Posted by Steve E on November 10, 2005
In Reply to: Re: On the surface posted by James Briggs on November 10, 2005
: : Hi all!
: : I had a job interview which did not go as well as I had hopped. Basically, my interviewer was not so sure that I was the right person for the job because he doubted I was interested in a long term commitment to his company. After the interview, I sent an e-mail to my interviewer trying to clarify few things hoping to show him that I am indeed genuinely interested. This was his reply:
: : "Somehow your write-up does not come as a surprise. It is clear that your interest in X is on the surface. I will review and get back to you."
: : I do not understand what he means by "on the surface." Does he mean that he thinks my interest is shallow? Or does he think that my interest in his company is obvious?
: : I was educated in US so by background is in American English. My interviewer is from the Netherlands so his background seems to be in British English. Maybe this is why I have trouble understanding this...
: : Your help would be greatly appreciated.
: : Best regards,
: : Zekerijah
: I vote for 'shallow', 'superficial' - something along those lines.
I get the feeling that the interviewer wanted someone who could and would make a long term commitment to be a part of the company and the team rather than someone who simply wanted a job and an income. I believe the interviewer may have felt that you simply wanted the job and were not interested in (or did not display enough interest in) a long term commitment to the company and the team. Thus, he indicated that your "...interest was on the surface..."--that you simply wanted to get a job. Just my thoughts.