How do you feel about gureeteed interview schemes?

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 

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

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

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