Differences with Private Sector interviews vs. Federal interviews

[Anonymous]

I'm posting this to see if anyone else has experienced this. I'm finding there is a huge difference in the attitude/demeanor of private sector interviews vs federal interviews. Federal interviews (my three frames of reference are treasury, State, and CIA) have all seemed extremely professional. The in person interviews were measured, sober, and a good combination of assessing if this person will make a commitment to the mission of the agency and their background/skills/motivation.

However my experiences with private sector interviews (outside of one of the MBB consulting firms, which was very professional) seem to really focus a lot on the whole 'do i want to have a beer with this person' test. I just am not getting the same sense of impartial assessment as I do with federal interviews. I feel that the private sector interviews are just more 'wild west' anything goes.

Has anyone else experienced this?

[Anonymous]

I have applied for and interviewed for positions at the federal, state, and local levels of government and have found their process to be mechanical and generally overly demanding of someone either on the phone or Skype.

The "we have to ask these questions" bit is sooooo government and honestly, outdated.

I applied for a private sector gig and the interview was like an actual conversation. Very refreshing. Interviewer was transparent, candid, and not obsessed with grading somebody on questions written in the 1990s by another type-A government nerd.

[Anonymous]

Depends completely on the company. I work for a large Fortune 500 company in the area, and we have a strict behavioral interview process with the same questions asked if every candidate, and notes sent to hr after the interview.

Very different at the small non/profits my spouse has interviewed with.

Remember most people are not professional interviewers, so there is a little bit of winging it if there is no process.

It also tells you something about the organization if they can say anything. Sometimes they are helpfully revealing about the org culture, etc.

[Anonymous]

At my agency, the interviewers are not allowed to give feedback on responses. No nodding and smiling. No agreeing or disagreeing. No follow up questions. All this is to prevent favoring a certain applicant by guiding them towards a certain response or giving them second chances.

They ask a question.

You respond.

They ask another question.

You respond.

etc.

[Anonymous]

It’s becuase they are afraid of being sued. They are doing everything they can to standardize hiring.

[Anonymous]

I sometimes conduct interviews for my workplace (private sector) and we don't bring people in who don't have the appropriate background/intellectual chops. But we work crazy hours and the only thing that makes that bearable is working with people who aren't jerks, so we use our interviews to weed out jerks.

My DH is a fed, and from his stories people get referred for interviews based on a computer algorithm searching their applications for various phrases. The interviewers may not trust the algorithm, and they know for a fact that if they bring in someone who doesn't have the requisite expertise it will be virtually impossible to get rid of them afterward. So it doesn't surprise me that they are making sure the interviewee actually does have the intellectual capability / requisite experience that they represented on their application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have applied for and interviewed for positions at the federal, state, and local levels of government and have found their process to be mechanical and generally overly demanding of someone either on the phone or Skype.

The "we have to ask these questions" bit is sooooo government and honestly, outdated.

I applied for a private sector gig and the interview was like an actual conversation. Very refreshing. Interviewer was transparent, candid, and not obsessed with grading somebody on questions written in the 1990s by another type-A government nerd.

+1

OP, your “sober and measured” is my “lifeless and outdated.”

[Anonymous]

Yes, this is accurate in the law firm context. I have been interviewer and interviewee in private firms and agencies.

In my experience the firm interviewers just don't care that much about qualifications. Most associates don't stay long, and few junior interviewers know what actually makes a good attorney anyway, so the the whole exercise is treated as a pointless formality. Interviewers usually get your resume just minutes before you walk in the door, and are selected because they went to your school or something: they have no investment in you. If they're interested in you at all (unlikely) it will be because you're fun to be around. If you find the interview unhelpful or insulting (which is pretty common) they have little reason to care.

The government is the opposite. Most agencies don't have the kind of culture where people work until 2 a.m. together, or get beer after work, so while it's nice to find a work-friend they really don't care about your hobbies and sports affiliations. But government interviewers know they'll be stuck with you forever, so they want to know if you're competent and easy to work with. They have to justify their hiring decisions in writing, so they need real questions and standardization. And, they care more about the interviewee's experience because they want people to feel they were treated fairly and taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

Interviewing for my government attorney position in 2012 was a single interview and then a month wait and a month HR debacle once I knew I was selected. Interviewing for my law firm position in 2016 was five interviews and a two week wait, then one more interview with the other owner, another three week wait, and finally hired. The law firm interview focused much more on my credentials and I was told I was being vetted to see if I would stay long-term.