How do you feel about gureeteed interview schemes?

true but that is still a second opotunity to change their mind.

Expecto_Patronum said:

There is only 1 time I've come across it and although I met the criteria for the job I wasn't given an interview and when I queried it I got no response so I think they're questionable at best.

was it a goverment acredited scheeme? you could have complained to the goverment?

Expecto_Patronum said:

I struggle to see the benefit of the scheme I'll be honest. Is it needed because employers aren't giving interviews to autistic people. If they aren't is it because they don't want to. And if they don't want to, why would they give them an actual job. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Job aplication questions are offten phrased vuagely and there is offten un-writen expectation that the aplicant will use a certain sort of langage and structure in their aplication. I think that's harder for autistic people to navigate. But at a face to face interview you can ask questions about questions, ask for clarification. If you are waffeling on about something other than the interviewer wanted to know they can interupt and add their own clarifications.

was it a goverment acredited program? (eg disability confident) You could have complained to the goverment.

Were you aware it's ilegal to treat someone less favorably because they made a complaint about discrimination?

I somehow ended up with "competency based interview technique" as a special interest many years back. It lasted for about a year with me obsessing over how they worked, how to do well, how to work out what they wanted, buzz words, STAR formats, story telling, practicing "joke comments", body language etc.

I applied for several jobs and ticked the box on 3 or 4 (for bipolar not autism because I wasn't diagnosed autistic at the time) and got an interview for each one. Just as part of the fixation, for fun, to practice my technique.

I was so into the whole learning process that I lost sight of the point of the interview.

Then, after one particularly good interview, just when I felt like I really "got it", I accidentally got offered the job. I wasn't sure I wanted it, but felt like I ought to accept because they seemed so keen on me taking it.

I've now been in the "new" job for 9 years and I'm still not sure if I want it. The extra money is useful, but I think I preferred the last job in many ways. Ended the fixation though and now I'm not sure how I did it!

I see what you mean, I think the only benefit is for employers to meet you in person and maybe rephrase their questions or see your personality, in case it doesn't come through on the application. That said, are many employers willing to make the effort to see past ambiguous interview questions and point scoring? I would rather them see the my true qualities but unfortunately my (lack of) communication skills always seem to be their priority.

There is only 1 time I've come across it and although I met the criteria for the job I wasn't given an interview and when I queried it I got no response so I think they're questionable at best.

I like to tell employers that I'm autistic before they meet me. I think I'd rather they rejected me on paper for being autistic rather than in person so I think I'd rather get the interview because my application earned it rather than because a scheme said they had to.

I struggle to see the benefit of the scheme I'll be honest. Is it needed because employers aren't giving interviews to autistic people. If they aren't is it because they don't want to. And if they don't want to, why would they give them an actual job. Just doesn't make sense to me.

I tried to get an interview for a job with a council in Scotland using a scheme like this a few years ago, on paper I was more than adequately qualified and I had work experience, but no job interview was forthcoming. The best interpretation would be that perhaps their HR department didn't notice that I had asked for a guaranteed interview. I didn't put in a complaint as I didn't want to alienate the potential employer in case I wanted to make further applications in the future.  So I became a bit cynical about this type of scheme.

Interesting question. I agree with guaranteed interview schemes and personally, whenever there is an option for them I always tick the box. Main reason for this is that I am not very good with application forms and writing person specification essays but I am very good at interviews and I know I will often be good at the job, so the guaranteed interview scheme basically gives me a level playing field with everyone else and gives me the chance to show the employers what I can do at the interview rather than just being rejected on the basis of my application form 

Jalapeno said:

I've mainly worked in private sector so think the only time I've hit panels was the few public sector jobs

I was trained on it as a manager with a lot of hiring responsibility when I was in the public sector & Civil Service then later on with a large sports organisation which had a large charity element to it.

It seems the companies with more "morals" will use it whereas the Twitters of this world will use the old patriarchy approach with all shades in between.

Hi Iain

appreciate the insight  ...I generally try to steer clear of any line manager role so my knowledge of the process is 20 years old

Also been a long time since I've been interviewed by more than 2, the unbiased process works great when panel (3 or 4 people) but if just two, one has always been more senior and sceptic me, will say they make the decision and the other will follow.

I've mainly worked in private sector so think the only time I've hit panels was the few public sector jobs (after the 2008 crash) that I did to survive

In some cases, they give you the interview with absolutely no intention of considering you for the job.

Jalapeno said:

I suspect some companies may be better at others, in terms of action.

It was being adopted by more and more companies although the actual implementation was in its infancy 4 years ago when I was last hiring staff.

Typically the recruitment agency acting as the go-between will put you through a technical test so you have to prove you are able to do the technical stuff for the job (otherwise you are simply not a viable applicant) then they forward the top, say 20 scoring candidates to the company.

In theory HR are the only ones who see the actual application - they then redact all sorts of personal identifiable info from the CV so the hiring manager cannot shortlist inverviews even on a subconcious bias. All applicants should then be scored by an interview panel based solely on their redacted CV and the ones who fail to meet the criteria for the role will be dropped, further reducing the list.

Scores will be given on each of the criteria for the job by each person on the panel for every applicat and this goes on record.

At the end there is a priority list based on these scores and the candidates will be invited to interview where their scores will be updated based on whether they were found to have lied on their CV, are very poor in some interpersonal areas etc and a further set of scores will be added based on this.

At the end of the day the highest scoring candidate is supposed to be offered the job, then it goes to the next one if they pass on the offer and so on.

It emphasizes how important having an accurate CV is which has been tailored to the job application to highlight the skills required in the job spec.

In reality many hiring managers will skew their results using their bias but when the panel have to submit their own scores and one stands out as being very different to the othes then HR are supposed to interview them to assess if bias was present and to act to correct it. In theory.

It is nice when it works but I'm not sure how many companies faithfully implement it

if they apply for level 3 of the goverment scheme they have to get their recruitment practices audited by a 3rd party.

no they generally put a tickbox for gureeteed interview on the online job aplication and there is often a note saying that section won't be visable to the interviewers but only the HR team.

Well - that seemed to work.

Hopefully, Cloud44 , you will get to see a more thoughtful and engaging post that I made to you earlier - but try as I might - it simply does not seem to be "allowed" by the tech or filters or what-have-you.

Just seeing whether I can post, at all, anywhere ...... please forgive this intrusion - thanks.

Ah ok, I thought you were referring to open disclosure in the hope the interview would be more accommodating.

In theory if they are doing it right the interviewer doesn't know you ticked the box. Because the short lister should be someone else.

I've never ticked it, but when I start looking for work again in a couple of years (I'm a student now) I probably will. I don't want to work for someone under false pretences and would rather be real and not get the job, than get the job and end up burnt out and bullied like I did for fifteen years prior.

I think in principal it's great.  But who checks that those companies with the badge "disability confident"  actual do what they say they will to be part of the scheme ? and then what is the transparency of how many jobs are offered as a % of applicants this route vs the other applicants.

I suspect some companies may be better at others, in terms of action.

I would give it some thought, if I needed to apply for another job

Would be good to hear if anyone on here has had a positive outcome (job offer) from applying this route