January 2020 by Kazel C.
Arrived for my second job interview. Simple entry level role, one which could be taught and learned easily. Unfortunately, I think the interviewer missed the part in managerial training where his personal philosophies do not determine whether a candidate is qualified for a role or not. I was asked, "How many banks have you applied to?" In response to my answer he stated, "It doesn't make sense to me that you only applied to *x* number of banks if you're looking for a career in banking." This led me to believe that he was basically saying, "I'm not going to take you seriously, and I'm already disqualifying you." Something like that is subjective, yet was treated objectively because he determined an absolution based on what he believes is adequate. That's called an unconscious bias, and it was a terrible way to start our interview. It was all downhill from there, which I could tell it would be. I didn't realize I was being held to a quota on the number of bank applications I needed to submit because you personally feel like setting that benchmark. It would have been fair for me to know that your personal preference would be that I apply to more than one bank so you can take me seriously. I also didn't see that on the experience preferences, ALL of which I met, by the way. Immediately I could sense that the tone of the interviewer was contradictory. In totality; condescending. His entire attitude emanated a sense of, "You know nothing, I don't want you here, you're wasting my time." I had never wanted to end an interview before this experience, and I've been on quite a few interviews in my time. I find it to be the most unprofessional attitude I have ever encountered on an interview. This interviewer placed a wall of unconscious bias at every corner, doesn't know that some descriptions of words are synonymous with others, and seems to only want others who are a reflection of himself instead of accepting diversity within a person as well as their outlook on things. He even told me at one point that I didn't understand a question he was asking, then he offered his own philosophy of how he believed people and characters do not change as a standard as to why I didn't understand his question. At that point I was already beyond flabbergasted as to why this, "conversation" as he called it, was anywhere near the realm of philosophies on whether people and characters change or not. I was almost at a loss for words. I didn't go to Eastern bank to talk about my outlook on life, I expected a job interview, which spoke about relevancies of the job, the job details, a career path, training, integrating with the team, not "What are your pet peeves?" "Do you believe people change?" and let's not forget my favorite "Personalities are not the same as characters." Okay, great. I'm glad you feel this way. May we talk about the job, the qualifications which are requisite, my experience, and make a fair determination from here? If I wanted a psychology lesson, I'd visit a professor of psychology, NOT a bank manager when it's time for an interview. I'm not even upset that I wasn't selected for the role, which I am more than qualified for. I could easily perform well in this entry level position. What I am upset about is the lack of fairness, and the abundantly present amount of contradiction, rudeness and unconscious bias placed before me. I have NEVER had an interview go like this, I had never been told any of the things I was told on this interview, and I found this to be the most unfair treatment. I sincerely hope this is revised immediately. I have never felt compelled to share my experience on an interview, but this one was one I simply found I could not ignore. Not on moral grounds. I came into these set of interviews expecting to be met with the sense
