GOT A JOB INTERVIEW AT TESCO NEED help FORUM!

For this type of work, a suit really isn't necessary. I certainly wouldn't give someone a -10 start for not being in a suit.

I'd give them a -10 if they hadn't made any effort, but clean and smart is more than enough.
 
bruce said:
For this type of work, a suit really isn't necessary. I certainly wouldn't give someone a -10 start for not being in a suit.

I'd give them a -10 if they hadn't made any effort, but clean and smart is more than enough.
Click to expand...

Indeed, But you're not every interviewer. Thats the point.

Out of 100 interviewers, Even if only 2 of them prefer a suited interviewee, Surely its better to wear a suit to all 100 interviews. Considering you dont know what they want.

What if 2 people had identical prospects, personality and were infact identical in every single way. Could the decision not then come down to the mundane?
 
Wear a suit.

As for why you wanna work here:

"I applied for this position as I was looking for an excellent part time job for after my school hours to have a chance to work for a fantastic employer such as yourselves and to build my CV with some work experience in the customer service sector."

Simples.
 
wannabedamned said:
What if 2 people had identical prospects, personality and were infact identical in every single way. Could the decision not then come down to the mundane?
Click to expand...

No, it's never happened in 10 years of interviewing, and never will.

I've never had to choose between 2 identical candidates. There's always something that will tip the balance one way or the other.

A smart candidate, and a suited candidate - there is no difference - it's a draw - I cannot give a job to someone on that basis -the interviewer is not trying hard enough if they have this as their deciding criteria.
 
I'm 28 and I would NOT wear a suite for an interview at Tescos. I would wear chinos, shirt and a tie.

Although you can never go wrong wearing a suit ;)

Good luck with it.
 
King Damager said:
There are people don't wear suits to interviews? o.O

kd
Click to expand...

It depends on the environment you are going to be working in and the sort of person who is going to be interviewing you. If you turned up in a suit to have a chat with a brickie about a job, they might think you were a bit strange and that might not aid your chances.

That's a fairly 'obvious / extreme' example, but what about bar work? Turning up like you are going to be crunching numbers in an investment bank when the person interviewing you is going to be wearing a brewery branded work t-shirt again could provoke a negative reaction, making you look too 'uptight' / like someone who will assert himself / like someone they won't be able to control. For a low skill job employers are often just looking for someone who will do the shifts required with minimum fuss.

Before I worked in a bar recently, for the assesment centre (!!!) some people turned up in trainers, others in skinny ties, casual shirts, shirts with rolled up sleves, some smart casual. I wore smart shoes (well polished), black trousers and a well ironed formal shirt with cufflinks (no tie). The interviewer commented that I looked very smart and I feel I dressed appropriately. I'd say that those dressed smart casual (cardigans, brown shoes) were also appropriately dressed).

Note, any old shirt will not make you look smart. If you are just going to wear a shirt rather than a suit jacket, you still want to be looking formal i.e. not wearing your Jack Wills / preppy vertical striped club shirt. Cufflinks can really help boost the formal look.

Also wearing glasses gives you 10+ intelligent points. I make sure I capitalise on this :p
 
voorhees1979 said:
Yeah but Tesco's does not exist, it is Tesco. No "s" on the end of Tesco :p
Click to expand...

Sorry can't tell if you're being serious or not...


It's basic grammar - I was using a posessive i.e. an apostrophe "s" to point out that the values BELONG to Tesco.

I know there is no such thing as Tescos.

That is why I said "Tesco's values" - i.e. the values that belong to Tesco. Which, in retrospect, would have been wiser to do to avoid clueless grammatical ignoramuses like you. ;)
 
Freefaller said:
Sorry can't tell if you're being serious or not...


It's basic grammar - I was using a posessive i.e. an apostrophe "s" to point out that the values BELONG to Tesco.

I know there is no such thing as Tesco.

That is why I said "Tesco's values" - i.e. the values that belong to Tesco. Which, in retrospect, would have been wiser to do to avoid clueless grammatical ignoramuses like you. ;)
Click to expand...

lol no matter what context you use, Tesco is just plain old Tesco, not Tesco's so it is not Tesco's values it is Tesco values.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tesco-has-no-s-on-the-end-yet-everyone-calls-it-Tescos/316665144789

Again no matter what context you use it in it is always 100% just plain old Tesco.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom