Navigating Negative Feedback About a Previous Employer: Insights and Strategies

Dear Seniors and Readers
One of the most common question asked to employed candidates !!
“Why you want to leave your current company ??”
Is negative feedback about previous employer accepted by interviewers ?
Under what situations or justification can candidate speak negative truth about previous employer ?
Please present your views and opinions !!

Hi,

Whenever we go to any interview, this question is asked, and a common answer is that we are leaving our current company for professional growth. Our negative replies never work. I have my own opinion that when anybody is leaving a company, there is a reason - like politics, money, post matters, or people. Negative feedback is never accepted by interviewers.

Well, personally, I don't think that an employee should speak anything wrong or negative about a previous employer. This will certainly impact the interview or the image of an employee. It can also raise more questions about the candidate and their professionalism.

I don't think that negative feedback about a previous employer can be accepted by any interviewer. That's what I understand, but I don't know about recruiters or interviewers and what they think.

Dear Anil & Readers,

"This will certainly impact the interview or the image of an employee. Additionally, this can raise more questions about the candidate and their professionalism."

If a candidate has valid reasons and logic to explain negative aspects of their previous employment, how does that cast doubt on their professionalism?

As HRs/Interviewers, should we blindly believe parroted, goody-goody, scripted, All-is-well types of answers from candidates? Aren't we missing a point here? Does accepting these overly positive responses ensure a thorough and authentic selection or validation of the candidate we are interviewing?

Well, Mr. Hussain, you are right, but the thing is that none of any recruiter or interviewer wants this negative feedback from any employee about a previous employer because it threatens their self-esteem and sense of acceptance. This is certainly a big question... even I would like to see more responses by the recruiters...

Hi Avinash,

Unless every employee of a particular company is on the streets objecting to the company's atrocities, there is actually nothing negative about that company.

Personally, I left a lucrative job at a software company because I thought their software development and project management processes were grossly inefficient, i.e., I got bored. People could come in after 10 am and work till 10 pm. I hated it, but others loved the work environment.

It took me some time to realize that my values or the things that I value in a job, i.e., creativity, efficiency, growth, and punctuality, were not matching with the company's "practiced values."

With a sprinkle of humor, it's like a nice guy breaking up with a nice girl. Sometimes things are just not compatible. Values don't match, and the clash of beliefs on how things should work and how one should be treated leads to conflicts.

As an interviewer, if I hire a candidate who speaks something negative about their previous company, I can guarantee that they will speak something negative about my company the day they quit the job.

Hope this helps.

Avinash Tavares

Trainer & Life Coach

(Search On Cite | Search On Google)

Dear Mr. Hussain,

It is not about your ex-company/employer; it is all about the people with whom you have worked. They can be your immediate superior, managers, or top management as well.

Regarding your query, it is up to the interviewer how they perceive the interviewee's response/comment. All five fingers are not the same. All organizations' culture is also not the same.

In my view, it is the responsibility of the interviewer to consider "two sides of a coin" by interpreting how "genuine" the interviewee's statement is while mapping his/her skills/competencies, etc. There are tons of instances where professional employees have been hunting for better opportunities due to various reasons, as every employee wants to excel(progress) in their professional life, provided they receive genuine support from either immediate superior or respective department managers and top management.

Did HR professionals ever try to understand/evaluate how painful or successful an employee's journey with his/her ex-employer is?

In my thread ("Do You Consider Yourself as a Leader or Follower"), you had narrated about "lack of opportunity to deliver such a role." How are you going to relate yourself to professionalism or such experience when you have a strong desire to prove your ability/skills/talent/competencies where you haven't been awarded an opportunity to perform?

- HR should accept genuine facts, a bitter truth experienced by an employee.

- HR professionals need to be more practical in life rather than expecting optimistic (positive feedback about the ex-employer) reply from the interviewee.

- I would suggest that you forget about the previous employer and focus on the interviewee so that HR can succeed in hiring a skilled applicant with a positive mental attitude.

Irrespective of the open work culture in practice, organizations will never meet employee expectations, but they always want employees to meet their standards/expectations; hence, employees are bound to speak negatively.

With profound regards

It is a hypothetical question posed by every employer at the time of an interview, though all are aware of the obvious reason, i.e., better prospects.

Almost every single book, magazine, and newspaper article and internet page about job interviews quite clearly states - NEVER EVER badmouth your previous employers for whatever reasons.

I am surprised that anyone would even ask if this was acceptable. Your common sense would tell you it is not.

I agree that many of us have endured jobs, organizations, other staff members, and managers we loathed with a passion. Much as we want to tell the world about our frustrations, it is best not to and to move on.

So if you are asked the question, the simple answer is that you had reached a point where the job was no longer challenging you and building your skills, etc. This tells the prospective employer that you are ambitious, keen to learn, and willing to take on new challenges.

I doubt any employer who asks this stupid question expects to be told the truth. If you are working in a niche industry, it is likely that managers in other companies already know that the management in your previous company is not up to snuff anyway.

My personal view is that managers sometimes ask this question in an attempt to trap you into saying something you shouldn't, and that gives them a reason to eliminate you.

As for me, if I was interviewing and you told me bad things about your previous employer, then I would automatically dismiss your application as I would be concerned about what you would say about me and my company when you decided to move on. If you are a person who cannot keep confidences, then you are unworthy of employment.

Well I totally agree with Mr. John and Mr KHADIR..
None of single interviewer can be impressed by an applicant who slams his/her former employer because their concern possibly, about what a candidate might say about them in the future and the interviewer won't like to hear this but actually the purpose of this question is that Interviewer want to know that a candidate really want the position being offered.
Well If I have to answer this question "why do you want to leave that job," I would like say : "I'm actually doing quite well at that job, but I feel that I can't pass up this opportunity because it would allow me to broaden my experience into [whatever it is]". Also I have learned a lot with my past employer but felt like I needed new challenges. My favorite part of the job was …….. etc. but will never say anything negative during any interview in response of this question, always positive positive positive..

Hi Seniors,

Excellent discussions! I'm getting the responses I was looking for. Both sides of the argument are presented.

1) HRs/Interviewers may/should hear out the candidates and judge the practicality and truthfulness of the candidate's feedback on previous employment.
2) Standard practice says one should never speak negatively about previous employment in interviews.

My query revolves around genuine candidates, not those who whine, complain, or change jobs for trivial reasons.

I feel that this question is an important part of the interview process. It helps HRs/Interviewers assess the candidate's intentions regarding changing jobs. If a candidate expresses an unpleasant experience with a previous employer, as HR professionals, we should listen to them with a neutral approach to determine the candidate's mental strength and adaptability.

In reality, we often hide behind the curtain of standard diplomacy.

I thank Madhuri, Anil, Avinash, Khadir, Pon, and Aussiejohn for their opinions on this discussion.

Hi Seniors,

If I can generalize certain negative feedback that may exist but we don't hear them due to standard diplomacy in the interviews:

- Office Politics / Dictatorship
- Racism / Discrimination
- Unethical Business Practices
- Restrictive Practices
- Lack of Professional Freedom
- Polluted Office Culture

More reasons can be presented for discussion.

My next query is: Can we shun any response that deems to be negative about a previous employer regardless of its merit?

(or)

To what extent, under what circumstances, or within what limit of reason can these feedbacks be heard when considering genuine candidates from someone who may appear to be a whiner, cribbing, or weak candidate?

As Pon suggested, it's a standard question asked in the interview, where HRs know the real reason is the "Money" to switch jobs!! This is true in the majority of cases, but there are certain cases that may be different. Some high-paid professionals at mid-career or management levels may not switch due to "better prospects" but for more diverse reasons!

---
I have corrected the spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors in your text while maintaining the original meaning and tone. I have also adjusted the paragraph formatting for better readability. Let me know if you need further assistance.

Hi Hussain,

I am not sure I understand where you are coming from here. In regard to "negative feedback" of any sort, my advice is to stay away from it. Don't ask such questions and don't invite that sort of comment from candidates. Focus on the job at hand.

When you are interviewing a candidate for a post, you are only concerned with 4 things:
1. Can he/she do the job?
2. Does he/she have the skills, experience, and relevant qualifications?
3. Will the candidate fit into the culture of the company?
4. Veracity of the candidate's referees.

NOTHING ELSE IS RELEVANT. If I am interviewing you for a job, I don't care why you left your last job. It is not relevant to me. I want to know that you will be able to do the job I am interviewing you for, and that you can become a valuable, trustworthy, and worthwhile employee.

Don't make the process of employing staff any harder than it needs to be. Remember the KISS principles.

Dear All,

Politics may also be a common reason for switching jobs. So, can this reason be stated in the interview, or will that have a negative impact on the minds of the recruiter? There are also cases when an employee may change jobs because he/she was at the receiving end of the politics which hampers his/her reputation in the present company. So, what should the employee do in such cases where he/she has fallen prey to politics with no mistake of his/her own?

Thank you.

Arpita,

It does not matter what the reason is for switching jobs. It is best to keep quiet and say nothing. Focus on the positive messages you want to get across to the interviewer, nothing else.

Dear Mr. John,

I really appreciate your statement, "If I am interviewing you for a job, I don't care why you left your last job. It is not relevant to me." If this is the scenario, then I would be glad if HR or any RECRUITER can stop asking STUPID QUESTIONS which are a sheer WASTE OF TIME. I am sure they themselves don't have appropriate answers to such questions. Even I have recruited many professionals but never was interested in knowing about their ex-employer because I was only interested in the applicant and his skills, talents, competencies, abilities, and capabilities that would help us both to conclude productively while keeping our EGO at bay.

With profound regards,

Hussain,

I am not sure I understand where you are coming from here. In regard to "negative feedback" of any sort, my advice is to stay right away from it. Don't ask such questions and don't invite that sort of comment from candidates. Focus on the job at hand. When you are interviewing a candidate for a post, you are only concerned with 4 things:

1. Can he/she do the job?
2. Does he/she have the skills, experience, and relevant qualifications?
3. Will the candidate fit into the culture of the company?
4. Veracity of the candidate's referees.

NOTHING ELSE IS RELEVANT. If I am interviewing you for a job, I don't care why you left your last job. It is not relevant to me. I want to know that you will be able to do the job I am interviewing you for, and that you can become a valuable, trustworthy, and worthwhile employee. Don't make the process of employing staff any harder than it needs to be. Remember the KISS principles.

Hi John,

I agree with your point of view. I understand the nature of my query is somewhat negative and pessimistic. I hope I'm not spoiling HR readers' mood with these questions!

I also understand that as HRs/Recruiters, we should pay attention to the needs for skills and qualifications of the candidates rather than delve deeper into this side of arguments.

From my limited experience, I have realized that accepting diplomatic answers from candidates doesn't always help recruit the best talent from an HR perspective.

I did not intend to glorify this tricky question in the interview as a deciding factor for selection.

The reason I brought up this query is due to the frank negative feedback I hear from candidates in this region (Middle East). Arabs are vocal about their experiences with previous employers and are candid about reasons for job changes.

Based on my Indian HR learning, I applied my rules of diplomacy to the selection criteria. However, I would end up losing many candidates with required skills and qualifications, and I also need to meet my targets.

Your suggestion is true and logical. However, as an HR professional, I find myself in a situation where, knowing both sides of the argument, I need to check the select box.

Dear Mr. Hussain,

You have the right summary. Regarding your next query, I would suggest if you can succeed in helping an interviewee to "forget his past" (maybe it is a bitter experience) and to focus on his positive aspects of life associating with the present and future, just take it for granted, you have done a great job. Of course, we should understand/interpret the interviewee's genuine emotional feelings. Irrespective of the interviewee's status (highly skilled/talented/qualified), it is of no worth in having discussions about an ex-employer because the past is always the past. Let's be straightforward and focus on business objectives while recruiting candidates and nothing else.

With profound regards,

Hi Seniors,

If I can generalize certain negative feedback which may exist but we don't hear them due to standard diplomacy in the interviews:
- Office Politics / Dictatorship
- Racism / Discrimination
- Unethical Business Practices
- Restrictive Practices
- Lack of Professional Freedom
- Polluted Office Culture

More reasons can be presented on board for discussion.

My next query is: Can we shun any response which deems to be negative about a previous employer irrespective of its merit?
(or)
To what extent/under what circumstances/under what limit of reason can these feedbacks be heard for considering genuine candidates from a whiner/cribbing/weak candidates?

As Pon suggested, it's a standard question asked in the interview, where HRs know the real reason is the "Money" to switch jobs!! Which in the majority of cases is true, but there are certain cases that may be otherwise. Some high-paid professionals at mid-career or management levels may not switch due to "better prospects" but more diverse reasons!!

Hi Hussain,

According to my understanding, it's not useful to speak negatively about your previous organization because you have already left the source of your dissatisfaction. But yes, the truth is always welcomed by employers if it is related to something positive about you, making things easier and less implicit in your new environment. This gives a good indication of your attitude and behavior.

Regards,
Shalini

It's not a matter of negative or positive; it's a matter of genuineness. Every person has their reasons. HR should always be empathetic and people-centered. It's not a matter of one person speaking only positively about their previous employment or organization; being positive depends on having solid reasons, and if you are personally convinced, you can accept it. Please come out of that traditional approach of HR.

Namaste/Gurubhyonamaha

Much regards,
Nagarjuna Kandimalla

Dear Sir,

When asking these types of questions, one may not know what response to provide - the truth, a polished false answer, or a negative answer abruptly. If the interviewee gives a positive answer by hiding the truth to secure the interview, their response is not genuine. Conversely, if the interviewee responds negatively based on their true feelings, the interviewer may feel embarrassed, yet the answer is correct.

Therefore, interviewers should refrain from asking such embarrassing questions and instead pose inquiries that assess the interviewee's talent or caliber.

Thank you,
Chandrasekaran
Madurai

Hi Hussain,

I would suggest that the interviewer needs to distinguish between two types of negative feedback and what the feedback says about the candidate. For example, if the candidate says "I left because my boss was a jerk," that falls into the category of "whining" in my view and reflects that the candidate may have poor work ethic or interpersonal skills. On the other hand, if the candidate says "I left because I was troubled by what I felt was unethical behavior condoned by the employer," that reflects that the candidate has standards, integrity, and the guts to stand by them.

Hi All,

I believe that negative remarks always attract negative results. The truth is bitter, and not everyone thinks laterally. Therefore, it is better to move forward with a positive attitude. Sharing your positive desires and dreams when discussing your interest in working for a new company creates a positive ambiance during the interview, which is healthy. Speaking negatively about the past and dwelling on it will not yield anything fruitful. It is important to close the old chapter after learning from it and approach the new one with a fresh attitude.

Regards,
Sheeba Harish
Bangalore :)

There is a basic difference in badmouthing your previous employer and putting across your personal insight about the previous employer with strong conviction. Now, the latter comes with the attitude to speak up with honesty, a strong character to appreciate the good but at the same time accept the shortcomings.

As a recruiter, I am sure we can know the difference between the two.

Dear [Employer's Name],

Negative remarks about a previous employer are never accepted by the prospective employer. They view a candidate's negative approach as a red flag. If an individual did not perform well in their previous role and is deemed unfit for the current organization, the prospective employer may not directly inform them of this decision. Instead, they may mention that they will provide feedback or update on the interview outcome at a later time, leaving the final result uncertain.

Regards,

Inder Jit Singh Ubhi

I want to agree to some extent that it does not go down well to talk negatively about your past employers. That said, I would appreciate the frankness coming from an interviewee when he tells me about the negative experiences in his last employment. What I would be looking out for is his body language and objectiveness in his delivery of his comments. I will see the openness as an opportunity to identify negative practices in other companies that might need addressing in my own company, if they do exist. One should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Hello,

If I were interviewing a candidate who talks negatively about his/her previous employer, I would definitely believe that negative feedback would be given by him/her in his next interview after he/she is employed by me. After all, I should listen to the complaints about the former employer if it happens; it might make sense.

This thread is getting very interesting.

My friends, the truth is that HR does not have to be empathetic, people concerned, considerate, understanding, or sensitive. An interviewer should expect them to be the exact opposite. An interview is not a therapy session, so there is no use expecting the interviewer to want to hear or understand your side of the story.

The interviewer's job is to select a candidate based on the criteria given to him/her by the HR or Management. He/She should be friendly but investigative. Nothing can be taken for granted, and no answer can be accepted at face value.

Like many people who responded to this post, I never have, nor would ever hire someone who complained about their previous company, family, friends, hometown, country, and weather. You won't believe how many people complain about the weather in an interview. Such candidates are let out the door with the response, "If you have a problem with the weather, you shouldn't be planning on working in this city."

Giving answers to an interviewer is like feeding an aardvark. You have to know what it is and what it eats before you cook for it. It won't eat anything you offer just because you think it is right. If it doesn't like what you feed it, it will hurt you.

An interview is all about convincing the interviewer that you are the best candidate for the job, and you must sincerely do everything you can to achieve that objective, including telling the interviewer what he wants to hear.

Avinash Tavares

Aardvark

Correct Spelling and Grammar: Identify and fix any spelling or grammatical mistakes in the text.

Handle Line Breaks: Ensure there is a single line break between paragraphs.

If the user starts with “Hi,” followed by a line feed, remove that line feed to ensure the first line does not appear blank.

Preserve the Meaning: While correcting the grammar and spelling, make sure the original meaning and tone of the message remain unchanged.

Hi,

It's very general that if you are speaking negatively about a previous employer, then whenever in the future you will leave the current job, you will speak the same. Always be positive. Give a very positive reason.

Hi Friends!!

Some HRs were downright strict with shunning any candidate who gave a justified negative response to this question when asked, even if they met the primary requirements of the job.

@Joy: I agree with your point of view!

Presenting this question to a candidate is really helpful to gain insight into the candidate's mental strength in dealing with challenges in the workplace. I would prefer if a candidate presented a negative response and how he/she dealt with the situation. This way, it will help me ascertain where to place the candidate in the company or whether to place them at all!

A simple question to those HRs who would reject a candidate for a justified negative response to this question, instead of a fake, positive answer! Will you reject a candidate if he/she meets all the criteria of the job?

We call a candidate for an interview after CV shortlisting. HR interviews are conducted to evaluate mental agility, attitude, and to investigate to ascertain the fitment of the candidate in the required role/team/department/company.

Hi friends!

Actually, as per my experience in HR in India, HR interviews often involve fake answers, smiles, attitudes, and preconceived expected responses from both HRs and candidates. It sometimes feels like HR interviews are merely a formality to progress with the recruitment process. Answers to common questions such as "Why do you want to join this company?" or "Why do you want to leave your current company?" tend to be artificial, rehearsed, and standardized. I used to find it monotonous hearing the same rehearsed responses in consecutive interviews, whether for volume or lateral hiring. Despite this, I could often sense different vibes from the candidates compared to what they were saying.

I understand that this has become the norm of the day, where we all tend to follow the same patterns. However, there should be an element of truth and genuineness in interviews so that we can truly explore different personalities and make informed decisions in terms of hiring and organizational development.

I am unsure who advocates for such standardization of interviews - is it the HR professionals or the candidates?

Dear Mr. Hussain,

However hard we may try to be perfect, it's not going to happen because no one can be 100% perfect. Standardization is a continuous process where fine-tuning is happening every day.

In my opinion:

1) HR (INTERVIEWER) should be very straightforward while promoting humor during the interview process to understand the candidate (interviewee) much better, rather than just being serious (HITLER FACE). This will help to reach a stage of understanding between HR & CANDIDATE.

2) Must look into criteria for recruiting the best candidate from all aspects rather than playing games with the applicants by asking stupid queries.

3) HR should identify the ability in candidates - whether the candidate is giving priority to his roles/responsibilities, willing to accept challenges, and ready to travel the extra mile to achieve targets assigned, etc., rather than just convincing the HR by accepting the role for the sake of a good package. Of course, everyone wants to earn a better salary, but priority shouldn't be given to salary. In fact, the terms from the candidate should be like "I WILL PERFORM MY BEST AND REWARD MY PERFORMANCE, RELEVANTLY." This should come into the picture only after qualifying in all rounds.

The very best practice is to let the IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR hire the RIGHT CANDIDATE as per his requirements. HR can extend his support to complete the recruitment process successfully.

Regarding candidates, I have noticed that, irrespective of their years or decades of experience, qualifications, etc., they are very much eager to grab the opportunity. Hence, they are prepared to manipulate things. Since candidates' response is proportional to the queries posted, it is the ability (GREAT SKILL) of the HR to pose relevant queries to understand the candidate's psychology while limiting responses to precision or proportional to the query posted. It should be a well-planned activity.

Kindly do let me know if I am wrong, as I want to correct myself.

With profound regards,

Hi Friends,

I'm glad to see that HR professionals like you on the forum are so genuine and concerned about matters of interviews, candidates, their attitudes, and aptitudes. One thing is for sure: all we do is to ensure that the right candidates are inducted for the growth of the employer's company. I have a higher vision and foresee that all we do as employees is for the business run by our business heads. The owner who runs the business will always look out for the best people to join so that the company can reach the highest levels in business.

Under such circumstances, feedback and other information from previous employers, although very important from a business intelligence standpoint, should be viewed by an HR professional conducting the interview as intelligence inputs and as a gauge to understand the integrity of the candidate. It is essential for an HR professional to know what they are looking for in a candidate, considering the information (positive/negative feedback) provided by the candidate about previous employers. This is crucial now because the competition in the industry is tough, making talent easy to get but tough to find talent with loyalty, integrity, dedication, and humane understanding. The HR community faces greater challenges like this now.

Thanks and warm regards,

Majumdar Bk

Agreed, every candidate faces interviews for professional growth, and this formal question should not be asked by the interviewer. An interviewer should come with updated recruitment technologies in front of the candidate. Asking such a formal question shows incompetencies of the interviewer.

Sushil Garg

@Bijay: Well said!! I agree!

@Sushil: Please elaborate on updated recruitment technologies that can help recruiters gauge intelligence on subjective issues of the candidate's background and the real reason for job change!

Hi John, Now we have had enough on this topic, and what I feel from this discussion is that you are right to an extent that we should avoid this question. But at the same time, it's our prime responsibility to engage a person who is not only talented but also stable. No owner would like to engage a candidate who is very frequent in changing jobs, as is the trend in some parts of the Indian Industry. So the question should not be avoided if the candidate is a frequent changer. In my opinion, in the first year of a job, the company invests in the new employee. In the second year: the individual justifies his salary. Only in the 3rd year: the individual starts giving something back to the industry. So it's better to scrutinize in the first stage and be sure. If the candidate is stable enough, say for 2-3 years, then we can avoid this question. This is what I feel; I may be wrong also. Amarjeet Singh DGM HR, EX-Lawyer 09416000573

Dear Mr. Amarjeet Singh,

Greetings.

1) Referring to your operational strategy marked in bold, is it applicable to all employees (recruited) irrespective of their position in the hierarchy?

2) Does any organization need more than a year, or let's say 18 months, to justify employees' performance? (Not applicable for entry-level employees)

Considering your experience, I would appreciate it if you could shed some light on this arena. Kindly do consider my request.

With profound regards

I agreed with Amarjeet. This question should not be asked to an experienced professional. Sushil Garg DGM-IT M: 8976046014

Amerjeet,

I agree with what you are saying up to a point. If you have a robust recruitment and selection process in place, then you are more likely to get the right sort of person who will turn out to be an asset to the company and "earn his keep" and enhance the bottom line so to speak.

Whilst there may be legitimate reasons for a person to change jobs frequently, an "unstable job history" ALWAYS rings alarm bells with me. Unless I could find a very good reason to interview this person, I automatically reject the application. One short-term job I could accept as there may have been extenuating circumstances, but not a consistent history of job changes within short time frames. It indicates a lack of loyalty, maybe an unwillingness to dig in for the long haul, or a person who just applies for the wrong type of jobs.

I would never ever tell an interviewer I left my last job because I hated the manager or the company wouldn't give me such and such, etc. Many interviewers would get the idea that you are a difficult person and a troublemaker (even if you are not), and you do not want to let them think that.

I have worked with some of the nastiest, most horrible managers you could ever meet, yet I never tell anyone about them. When I am asked questions about dealing with difficult people, etc, I just talk about being professional, getting on with the job, and making sure that my work is beyond reproach. Yes, some may see it as being evasive, but I see it as being professional.

The other thing that has not been mentioned in our discussion here is the fact that you never know who knows who in this world now. So, you could end up bagging a former manager who turns out to be a friend or acquaintance of the person who is interviewing you. What are your chances of getting that job then??

---

I have corrected the spelling and grammar errors in the text and ensured proper paragraph formatting with single line breaks between paragraphs. The original meaning and tone of the message have been preserved. Let me know if you need any further assistance.

Hi,

Even I do agree with what Mr. Khader has to say. I would like to share that as an interviewer, many times it so happened that candidates do speak out themselves the reason for leaving their organization, and I don't think there is anything negative about it. It's all about our perception and identifying the qualities in a person. If his experience, attitude towards work, and other qualities are good and positive, then I don't think it should matter.

In fact, at times, I have observed that only those people speak out who have actually not been treated well by their ex-employer. There are people whose answers are very diplomatic during the interview, and if in case they get selected, they turn out to be the worst employees in the organization. So if one is being honest, it should be considered not to be bad always.

Thanks & Regards,
Bonhishikha Majumdar

Yeah Really a good post!!!!!....
If you talk negative about the company this shows your negative attitude so the interviewer will have a big question about your selection so all the professionals leave the company because of Better prospectus, Better pay, Better Company (Brand Name), Internal Politics....It's better to indicate some of your personal reason for quitting the company please do not say like personal reasons Define your problem at first to avoid a chace to the intervier to raise an question...
Regards,
Ramkishore
Manager-HR

Some great answers here from all the participants. Yes, no company would ever trust any potential candidate who badmouths his previous employers simply because he would do the same about your company when he leaves you. We all have heard that people don't leave companies, they leave their supervisors and managers because of how they were made to feel.

What is the purpose of the interviewer in asking this question in the first place? Is it to find out how bad the previous company was, or is it to find out the motivation and ambition of the candidate? I believe it is to find out the motivation, ambition, and values of the candidate. As such, if you go out there and badmouth your previous company, it really doesn't reflect positively on your values.

It's great to see so many wonderful perspectives on such a simple question... Let the discussion continue.

Uday Nayak

Hi Readers!!

Please keep in mind that negative feedback is different from badmouthing in my query. Badmouthing or name-calling is always unacceptable and reflects poorly on the candidate's part!!

Dear Sir,

One can't find out the attitude of the interviewer fully during an interview. Some interviewees may not have much experience in attending interviews but may be skilled and ethical. Sometimes, the interviewees, under the fear of the interview, may not answer the questions as expected. In India, the medium of language used in interviews is English. Some interviewees may not have fluency in English and hence could not express their thoughts freely. Therefore, they provide answers in which they can express themselves on the spot. In my opinion, interviews should be conducted in the vernacular language to reveal the real aptitude of the interviewee. Please, we should understand that language should not be a barrier. If required, the fluency of English may be tested separately depending on the nature of the job.

Chandrasekaran, Madurai.

Hi Chandrasekaran,

A good thought! But not applicable to the majority of job vacancies in the Indian economy. I don't have the accurate statistics to back my opinion, but I can generally say that the majority of jobs generated in India cater to overseas (Americas, Europe, other countries) clientele, with English being the common language. Therefore, a candidate must have acceptable levels of English communication.

Your idea is applicable to those jobs where a candidate's mental intellect can be utilized, especially in roles where direct communication with English-speaking clientele or customers is minimal. However, one must have good comprehension skills in the English language.

Mr. Chandra, frankly speaking, English has become a mandatory part of our lives, whether in business or employment. It is advisable that our brothers and sisters make an effort to learn. We are never too old to learn, and it is not impossible to do so!

Compassionate employers, interviewers, and HRs look beyond language barriers to assess the candidate for his/her true potential when English speaking is not a requirement for the job.

I have corrected the spelling, grammar, and formatting of your text while preserving the original meaning and tone. If you need further assistance, feel free to ask.