a great deal when I was there and that it would benefit any organization that is going to recruit me depending on my fame as a student from a prestigious university? There are some more complicated points of concern as far as certificates are concerned. The richness of marks found on certificate may not match the abilities of its owner.   

a. Student remembers a subject much when he/she is studying it with the purpose of taking the related exams. Even then he/she is studying it for scoring marks and getting certificate but not out of passion for it. Such knowledge, which he/she gains for exams, does not last longer in him/her. In other words, when he/she leaves the campus, he/she forgets almost everything he/she practiced or learnt there.

b. Reservations enable many to enter prestigious educational institutions also without much difficulty. They don’t learn before joining them or after joining them. How can we assess the worth of a candidate of this order, scanning his or her certificate? Reservations are thus a permanent blot on our certificates.

c. In many universities and other educational institutions, there are biased teaching staff, who give more marks to the creatures of their gender, community, language, region, religion and race than others. We can’t identify these loopholes and drawbacks of educational institutions just looking at their certificates.

d. The concerning student might have been sick or unable to do the exam well. He would have gotten fewer marks because of such physical or mental disabilities during that crucial time. He did/could not take that exam again to improve his/her marks. How can we consider him/her poor at a subject just because he got less marks than others, due to circumstances as these.

e. Evaluation of examination papers is generally carried out by subject experts. When a country, like India, is highly corrupt and is with many drawbacks and demerits in terms of its educational system and culture also, how can we believe that a qualified and experienced teacher only evaluated an answer paper of a student? In this scenario, a dull student gets more marks and an intelligent student might get low marks. In India, now, many incompetent teachers are evaluating the answer sheets of students of many educational courses. Thus, marks shown on a certificate do not actually represent his/her actual intelligence or competence in that subject. After leaving that educational institution, he/she might have improved his/her subject knowledge or he/she might have degraded himself/herself from a good state of knowledge and skills. As such, a certificate fails to symbolize the true caliber and skills of a candidate.

f. Certificates can be manipulated in many ways. There are many fake educational institutions across the world, which sell certificates of any course, to anybody, collecting an amount of money from them. How many companies and organizations in India or other countries have ability to trace the truth behind the certificates they come across. They blindly value somebody based on the certificates they see.

g. One may lose one’s certificates in an accident, incident or natural calamity. If he/she is unable to produce his/her original certificates in an interview, he/she may not get a job. We are not valuing individuals, standing before us, with a desperate need to find employment for their survival, but certificates, created somewhere, by somebody. Is it a fair thing to be followed by our employers?   

h. Some study abroad. We don’t know how one studied there and how they gave marks to one. There may be wide difference between what we think to be extraordinary in India and what others think in other nations. Did they focus much on theory or practice? How much importance do they give to communication skills? What are the standards of educational institutions, governments and teaching faculty there? Could they get more marks over there bribing the staff or doing something else?

2. Many HR folks and members of management of an organization accord more value to the work experience of a candidate than other parameters. If he/she states on his/her certificates that he/she worked at so and so companies or organizations for different periods of time, handling a varieties of job responsibilities, they feel impressed. Experience does play a key role in a candidate getting a job. There are some drawbacks and demerits even in valuing a candidate highly or less based on his/her experience.

a. There is no certainty that one with years of experience with different firms and companies would be excellent as a professional in his/her field of job responsibilities. We find many without basic knowledge also about his/her subject or considerable communicative skills in English despite years of experience. I know many high designation employees, in different companies, who cannot write a paragraph also without errors in English/their mother tongue. Their communicative and presentation skills are pathetic.

b. There are gems, who work wonders, coming out from educational institutions, recently. They don’t have experience but think intelligently and work extraordinarily. Most of the companies in India offer nominal salaries and perks to freshers compared to experienced ones. This is, indirectly, humiliating the enthusiastic age and challenging intelligence of a candidate. They don’t feel encouraged to join companies in this bleak scenario. In many organizations, seniors, who have years of experience, cannot compete with juniors, in terms of knowledge and work. Intelligent and hard-working juniors feel insulted and disturbed to work as subordinates with such shallow and worthless superiors. We cannot consider one great just because one has years of experience but this is how managements of companies treat employees in India. We can observe this retrograde culture in public and private firms everywhere.

3. HR folks of firms recruit many candidates based on internal or external references also. If I have a good image in a firm I am working with, if there are some job vacancies, I may encourage my familiar folks to apply for those jobs. They write my name in their job application in the column of reference.

a. I cannot vouch for the character of a candidate I am referring to a company because it may change at any time due to internal or external factors. A company recruiting a candidate based on my reference and expecting me to be answerable if he/she does anything wrong in future is absolutely illogical. I am just a facilitator. I am communicating to him/her just that there is a job vacancy. HR staff should take every possible measure to regulate his/her character while in the campus of their company. They can promote him/her or sack him/her at any time based on his/her merits or demerits as an employee with them. My role, in this scenario, is just that of a facilitator. I bring an employer and an employee closer.

b. Influential local and national politicians, businessmen, members of managements of organizations and some other kinds of folks may also recommend a candidate for a job with a company they know or on which they have a kind of authority directly or indirectly. Often HR staff feel disturbed to recruit an unworthy candidate to a job based on the recommendations of those with authority. On one hand, the management instructs them to select highly qualified and talented candidates only for many key jobs and on the other hand, they recommend worthless candidates to some jobs in their organization. It is not fair. Every organization must establish and follow some standards strictly. Our volatile moods and attitudes should not compel our HR staff to recruit somebody, against our norms and policies. In India, we find this bad culture. On stage, they talk a lot about standards and values but they don’t follow them.

4. The very interview procedure and process looks disgusting to me many times. Those, interviewing a candidate, should check whether he/she has the required skills or not. They may conduct a test to find it out but is it happening simply in many organizations in India now? Interviews turned lengthy and chaotic.

a. I heard that the folks of Google conduct many rounds of interview to finalize a candidate for a position with their organization. I disliked and avoided attending interviews of organizations like this just because of this factor. I have self-respect. They can test my skills as an editor or writer but not as an actor. If they are expecting me to be good at many aspects as an employee, they are actually expecting me to be a hypocrite. I may not know how to walk into an interview room; how to dress myself; how to present myself to the folks of interview and many such other qualities, which recruiting firms expect randomly from many employees. I might not have exposure to such culture. I would not have been trained in those aspects of job interviews, for many reasons, which were beyond my control. Does it mean that I cannot be a good editor or writer in their workplace? I can learn culture fast from others in a company if there is one at all, which applies to all equally at all times, irrespective of designations. It is not a big issue. Imitation is a common human quality. Unfortunately many HR idiots and rogues avoid recruiting gems into their companies just because some candidates don’t act too much before them. A gem does not like to meet an interviewer for a number of days undergoing a series of steps of interview. If organizational and recruitment culture in a nation is making even gems into helpless beggars, who have to attend a series of interview stages, to get a job, then it is the problem with the fundamental culture of that organization or nation. A competent and sensitive interviewer must be able to conduct interview within a day, at the most. I liked to join such firms only. Just because I am not working with Google or Microsoft, you cannot think that I don’t have such competencies. In fact, I am avoiding such companies because I have self-respect as an employee and individual. I don’t like to go to the office of any company even the second day for any stage of interview. One day is all that I can afford. I did it so far. I follow this self-imposed culture even in future. From this perspective, I am greater than Google and Microsoft because I am not yielding to their irrational and illogical norms of interview. I need not get fame being associated with any company in India. I have fame of my own. This is how some think about jobs and companies in India. They don’t go to companies, like shameless beggars, asking for a job. They maintain self-esteem and standards even on their deathbed. If you think that extraordinary folks are working with internationally famous companies across the world, you are wrong. Gems do not act to attract anybody. All those working with prestigious firms internationally are not gems but professionals. They do anything to get and retain their favorite job. They sacrifice their self-respect and individuality in the process of getting a job with a noted company because they have no worth of their own. They want to promote themselves in the job market and familiar society, attaching their names with those famous organizations. I know many of this kind. They show off before ignorant ones. Gems don’t show off. They are simple and humble creatures. HR folks cannot interview gems because they don’t have such capabilities.

b. I believe that 80% of HR staff, who expect standards and values from others, don’t have or follow them at their level in many companies and organizations in India. Many Indian companies are unable to attract gems and retain them because idiots and rogues are there in their HR departments. I saw such worthless blokes in every company I worked with till now. They don’t have command of their HR policies and procedures. They don’t have effective communicative skills. They don’t have sensitivity and goodness as human beings. They don’t have knowledge and skills required to interview a candidate.

Insights   

1. Interview is a kind of gambling. We can never assess the worth of a candidate through interview.

2. Really talented professional never expects a candidate to attend multiple rounds of interview.

3. Ninety percent of HR departments in India are known for dishonesty, corruption and hypocrisy.

4. All Indian companies are functioning here based on corruption, malpractices and violation of laws.

5. In India, nobody is perfect as a person or professional. Companies follow the same culture.

6. In India, talented ones with self-respect cannot get great jobs but idiots with multiple acting skills.

7. Indian recruitment agencies and companies train candidates how to be immoral and illogical.

8. Indian HR departments don’t have humanity and virtues but fake professionalism and show culture.

9. Much of attrition rate in India can be attributed to cruelty and worthlessness of HR departments.

10. Indian companies do not run based on standards but change/violate them whenever needed.

11. Most of the agreements made between companies and employees in India are illegal and immoral.

12. No Indian company ever follows labor laws completely. They violate them. Nobody questions them.

13. Unions are the biggest threat to Indian economy. They work 30% but expect 100% from employers.

14. People near isolated industrial units torture those managements. They demand money very often.

15. Indians are experts in preparing and submitting fake study and experience certificates to others.

16. 95% of employees fear an interview because they don’t know what acting skills the other expects!

17. The managements of Indian companies don’t like gems but shameless, loyal and foolish employees.

18. One cannot work in any Indian company if one wants to follow 100% self-respect as an employee.

19. Indian companies don’t encourage creativity and innovation in employees but blind imitation.

20. 80% of Indian companies want to produce products of high ‘margin’ but not high ‘value’.

21. If one dies in a reputed Indian company, while working, gets lakhs; if outside, almost nothing.

22. Indian companies like fake certificates more than the talent and individuality of a candidate.

23. Indian companies consider years of experience valuable than genius of a fresh candidate.

24. In Indian companies, employee appraisal policies and procedures are volatile and unreliable.

25. Nobody can run a unit of employment in India without offering bribe to somebody somewhere.

26. 90% Indian employees work wonders if employers trust them and offer them more freedom.

27. 80% superiors in Indian companies grow in their careers, presenting worth of others as theirs often.

28. 97% superiors in Indian companies expect their subordinates to change; they never change first.

29. 80% Indians wish to go abroad for a better job; they are not happy with governments in India.

30. 90% Indian employees want promotions and increments every year. They don’t deserve them.

31. 95% of Indian employers don’t have even basic knowledge about labor laws. They run big companies.

32. In India, to get a great job, fast, you must know how to cheat others and impress them artificially.

33. Superiors in Indian companies are scared of those with authority but not those with intelligence.

34. 98% employees in Indian companies are actors. They cannot survive and excel as individuals here.

35. Indians value the salary and status of an employee rather than his intelligence, standards and values.

36. In India we can’t start and run a company if we go by rules on paper. We should know manipulation.

37. 90% of Indian companies like to recruit a distant idiot slowly than an available gem fast.

38. Many crave government jobs in India. Expectations are few and rewards are high there. Sinecures.

39. 90% Indian parents wish their sons and daughters to do jobs for a better image in society.

40. Indian bosses like those, who praise them more than necessary, but not those, who criticize them.

I have been thoroughly fed up with the HR policies and procedures of many companies in India, though I worked with very few of them only till now. I hate reading articles by HR staff or those meant for them because it is not happening at ground level. I hate HR meetings and conferences because they discuss nonsense there and come up with mess. When HR departments learn to treat idiots also kindly, they can contribute to the growth of their organizations. Every employee is an opportunist. Most of them might be beasts also. The standards and values, set and followed in a unit of employment, fairly, towards everybody, must change him/her into a human being and keep them so until they go out formally. HR staff need high degree of patience, self-control, sensitivity, empathy, intelligence and vision to attract the best ones into their firms and retain them for long. Humanity wins the race here but not tactics and gimmicks. In fact, many good employees also turn into bad ones after observing biased HR culture there.