Strange interview request. Is this normal?

[NibblyPig]

I've been stuck working away from home for the past three weeks and my avatar is on my home PC somewhere so just haven't had time to get to it. Believe me I'm not overly happy about any of it. Will try my best to sort it when I get home this week.

Well OP, this is your best outcome ^

[SueEllen]

For me the real issue here is that they've unilaterally dictated a time without any consideration of your other business commitments.

Offer them very generous alternative slots and see if you can get it changed. If they decline then you know in advance what sort of a working relationship they expect.

Depends on what the time is. If it's hours in the middle of the day then there is no need to be difficult. If it's at the beginning or end of the day then you have a right to be a bit of a pain.

However I did have a client who decided to put an interview first thing in the morning. Knowing people who lived where I did and worked permanently in the area I knew why they did that e.g. to filter out candidates who wouldn't travel in rush hour. (Should add I didn't travel there in rush hour.)

[Hapax]

Depends on what the time is. If it's hours in the middle of the day then there is no need to be difficult. If it's at the beginning or end of the day then you have a right to be a bit of a pain.

You’ve completely missed the point. This has nothing to with being a pain or a primadonna.

So far the client has refused a phone interview, declined a Skype call and dictated a meeting time.
Are these simply coincidences or are they part of a pattern? By requesting a change in meeting time the OP is really trying to answer that question.

All of this is orthogonal as to whether the OP decides to work for the client. If he does so however, and the client proves to be inflexible and dictatorial then he can hardly complain about it.
The evidence for the clients attitude was already available in advance.

[SlipTheJab]

You’ve completely missed the point. This has nothing to with being a pain or a primadonna.

So far the client has refused a phone interview, declined a Skype call and dictated a meeting time.
Are these simply coincidences or are they part of a pattern? By requesting a change in meeting time the OP is really trying to answer that question.

All of this is orthogonal as to whether the OP decides to work for the client. If he does so however, and the client proves to be inflexible and dictatorial then he can hardly complain about it.
The evidence for the clients attitude was already available in advance.

Good points, well made.

[SueEllen]

You’ve completely missed the point. This has nothing to with being a pain or a primadonna.

So far the client has refused a phone interview, declined a Skype call and dictated a meeting time.
Are these simply coincidences or are they part of a pattern? By requesting a change in meeting time the OP is really trying to answer that question.

All of this is orthogonal as to whether the OP decides to work for the client. If he does so however, and the client proves to be inflexible and dictatorial then he can hardly complain about it.
The evidence for the clients attitude was already available in advance.

I think you have misunderstood me and other posters. Interview arrangements say absolutely nothing about the client's flexibility.

I've been the interviewed candidate and one of the interviewers on different occasions.

Firstly you are presuming that the client is arranging for him to meet one person. Most of my interviews , whether as a candidate or as an interviewer, have meant there are two or more people conducting the interview. Co-ordinating to meet one interviewer is easy but as the number increases the more difficult it gets, this one reason why they give you a time. Obviously if you need to come early or later then simply tell them and get another time. This isn't always possible.

Secondly the larger the organisation the more rules they have in place to make their interviews be deemed fair under the law and decrease the risk of being sued by disgruntled candidates. So while they can conduct a phone or Skype interview they still have to do a face-to-face one with certain elements in it. To quicken the interview process they have just dropped the phone/Skype interview.

Thirdly don't presume it's the client being difficult, it can simply be the agent. When I've had problems with interview times I have sometimes managed to by-pass the agent and talk to the client direct. The client has had no problem with this, leaving the agent surprised that both of us were communicating without them.

Finally and most importantly being flexible at interview times gives you absolutely no indication of them being flexible or inflexible when you have actually secured a contract.

Some of those with inflexible working arrangements will tell you at interview. Others won't.

For example one of my recent clients' was flexible about interviews but inflexible about working arrangements. On the other hand another was inflexible with interview arrangements including time and method but flexible on working arrangements. In fact with the latter client due to them being near I would have preferred to have met them face-to-face to check out their site, since I've ended up having Skype interviews getting the contract and finding while they are flexible the parking on-site and the other transport options to get there were both absolutely awful. Infact when a client insists only on a phone or Skype interview you should get suspicious to what they are hiding.

[Hapax]

I think you have misunderstood me and other posters.

Other contributors to this thread do not need you as their unelected and self appointed spokesman. They're perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.

In my experience the clients approach to organizing and conducting interviews has always been a first class indicator of their corporate culture.

Yours has obviously been very different.

[SueEllen]

Other contributors to this thread do not need you as their unelected and self appointed spokesman. They're perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.

Quit the sexism and the attitude.

Other posters have clearly pointed out what I explained in more depth however you have decided that we are all wrong.

In my experience the clients approach to organizing and conducting interviews has always been a first class indicator of their corporate culture.

Yours has obviously been very different.

Tell you what when you have been involved in interviewing people and had to give feedback on each candidate, comeback to explain the logic of why some clients are inflexible.

[northernladuk]

I think you have misunderstood me and other posters. Interview arrangements say absolutely nothing about the client's flexibility.

I'd go along with this tbh... I've only had phone interviews and face to faces, no skype ones, which to be honest I'd rather decline and come in face to face. I know I can nail a face to face, skype interview takes away some of the bits I am good at in interviews, phones even more so.. I can't be the only one and I am absolutely sure there are interviewers at the clients that think the same.

Anyway, I've had phone and face to face with clients that were some of the most strict I've worked for and conversely I've had both with clients that were the great to contract with.

I certainly don't take their interview technique as feedback as to their working style whatsoever.

Don't know if it helps but I've also asked questions in interviews about working conditions and some of them sounded a bit rubbish but a few weeks, maybe a month in their attitude changed so even what the client is offering from the outset can change depending on how you work with them.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Quit the sexism and the attitude.

Huh? If people edit their posts does that show in your quoted snips?



That aside I disagree. Indication doesn't imply certainty, but i've worked at and interviewed on behalf of enough places to know that some places believe that a candidate should feel grateful to be considered, while others feel like they need to compete for talent.

Now, depending on the client, sometimes both of those positions are justified. But if you you assume that the OP is correct in assuming that the potential client's position is unjustified in that sense, then it could obviously be taken as an indicator that the client may view the candidate as a fungible resource, rather than an individual they would like to bring on board.

Whether you are ok with being a fungible resource, or a valued individual, depends entirely on the context of the situation. But clearly fungible resources are more likely to be subject to rigidity than to enjoy flexibility.

[pr1]

Quit the sexism

???