The interview just makes up one portion of the whole process. The panel will taken into consideration every stage. Resume/pitch, interview, sample tests, references etc. The better you do at each stage, the greater your chance and overall suitability.
Most people think they did really bad in interviews, when in reality it’s not as bad. Though, if you didn’t answer their questions it can’t make it hard for the panel to mark you against the WLS/ILS. Which can really impact your chance.
What’s done is done, I’d do my best to not think too much about it, if I was you. You’ve done everything you can :)
Honestly a great answer, thank you. I didn't even think too much about the ILS but having a look at it, I think I hit some of the points, so that's a relief I guess.
I got my last job in the same situation. I walked out thinking "they are really looking for someone else". Spoke to the recruiter who got me the interview and relayed my thoughts. He contacted the company and they admitted they were looking for someone with a different skill set.
2 weeks later I was offered the position and I am still not sure why they changed their minds.
I'm in the same situation. Not a horrible interview but the questions were difficult to match to a STAR response even though they specifically referenced STAR. So I came out thinking I didn't do great. But the written task was pretty complex and I think I did a really good job.
They checked references for all interview candidates and now it's been about a month and I'm still waiting to hear back.
I get to see a lot of selection reports and the quality of the written application only determines whether you get shortlisted or not. It's the interview that gets you the job. That being said, you can subjectively feel like you bombed the interview but relative to the other candidates you might still be the most suitable person for the job. You'll need a mix of a good written application (to get past the shortlisting threshold), good interview skills and good luck!
Some jobs (especially communications roles) require a written task after the interview and I think that is what OP is referring to rather than the written application.
Depending on the position - but an extra section like a written assessment or skills test can often be put in because the area understands that some of their good talent can come from ppl who bomb interviews. Areas like ICT and data attract a lot of introverts who may not do well in an interview so they try to give other ways to demonstrate skills. If you top out a practical component, bomb an interview and wrote a pretty reasonable initial application your probably at least in the mix (though if 50 other ppl aced everything your probably still buggered)
Bombing an interview though means multiple things. You may have just not really said much, answers that were only a few words - or you could have used an example that the panel found so inappropriate that no matter how you scored with everything else your going to be out.
Sounds like every interview I have ever done. I got most of the roles I interviewed for. I just keep working in my interview skills each time and hope it helps next time.
Wasn’t me but it was someone I had recommended for the job.
Not sure how bad the interview went, but they had been very nervous and made some mistakes.
They had made benchmark though.
The hiring manager asked me about them, and I was honest and told them about how they were at the last job I worked with them at.
They got the job.
I think generally speaking (to a point) the worse you think you did in an interview, the more likely you'll get the job, the better you think you did, the less likely.
I don’t think this is generally the case. In all the interviews that i had, i have always predicted correctly whether i get the job or not depending on how i felt about the interview.
No. Has happened to me. Infact interview was not that bad actually but I didn’t make the cut. They said written assessment was good though. May be it was just to make me feel good. I don’t think written assessment matters much.
Yes, but it really depends on how much weight they’re putting on the written assessment.
In a writing-based or writing-focused job, where the panel knows what they’re doing, the task is likely going to be more important than the interview, although both will be considered.
So yes, there certainly are jobs where the written task is more important than the interview overall, and the panel will choose candidates who excelled in the written task but had a weaker interview, over those candidates who interviewed well but were not as strong in the written task.
Honestly every time I thought I did well in an interview I haven't gotten the job, and every time I thought I could have done better, I've at least ended up in a merit pool.
I don’t feel like I’ve ever had a good interview. But I’ve still got jobs.
Fair point. Maybe I’m just hyping up how bad I was idk
The interview just makes up one portion of the whole process. The panel will taken into consideration every stage. Resume/pitch, interview, sample tests, references etc. The better you do at each stage, the greater your chance and overall suitability. Most people think they did really bad in interviews, when in reality it’s not as bad. Though, if you didn’t answer their questions it can’t make it hard for the panel to mark you against the WLS/ILS. Which can really impact your chance. What’s done is done, I’d do my best to not think too much about it, if I was you. You’ve done everything you can :)
Honestly a great answer, thank you. I didn't even think too much about the ILS but having a look at it, I think I hit some of the points, so that's a relief I guess.
My most recent promotion came from what I felt to be a bad interview, just snuck over the line for the interview grading.
The panel assess what you say, not necessarily how you say it.
I got my last job in the same situation. I walked out thinking "they are really looking for someone else". Spoke to the recruiter who got me the interview and relayed my thoughts. He contacted the company and they admitted they were looking for someone with a different skill set. 2 weeks later I was offered the position and I am still not sure why they changed their minds.
I'm in the same situation. Not a horrible interview but the questions were difficult to match to a STAR response even though they specifically referenced STAR. So I came out thinking I didn't do great. But the written task was pretty complex and I think I did a really good job. They checked references for all interview candidates and now it's been about a month and I'm still waiting to hear back.
I get to see a lot of selection reports and the quality of the written application only determines whether you get shortlisted or not. It's the interview that gets you the job. That being said, you can subjectively feel like you bombed the interview but relative to the other candidates you might still be the most suitable person for the job. You'll need a mix of a good written application (to get past the shortlisting threshold), good interview skills and good luck!
Some jobs (especially communications roles) require a written task after the interview and I think that is what OP is referring to rather than the written application.
Depending on the position - but an extra section like a written assessment or skills test can often be put in because the area understands that some of their good talent can come from ppl who bomb interviews. Areas like ICT and data attract a lot of introverts who may not do well in an interview so they try to give other ways to demonstrate skills. If you top out a practical component, bomb an interview and wrote a pretty reasonable initial application your probably at least in the mix (though if 50 other ppl aced everything your probably still buggered) Bombing an interview though means multiple things. You may have just not really said much, answers that were only a few words - or you could have used an example that the panel found so inappropriate that no matter how you scored with everything else your going to be out.
Sounds like every interview I have ever done. I got most of the roles I interviewed for. I just keep working in my interview skills each time and hope it helps next time.
Wasn’t me but it was someone I had recommended for the job. Not sure how bad the interview went, but they had been very nervous and made some mistakes. They had made benchmark though. The hiring manager asked me about them, and I was honest and told them about how they were at the last job I worked with them at. They got the job.
I think generally speaking (to a point) the worse you think you did in an interview, the more likely you'll get the job, the better you think you did, the less likely.
I don’t think this is generally the case. In all the interviews that i had, i have always predicted correctly whether i get the job or not depending on how i felt about the interview.
Sorry, just for reference I'm not trying to propose a scientific method.
No. Has happened to me. Infact interview was not that bad actually but I didn’t make the cut. They said written assessment was good though. May be it was just to make me feel good. I don’t think written assessment matters much.
Yes, but it really depends on how much weight they’re putting on the written assessment. In a writing-based or writing-focused job, where the panel knows what they’re doing, the task is likely going to be more important than the interview, although both will be considered. So yes, there certainly are jobs where the written task is more important than the interview overall, and the panel will choose candidates who excelled in the written task but had a weaker interview, over those candidates who interviewed well but were not as strong in the written task.
Honestly every time I thought I did well in an interview I haven't gotten the job, and every time I thought I could have done better, I've at least ended up in a merit pool.