-4

In a group interview, the interviewees come from different backgrounds. However, some of them are asked more questions than the others. While the interviewer has to cut down the time to interview everyone, the time length the interviewer spends for such candidates is noticeably longer than the other.

What could be interpreted for this situation? Should I be worried about my chances if I'm not getting asked as many questions?

closed as off-topic by Masked Man, David K, Chris E, Philip Kendall, IDrinkandIKnowThings Oct 19 '16 at 17:08

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address only a specific company or position are of limited use to future visitors. Questions seeking legal advice should be directed to legal professionals. For more information, click here." – Masked Man, Chris E, Philip Kendall, IDrinkandIKnowThings
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    When you say asked longer, what do you mean? Asked more questions? Talked to for longer? Asked to stay longer? Asked how long their fingers are? – Draken Oct 19 '16 at 15:37
  • 3
    Doesn't matter, group interviews are a stupid idea, run away without hesitation. – Masked Man Oct 19 '16 at 15:38
  • @Draken their work or life background – Ooker Oct 19 '16 at 15:41
  • 1
    They're stupid yes, but I got the best job I ever had after group interview. I also got the worst. I wouldn't suggest running, but don't read anything into them. – Chris E Oct 19 '16 at 15:41
  • 1
    Christopher's link has some pretty good reasons, one more point not explicitly covered there is group interviews require you to constantly put down other candidates (or at least, that is how they end up). I don't want to spend my interview time figuring out how good or bad other candidates are. – Masked Man Oct 19 '16 at 16:00
3

Not always. In some cases, the opposite is true, especially in high pressure workplaces.

For example:

  1. You have a candidate who has a solid CV, has answered a simple question absolutely fine, seems like a good hire.
  2. You also have a less-solid on paper candidate who isn't opening up on the shorter questions. A deeper, more probing question allows a more focused assessment of that person. It has no effect on the performance (or standing) of the first candidate.

If, following this greater opportunity, candidate 2 does not perform, candidate 1 is a lock. If they do well, then it comes down to other factors.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.