Related Posts
Conversation Starter
Hi all
Few months back, I accepted @pwc india's offer but didn't join.
Now I was referred for @pwc US but as I was applying for the job, the portal shows previous application with status as offer accepted.
Will pwc consider me again?
Does anyone have any idea on this?
Has someone accepted the offer but didn't join and later joined again after some months?
Please let me know
Any inputs will be helpful
Thanks!
EY Deloitte
More Posts
Informatica openings any?
9+ experience
Visual Storyteller
Additional Posts in Human Resources
Pro
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Rising Star
Skip recordings. Talk to them real-time.
But isn't HireVue using AI? Why is this good for employers to use but a negative for potential associates?
Stop using recorded interviews.
Holy moly... I could never understand why companies created such a hostile first impression with candidates. I'm so happy that practice is going the way of the dodo bird.
It shows you could care less about getting to know them. And if you don't care or have the time maybe a course in time management is necessary
I understand that it save time to do recorded first interviews, however, that speaks volumes about how they will be treated as an employee. Think of it as a first date; what impression are you making about the future relationship, if hired.
it's not the most inclusive way to recruit! Also, it's one of those things that candidates look at and go, I'll come back to that later but that later may never happen.
I don't do them. A recruiter reached out to tell me they can't move forward until I submit it. I told them I didn't apply they reached out to me. I told them this shows me how valuable they think people are, use a system to eliminate candidates without ever talking to them. I said that was an auto reject from me. Even now that I have been part of a RIF I refuse to do them. I don't want to work for a lazy company with lazy recruiting.
If you want to continue this practice, you will need to consider it like an open-book test. Can they appropriately use resources to provide the correct answer, because AI will also be available to them on the job. You may need to rethink what you are looking for them to demonstrate in these recorded interviews.
You can tell the difference by calling them in and interviewing them in person. This method is horrible. You need to eliminate it right now. I don’t know who in your company thought this was a good idea or who started it, but it needs to end. You’re gonna get exactly what you deserve in a candidate by doing this.
Don't use recorded videos for your first interviews. They are discriminatory and a huge turn off for most people. You're missing out on a lot of very qualified candidates by using video. Once I see a video interview, I automatically remove myself from the process. They're also very impersonal and do not provide a positive candidate experience. In my opinion, prerecorded video "interviews" should be illegal.
Treat applicants like people, and your quality of interviews, and ultimately onboarding/retention/work, will improve. This dehumanizes. Job hunting is terrible on a good day. Remove barriers as much as possible.
Do a real interview where you actually talk to the person.
I guess everyone thought their opinion of your job was way more important than answering your question.
I think that's unfair, often is not up to you if you use AI but is decided by corporate leadership, or some process improvement guru that's been in TA five minutes the company puts all their faith in. So I'm sorry everyone gave you a hard time.
I'd ask Gemini, or Co-pilot how to determine the difference. Or reddit, sometimes it feels unsafe to ask questions here and that stinks.
Chief
"Unsafe"? Are the commenters threatening the OP with their opinions?
And do you think you wouldn't get far more snarky answers on Reddit?
We all did answer the question, by the way. The way to ensure that candidates aren't using AI is to not do interviews this way.
Glad to see the majority of the responses calling this stuff out too. Candidates who value their time and self-worth will just deselect themselves from this kind of thing. If you're trying to recruit from the best pool of potential candidates, you're losing a bunch of them before you even get started.
Interviews are structured conversations within the hiring process, Asking someone to record their responses to questions is not a conversation, it’s not an interview. If recording videos is a regular task of the role, then that might be a step in the interview process, as others have said, like an open book test, but it is not a valid interview. A thought though, if candidates are that effective with AI that you can’t tell if they are using it for their answers, they are pretty good at interpreting and delivering what the LLM is generating. I give people credit, if the employer doesn’t respect them enough to do an interview, why shouldn’t they be expedient and use AI to craft their responses.
Chief
It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell. I think the focus will need to shift towards follow-up questions and live conversations where candidates have to expand on their recorded responses.
No problem. They will keep using AI after being hired, so you will always get the right answers. HAHAHAHA