Don’t Tell Me About Yourself copertina

Don’t Tell Me About Yourself

Don’t Tell Me About Yourself

Di: WRKdefined Podcast Network
Ascolta gratuitamente

Offerte di stagione | 0,99 €/mese per i primi 3 mesi

A seguire 9,99 €/mese – si applicano condizioni. Puoi disdire mensilmente.
“Don’t Tell Me About Yourself” is where old-school hiring meets a modern reality check. Hosted by Expert Interviewers Co-Founders Lorna Erickson and Victoria Gates, this show blends their combined 40 years of real-world experience with the unfiltered commentary that made 340K+ people laugh, cringe, and rethink how interviews actually work. Each week, they tackle the biggest news in hiring, from chaotic interview moments to ghost jobs and questions that should have been retired decades ago. Whether you hire, apply, or just love a good interview trainwreck, this show is for anyone who’s ever sat on either side of the interview table. Real stories. Real data. Real talk about how to make interviews actually work for everyone. Because great hiring isn’t luck—it's a skill.All rights reserved by WRKdefined Economia Gestione e leadership Management Ricerca del lavoro Successo personale
Episodi
  • Are These the Worst Job Interviews on the Internet?

    Are These the Worst Job Interviews on the Internet?
    Oct 28 2026
    Episode Description: An iced coffee gets you judged. A CEO makes you wait an hour. A hiring manager plants trash on the floor to test your character. And somehow, these are real job interview stories. In this episode of Don't Tell Me About Yourself, Expert Interviewers co-founders Victoria Gates and Lorna Erickson break down some of the worst viral job interview stories on the internet and debate what these situations actually reveal about candidates and the people interviewing them. From controversial dress codes and secret hiring tests to interviewers yelling at candidates, asking inappropriate questions, and rejecting people over unwritten rules, they explore where professionalism ends and personal bias begins. You'll hear why seemingly harmless preferences can turn into unfair hiring decisions, how bad interviewer behavior damages the candidate experience, and why social media is changing accountability in hiring. Because sometimes the biggest red flag in an interview isn't the candidate. It's the person asking the questions. KEY TAKEAWAYS Bringing iced coffee to an interview shouldn't determine whether someone gets hired. Personal preferences and unwritten expectations aren't reliable measures of job performance. Professionalism is subjective. What one interviewer considers inappropriate, another might see as completely acceptable. Candidates shouldn't be penalized for dress code expectations that were never communicated, especially when interviewers aren't held to the same standards. Secret hiring tests, like the coffee cup test or deliberately leaving trash on the floor, often reveal more about an interviewer's judgment than a candidate's qualifications. A candidate's willingness to clean up a coffee cup or pick up garbage doesn't necessarily predict their initiative, character, or ability to perform a job. Evaluating whether you'd enjoy spending time with a candidate can introduce personal chemistry and bias into hiring decisions, even when collaboration is an important part of the role. Interviewers who yell at candidates, criticize their own employees, or show up excessively late without apologizing are giving candidates a preview of the company's culture. Candidates and interviewers should be held to similar standards of professionalism, preparation, and respect. Questions about pregnancy, age, retirement, or a candidate's ChatGPT history can cross important personal and professional boundaries. Candidates are increasingly willing to end interviews when employers reveal unreasonable expectations or behaviors that don't align with their values. Social media has given candidates a platform to expose bad interview experiences, creating more transparency and accountability in the hiring process. Hiring managers can unintentionally adopt ineffective interviewing practices after seeing viral stories or advice online without understanding whether those methods actually predict performance. The goal of an interview isn't to catch candidates doing something wrong. It's to determine whether they can do the job, want to do the job, and whether the company is somewhere they'd want to work. TIMESTAMPS 00:00 – When the interviewer is the biggest red flag 01:27 – The viral iced coffee interview debate 04:42 – Should candidates be rejected for what they wear? 08:55 – Secret hiring tests and the coffee cup test 12:04 – The crumpled paper test and judging candidate character 14:31 – United Airlines and the four-day trip test 19:09 – When interviewers yell at candidates about professionalism 22:22 – Hiring managers who trash their own employees 24:17 – When the CEO shows up an hour late 26:34 – Inappropriate interview questions and ChatGPT history 27:58 – Why candidates are calling out bad interviews online 28:57 – When candidates decide to end the interview 30:47 – Has social media made interviewing better or worse? 31:58 – Which interview red flags would make us walk away? 33:20 – The interviewing practices we'd ban forever 34:34 – Why interviewers need to meet candidates' standards, too KEYWORDS worst job interviews, interview red flags, bad interview experiences, interviewer red flags, viral interview stories, hiring manager mistakes, interview professionalism, iced coffee interview, coffee cup test, secret interview tests, inappropriate interview questions, interview bias, candidate experience, hiring manager training, interview etiquette, interview dress code, job interview horror stories, candidate rejection, structured interviews, hiring decisions, social media and hiring
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    36 min
  • Does Every Candidate Deserve Interview Feedback?

    Does Every Candidate Deserve Interview Feedback?
    Oct 21 2026
    Episode Description: Everyone says candidates deserve feedback. But what happens when the hiring manager can't actually explain why someone was rejected? In this episode of Don't Tell Me About Yourself, Expert Interviewers co-founders Victoria Gates and Lorna Erickson debate whether every job candidate deserves interview feedback, why companies are so hesitant to provide it, and what candidates should realistically expect after being rejected. From ghosting and generic rejection emails to legal concerns, gut-feeling hiring decisions, and poorly documented interviews, they explore the difference between communication, transparency, feedback, and coaching. You'll learn how much feedback candidates should receive at different stages of the hiring process, why internal candidates need additional consideration, and how recruiters and hiring managers can give more useful, evidence-based feedback. Because if you can't explain why you rejected someone, the bigger problem might be how you made the hiring decision in the first place. KEY TAKEAWAYS Not every candidate needs personalized interview feedback, but candidates deserve clear communication about where they stand in the hiring process. Candidates often want closure more than coaching. A timely update or rejection can prevent unnecessary confusion, frustration, and speculation. Companies hesitate to give interview feedback because of time constraints, legal concerns, uncomfortable conversations, poor documentation, and unclear hiring decisions. Poor feedback doesn't necessarily mean poor candidate performance. It may indicate that interviewers lack the evidence needed to explain their decisions. Communication, transparency, feedback, and coaching are different levels of candidate engagement. Communication is the baseline, while personalized feedback and coaching require more time and investment. The further a candidate progresses through the hiring process, the more specific and individualized their feedback should become. Applicants and candidates completing initial recruiter screens should receive timely updates and clear decisions, even when personalized feedback isn't practical. Final-round candidates deserve meaningful, job-related feedback that explains how their experience and interview responses aligned with the role's requirements. Internal candidates may need additional feedback and development guidance because rejection can affect their ongoing working relationships and future career opportunities. Generic rejection explanations like "we went in another direction," "you weren't a fit," or "we needed someone more senior" provide little useful information without specific context. Effective interview feedback should connect directly to predefined job criteria, observable evidence, and the skills or experience required for the position. Hiring managers must be able to explain why they selected or rejected a candidate. If the decision was based primarily on gut feeling or personal chemistry, meaningful feedback becomes difficult. Feedback is valuable, but communication is non-negotiable. Silence should never be a company's rejection strategy. TIMESTAMPS 00:00 – Does every candidate deserve interview feedback? 01:41 – Why candidates want feedback after rejection 02:54 – Why candidates are left without answers 03:50 – Interview feedback versus basic communication 05:16 – Why companies hesitate to give feedback 07:53 – How poor documentation prevents useful feedback 09:17 – When hiring managers can't explain their decisions 10:38 – Communication, transparency, feedback, and coaching 13:15 – The bare minimum every candidate deserves 15:37 – How much feedback should candidates receive? 16:37 – Giving honest feedback during recruiter screens 18:17 – What candidates deserve after an interview 19:24 – Why finalists need personalized feedback 20:24 – Should internal candidates receive more coaching? 22:41 – What to say instead of generic rejection phrases 25:22 – Why good feedback starts before the interview 26:34 – Feedback is valuable, communication is non-negotiable KEYWORDS candidate feedback, interview feedback, interview rejection, why companies don't give feedback, how to give interview feedback, candidate experience, candidate ghosting, rejection email, hiring manager feedback, recruiter communication, candidate rejection, internal candidate feedback, structured interviews, evidence-based hiring, hiring decisions, interview scorecards, hiring manager training
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    28 min
  • How Many Interviews Is Too Many?

    How Many Interviews Is Too Many?
    Oct 14 2026
    Episode Description: Five rounds. Nine interviewers. Six weeks. And the final hiring decision still comes down to a “good feeling.” Sound familiar? How many interview rounds does it actually take to make a good hire? In this episode of Don't Tell Me About Yourself, Expert Interviewers co-founders Victoria Gates and Lorna Erickson break down why hiring processes become unnecessarily long, whether more interviews actually improve hiring decisions, and how recruiters and hiring managers can design a more efficient interview process. From recruiter screens and panel interviews to executive approvals and hiring debriefs, they explore how to eliminate redundant interviews without sacrificing hiring quality, candidate experience, or confidence in the final decision. KEY TAKEAWAYS 1. Why interview processes get longer: Fear of making the wrong hiring decision, groupthink, unnecessary approvals, and poorly defined evaluation criteria can all contribute to interview bloat. 2. More interviews don't automatically mean better hires: Google's research on its own hiring process found diminishing returns after four interviews, demonstrating why adding rounds doesn't necessarily improve decision-making. 3. Every interview round needs a purpose: Recruiter screens, hiring manager interviews, panel interviews, and executive conversations should each evaluate something specific rather than repeat the same questions. 4. Panel interviews can improve efficiency: When structured properly, panels bring different perspectives together, reduce repetitive questions, and allow interviewers to evaluate the same evidence. 5. The right number of interviews depends on the role: Hourly, entry-level, individual contributor, management, and executive positions require different levels of evaluation. 6. Internal candidates still deserve a structured process: Familiarity, previous performance, and internal reputation shouldn't replace consistent, evidence-based evaluation. 7. Uncertainty isn't a reason to add another round: Before scheduling an additional interview, identify exactly what information is missing and how the next conversation will uncover it. 8. Structured interviews need structured decisions: Interview scorecards and independent evaluations help prevent hiring debriefs from becoming exercises in groupthink. 9. Hiring teams need clear responsibilities: Each interviewer should understand what they're evaluating, what evidence to collect, and how that information contributes to the final decision. 10. The goal isn't fewer interviews at any cost: It's fewer pointless interviews and a hiring process that respects everyone's time while producing better-informed decisions. TIMESTAMPS 00:00 – Five rounds, nine interviewers, and one gut feeling 01:25 – Why interview processes become unnecessarily long 04:03 – What should each interview round actually evaluate? 07:38 – Are panel interviews helpful or just intimidating? 11:13 – Does adding more interviews improve hiring decisions? 13:31 – How many interviews are needed for different roles? 19:35 – Should internal candidates follow the same process? 21:28 – How to design a more efficient interview process 23:20 – Why structured debriefs and scorecards matter 25:20 – How to eliminate unnecessary interview rounds KEYWORDS interview process, interview rounds, hiring process efficiency, structured interviews, hiring decisions, candidate experience, panel interviews, interview scorecards, hiring managers, recruitment best practices
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    28 min
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Ancora nessuna recensione