During the interview

An employer's reasons why he doesn't take on certain candidates
"I interviewed umpteen candidates in my time as a Systems Manager and Chief Information Officer at a leading company in the card market. These were for positions from graduates to the second level of management in an IT department. Using that experience, here are the candidates that I would reject.”

Rude to the Secretaries
Candidates usually waited in reception and were looked after by the two secretaries while they were waiting for their interviews. I always asked the secretaries after the interview what they thought of the candidate whilst he or she was waiting. If they had been rude or short with the secretaries, or annoyed them in some other way, then I didn't take them on.

It's amazing how many candidates do get upset with the secretaries. I felt that, by not taking those candidates on, that I was saving myself and the company a lot of potential grief and heartache in the future.

The Over Firm Handshakers
It never bothered me at all whether someone gave me a firm handshake or a weak one. I don't know who gives candidates the advice that they should have a firm handshake, because, in my opinion, you can't win at an interview like that, but you can lose one. Everyone knows that it is just a technique anyway, and no one likes to be 'techniqued'. It's too obvious.

The ones I don't like are the ones who squeeze your hand really hard to 'impress you'. They say that you make your mind up about someone in the first 2 minutes of the interview, and this certainly isn't a good start.

The Beggars
Some candidates go too far at an interview and get to the point of almost begging. It just makes you feel uncomfortable. They say things like "If you give me this job, I'll do a job for you and I won't let you down". I used to think that this was quite good, but the two people I took on who were like that both turned out to be poor and didn't last long.

The Interview Flirts
Some of the women I have interviewed have come along a little scantily dressed, and have flirted at the interview. I'm not going to say that this sort of thing doesn't affect me - it does, but it wouldn't affect my decision (I can almost hear the cries of disbelief across the contracting nation).

I would say that, if anything, it might count against them, as I need someone to get the work done, not someone who is going to spend a lot of time preening themselves and distracting the guys from their work.

There are occasions when I would employ a scantily dressed flirt, and that would be when I thought it would be good for morale in a mostly male office (or when my boss advised me that he thought it a good idea to hire her).

I know that this is a little sexist, but I am just braindumping my thoughts on the subject, without regard for political correctness - as "telling it as it is" is far more useful for contractors than a pious diatribe.

The Slaggers
I don't like those people who start slagging off a lot of other people at interviews, whether it is their agents, their previous companies, or certain languages or techniques. I don't want such a negative person working at my place where they may do a lot of damage to morale with all their negative criticism.

The Fixed Starers
It is good to pay attention during an interview and to take an interest in what the interviewer is saying, but some candidates overdo it. They have obviously come in to the interview determined to keep their eyes on you the whole time and look interested. However they do it in a sort of goggle-eyed way which is a little off-putting, and you realise that they are "techniquing you" rather than showing a genuine interest in the job and the skills and tools used there.

Towards the end of the interview you can see that their eyes are starting to hurt a little from staring intently at you, and they start to look a little wild - a little mad even. I'm glad when they're gone.

The Latecomers
It is the salesman's first rule - always get to the client on time. Don't make him wait. Interview candidates are selling their own abilities. I always think that if they can't go to the trouble of getting to the interview on time then they can't be very well organised, and that it is a bit of an insult to you and the company.

This is not a hard and fast rule for me, but there needs to be a better excuse than 'stuck in traffic' which is the normal one.

The Crawlers
It's good to know that a candidate likes the company, the location, the people he or she has met, and the tools and techniques that the company use. However, some can take it too far, and almost start fawning with extravagant praise of everything and everybody.

You can say things like "That's the way I like to work" or "That way of working suits me down to the ground" but not "You've got such a great operation here, I can't wait to join and be part of it".

The Wide Eyed Naive Ones
Those who answer the question "...and what are your main weaknesses" with a list of their own shortcomings don't do themselves any favours. I didn't use to like putting this question, but it shows me which candidates are too naive to be put out in the big wide world, e.g. in front of users, clients, or senior management.

The Don't Knows
And lastly but most importantly, to get a job, the candidate must, first and foremost, be able to answer the questions that I put about the job. After getting one of my managers to ask some technical questions, I then ask the candidate what can go wrong in his or her job when using particular skills.

I know how easy it is to learn most of the answers about a skill or technique from a book. I used to do it myself.

What I want to know about is the problems that they've come up against and how they've solved them. They have to know that, as I don't want them learning at mine or the company's expense.