I’ve said this before on this forum and NOW it’s out that WF does do fake interviews just to tick off the diversity box. I’ve been experiencing this ALL year!! With the “lack of” questions, the very short & strange interviews, the lack of follow ups, too many signs that still show WF is not only guilty of fake accounts, but can add fake interviews to its mo--nic ways too. Lmao! Buh bye WF. You continue to show you can’t be trusted and candidates better wise up and stop wasting time applying for your fake jobs.
19 replies (most recent on top)
Very superstitious
Writing's on the wall
Very superstitious
Ladder's 'bout to fall
@yao+1gPFFJ3K
You go girl!
@1ykt+1gPFFJ3K - Yes, yes, YES! So TRUE!!!!! "Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters"- Albert Einstein
Propaganda.
I’ve seen a recent req for a role that should pay above 200k posted for two days and on the evening of the first day of posting, it went into Filled status with a fill day for the following Monday. Basically, the hiring manager already identified someone AND have closed the deal before the post. HR clearly knows about this, how is this acceptable?? Hiring under the table? The buddy system here never cease to amaze me. I have worked in other big financial firms before and yes, things like this exist but never to the extent it does here at Wells. The bias, the discrimination and the buddy system is blatant and in your face each and everyday. It’s great for the firm if the buddy system is led by bright and competent people but it’s not here, it’s led by management with giant egos that knows jack, the only thing they know is how to talk out of their a&- and kiss their way up. It’s like the blind leading the blind here. This is one of the biggest reason why this firm is the way it is and we will have a very difficult time lifting the consent orders. I have never seen so many incompetent people working in one place. I guess incompetent people needs to be surrounded by their own people that have the same view points and competency because they can’t have someone outshine them or call them out on their bulls-$/. Birds of a feather flock together, unfortunately this firm is led by subpar and discriminatory management that promotes illegal dealings of all kinds. Behavior like this stems from from high up, it fostered and accepted. This is a very toxic firm. I hope there is some class action lawsuit out there for others to participate because maybe then, this firm can finally purge out all this toxicity that is dragging it down to the bottom.
Yea well I’m fixing to quit because I’ve been a recipient of these fake interviews. I withdrew from all the applications. This bank is just one sh-t show right after another and there’s no point in wasting my time anymore because they sure as he-l have wasted mine.
Seasoned employee here, also a woman.
Pls do not test our intelligence with verbal acrobatics . It is plain and simple discrimination . D,E,I is a show . Check tech control - the percentage of senior leaders who are white is 90% and a lot of very talented people who are minorities have just quit as they were being blocked . My boss just quit.
@bjl+1gPFFJ3K , i think many have tried to articulate this here and in other threads but you nailed it well.
Probably not "fake" but dripping with selection bias. Bias not necessarily for the best choice or the diverse choice...but for my predetermined choice.
O surprise at all. When you begin with the flawed premise that DE&I assumes, you open the door to such abuse. Ho hum.
There are both laws and company policies around selection (interviewing and hiring) practices. Helpful to keep that in mind.
This happens EVERYWHERE, not just banks. And it's not about actively preventing "diverse" candidates from getting roles. As always, it's about hiring the best person for the job.
Do you want no more fake interviews? Then stop mandating that so many people from the McDonald's poster be interviewed. Just be real. Interview the most qualified candidates.
The worst part about the whole dei push is that no one really believes in it, except people that want to get jobs based on their skin color, gender, se-ual preference, etc., while crying about how wrong it would be to hire a White male!
"It's ok to hire based on skin color and gender as long as it's not a White male!"
Listen to yourself say that a few times.
Forced "diversity" only creates more resentment and animosity. It doesn't bring anyone together.
Let's be real here, with Chuck and Billy in the c-suite, this should shock no one. BD is a joke when it comes to DEI. Name-dropping highly respected POC does not a DEI advocate/leader make. There is no depth or substance to BD that remotely supports DEI on an authentic level.
I’ve benefitted from this practice and have been directed to do it by that same manager to hire people on my team. The interviews may be real, but the decisions are already made, which is where the “fake” assessment comes in to play.
Most job postings at WF are standardized, which makes 'tuning' it to fit your friends problematic.
It happens quite frequently, I'm just not sure it should be called "fake" interviews. Because you cannot promote internally, you craft a job posting specifically to fit your internal candidate. You know all along that the internal candidate is your choice. You fill your candidate pool with diverse candidates and you conduct the interviews. Sure, it's possible, that an external candidate will show up that's better than your predetermined choice but it's rare. The interviews are just a formality to get around a d-mb HR rule that prevents internal promotions.
I know for a fact that fake interviews happen, as I have seen it.
I was recruited specifically for my role and for my niche skill set. I provided my resume, and the hiring manager crafted the job requistion around that, so that I was as close to a perfect match as possible.
3 people were interviewed, including myself. There was never any doubt that I was the one who would be hired, and that the other two candidates had absolutely zero chance - their interviews were totally fake.
I felt bad for them - especially if they thought they had a chance at getting the job. It was a total waste of everyone's time just to satisfy some obscure HR rule.
It's quite ironic that that entire group was re-orged out of existance, and now I'm working outside of my "unique skill set" and doing mindless drone work, and spending time on this website.
I'll take your word for it. Most internal people that didn't get a job they applied for believe the system was rigged, as if it's impossible that another candidate just did better in an interview. Easy to make excuses with no proof. I've interviewed for a couple of internal gigs and did not get them. Was it a grand conspiracy? Probably not, and I have no evidence that the interview was fake. Someone was probably just better than me. It's sorta like how if you ask 100 people to rate their own driving skills, everyone is an 8-10. Everyone assumes they are the best possible candidate and if they don't get the job then it MUST be treachery of some kind. Not really. There's 50 candidates, they can't all be the best, in fact only 1 is.
This isn't to say that a fake interview wasn't conducted somewhere at some time, but I haven't ever been asked to do it in all these years so the idea that it's systemic is highly questionable IMO. I mean, when is HR going to start asking me to do this? Do I need a 30 year cube first or what?
It happens and I've witnessed it - can't do anything about it if you want to keep your job
Only now this has made headline news and us candidates are sick of Wells Fargo’s bullsh** so no point in wasting time applying just to do fake interviews.
With thousands and thousands of hiring managers I've never met, I wouldn't dispute that this has happened. At the same time I've been hiring people at WF for over a decade and I've never seen any kind of guidance even hinting that I should do a fake interview. You get a pool of candidates, you interview them, you rate them, and then the recruiter asks if the best one is who you'd like to make an offer to. That's it, I've never once been asked to add another candidate to be interviewed. I have asked to add some, when none of the people I have interviewed has been qualified or done well in the interview, but no recruiter has ever asked me to add any interviews for any reason. If this is a systemic thing, it would appear that all the recruiters I have worked with over the years 'missed the memo'.
In fact the only racism I've ever seen from WF has been of the 'you should hire someone that isn't a white male' variety, and even that is more like "guidance" than something that is forced. Racist, yes, but racism that is approved by a majority of the public these days so some think that makes it "ok". In any event, I've never conducted a fake interview. I wouldn't waste the time / energy. I'm guessing that most hiring managers wouldn't.