I read a few of these posts earlier on in the thread. These are my experiences:
I was once passed over for an internal candidate in the rail company I applied to. The candidate had been groomed for the position for months. While my experience is phenomenal in so many key areas, I couldn't compete with this internal candidate's actual experience in the rail industry. My job was to convince two of the most senior members of that company, that I was the best person for the job, and I failed to do that. I remember the moment when their body language changed, and I remember the answer I gave to elicit that response. My mistake, my personality and my poor response.
I was however, invited back to apply for a more junior role, which I applied for, and got to the very last stage. Again, I failed to convince the jury that I was the best person for the job. While I had a great deal of transferable skills, I still wasn't the best person for the job.
Through every stage, I was given a fair chance. I passed most of the stages, where I outstripped many internal candidates, but I didn't make the grade at the last stage. I am not bitter, I just wasn't the best for that particular job, and possibly not the right fit for that company, despite wanting to be...more than anything else in the world.
I applied to three more companies. Their HR processes were all a very similar experience. The way the tests, assessments and interviews were structured, I very much doubt that anyone would risk their careers or reputations to further the ambitions of nepotism.
In my opinion, a great deal of money goes into the recruitment process, to hire the best person for the job. The competition is such, that the hiring anything less than the best, just doesn't make business or career sense. The underlying structure doesn't seem to have much allowance for the level of objectivity, that would risk HR's lifelong career in a well-regarded, highly-competitive industry.
The reason I say this, is because I have worked in an industry where quid pro quo is absolutely rife. By comparison, the rail industry is on the opposite end of the scale. There are other things I have noticed:
The safety critical aspect is absolutely, well and truly foremost in mind. There's no messing about with safety. If you cannot convince your interviewers 100% that you have a safety critical mindset, then you are not worth the risk to them.
Time is another huge factor. If you can't do the job to a very high standard, with a great deal of speed, then you are also not worth the risk to an industry that pays heavy penalties for lateness, and as a result, ticket reimbursements. If you cannot, for example, get the perfect wording to a public sign change in under a minute, then every second you dither, has huge implications for the public, and the company haemorrhaging money as you take the time to learn new skills.
This is my opinion, based on my experiences over the last few months. I take a great deal of inspiration from one of our members, who through sheer tenacity, has recently landed a job in the rail industry, after great effort and determination.
Never give up!
