Telling the truth about one's self and one's impressions causes more trouble than good - especially at interview, it seems.
Honesty may not be the best policy
Over the last couple of weeks I have been to a couple of interviews for what sounded like an interesting, if ambitious, challenge of a post. On Tuesday I got turned down. I am still a little bemused, because I thought the interviews went well, and the expectation after the second was to get a look at the formal job spec and have another quick chat with someone about the specific skills requirements. I thought it was all frank, but positive.
Apparently, not. Going into an interview when you are not absolutely itching to get out of your present job raises "questions around your commitment to leaving your current company". So, showing interest in the position, and going out of one's way to attend two interviews demonstrates a lack of committment? Raising honest concerns about how one's own skills fit the expectations, and wanting to know more demonstrates a lack of committment?
Frankly I think it is absurd. And it is disappointing, because whilst there were still questions hanging (which will now remain forever unresolved) it did seem to be the move I needed to light a bit of a fire under me, just as long as it was not too far outside my current abilities. Who in this economic climate is going to jump without a decent degree of certainty that where they are jumping to is going to be secure and that they are not going to find themselves out on their ear for not fulfilling expectations during their probation? Jobs are not growing on trees, but nevertheless being "comfortable" where one is is not any indication of a lack of intention to leave for the right challenge. I always thought honesty was the best policy. It always seems to work against me. You would think that after nearly 30 years in the working world I would have learned better. I have now. From now on it's whatever lie they want to hear, and "oh yes I'm absolutely gagging to leave", although right now I have to think of a plausible answer when asked "why?"
In hindsight answering that I was "ambivalent" about the move was a mistake, but it was a precise and literally accurate answer. In literal translation it means equally attracted and repelled, or more colloquially mixed (specifically co-existing positive and negative) feelings. And that was with concerns still outstanding. If they had been cleared up it would have been a clear winner.
That seems to be one of my problems. I speak precise literal English, and I expect it to be received that way. It only recently dawned on me - and funnily enough this was mentioned in the second interview - that most people are not precise and literal, and parse what you say with all manner of filters of perception to re-interpret it to mean something completely different. Ho hum.
