5 ms·

Companies don't just interview people for shits and giggles. It costs a lot of money and people-hours to interview someone. The notion that "they didn't even re

Companies don't just interview people for shits and giggles. It costs a lot of money and people-hours to interview someone. The notion that "they didn't even read the resume and had no intention of ever hiring this person" is silly - no company is going to waste the time and money to go through 3 interviews with a person unless they were at least willing to hear them out. They don't want to waste their own time any more than you want to waste yours. The most likely thing that happened is that the company was willing to hire this person even without the requisite experience if the interviews had gone well, but then someone else also applied and they were a better fit. That's a shitty result for the OP, but I'm not sure the alternative is any better. Should the company just not have given OP a shot at all, reducing their chance to get that job to 0%? That's not beneficial for OP, either.

vsareto 6y ago
Why did the author experience this then? This should have been 1 phone call max to establish the author didn't have this experience. But instead, they sent him through multiple rounds and made them give a lengthy presentation. >They were looking for someone with a few years of experience working with a specific technology I had never used. But… they knew that from my resume. Can you explain why they might have gone with the above excuse rather than "we found someone better" or "we won't be moving forward"?
- tidepod12 6y ago
  They were likely willing to hire the author anyway, even without the experience. But they ended up finding someone that was better than the author. >Can you explain why they might have gone with the above excuse rather than "we found someone better" or "we won't be moving forward"? They did say "we found someone better". From the article: "They said that I interviewed extremely well, but that they decided to go with another candidate."
- ng12 6y ago
  Unfortunately rejecting candidates and/or providing feedback can be a legal minefield. The most generic excuse is the best one and using objective facts is one of the safest ways to reject someone.
  - dghlsakjg 6y ago
    I see liability cited as a reason all the time, but I never hear about specific cases or settlements, or even a justification from an actual legal team (HR doesn't count, they are trained to never allow anything as far as I can tell). It comes across from the inside and the outside as pure laziness.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    It's a legal minefield in the sense that there is legal trouble if a hiring manager says "I hired the other candidate because they were white", but there is no such trouble if they just privately think it.
  - collyw 6y ago
    Would there be anything wrong with "we really liked you but found someone else better"? That's been the situation in my company recently. None of the candidates were bad, all of them would have been capable of doing the job but we had to choose one.
    - tidepod12 6y ago
      That's what they said. From the article: "They said that I interviewed extremely well, but that they decided to go with another candidate."
uberdru 6y ago
Sure they do. HR metrics are all based around pipelines, just like sales people. They get measured on number of candidates interviewed, and the more candidates interviewed for a specific position the better, as it makes them appear to be doing more 'due diligence'.
- tidepod12 6y ago
  I've worked at, hired at, and consulted at many companies. I've never once seen an HR department be incentivized to interview people just for the sake of interviewing. At my last two companies, recruiters are measured on the number of candidates that end up being extended an offer, and are negatively measured against the number of candidates that are rejected. If a recruiter is pulling in a large number of people that all get rejected, that's not due diligence, it's wasting everyone's time and is a signal that the recruiter is not very good at identifying suitable candidates.
  - thenightcrawler 6y ago
    Even if they make it to the onsite?
    - jayparth 6y ago
      Recruiters are not incentivized to get people to the onsite where I work. Not sure about the original commenter.
  - uberdru 6y ago
    I don't doubt you. I'm sure these metrics depend on industry and company size.
- passivate 6y ago
  >HR metrics are all based around pipelines, just like sales people. They get measured on number of candidates interviewed, and the more candidates interviewed for a specific position the better, as it makes them appear to be doing more 'due diligence'. Wait, is this really a widely prevalent practice? Any stats/data? The primary criteria at my company is retention. Once the HR forwards the resume, the interview only moves forward if the hiring manager is interested in the candidate. The hiring manager wont waste their time with multiple interviews when they know for sure that they're going to reject the candidate. What purpose would that serve?
throwaway2245 6y ago
They thought this candidate was worth asking to prepare an interview task, but not worth hearing the result of that preparation. That's mightily disrespectful and sounds a lot like 'shits and giggles'.
- tidepod12 6y ago
  When they asked them to prepare the presentation, they likely had full intention to consider them for hiring. Then, another candidate filled the role, meaning the company no longer would be able to hire the author. Informing them of this and cancelling the interview is the most respectful thing they could have done. It's certainly better than wasting the author's time by making them give the presentation even though the company then knew there was no longer a position they could offer.
  - throwaway2245 6y ago
    I disagree with your statement that it was respectful. Accepting your scenario, this suggests that they did not really want to hire the candidate and at best thought they might settle - when it came to it, they were not even willing to compare the candidate at the next stage, despite already asking them to do this work. They strung the candidate along.
    - tidepod12 6y ago
      You say "strung along", I say "they were willing to give OP a chance at the job even though OP was not fully qualified for it, and when it was decided that the role was no longer available to OP, they told OP that rather than having OP waste their time giving a pointless presentation that wouldn't have changed anything".
      - throwaway2245 6y ago
        I say "They asked OP to do a bunch of wasted work on the off-chance that their prize candidate was not available - even though they were not (under no circumstances) interested in considering the OP against the prize candidate" There's a simple and known solution to not have to do this - which is to conduct fleets of interviews at the same time, so that you can fairly and accurately compare the candidates.
citizenpaul 6y ago
Its the companies place to take the risk. The power imbalance is greatly in favor of the employer. At worst they hire someone not quite perfect but also have a pool of other candidates they looked at to move onto if it really is that bad of a choice.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
KoenDG 6y ago
>It costs a lot of money and people-hours to interview someone. True. Doesn't mean they're managing it properly. >no company is going to waste the time and money to go through 3 interviews with a person Again, assuming the company is carefully keeping track of this. Sounds like an "ideal world" fantasy to me. Yes, the situation you describe is how things would ideally be. But they're clearly not. This happens, a lot more than many feel comfortable admitting.

vsareto 6y ago

Why did the author experience this then? This should have been 1 phone call max to establish the author didn't have this experience. But instead, they sent him through multiple rounds and made them give a lengthy presentation. >They were looking for someone with a few years of experience working with a specific technology I had never used. But… they knew that from my resume. Can you explain why they might have gone with the above excuse rather than "we found someone better" or "we won't be moving forward"?

tidepod12 6y ago
They were likely willing to hire the author anyway, even without the experience. But they ended up finding someone that was better than the author. >Can you explain why they might have gone with the above excuse rather than "we found someone better" or "we won't be moving forward"? They did say "we found someone better". From the article: "They said that I interviewed extremely well, but that they decided to go with another candidate."
ng12 6y ago
Unfortunately rejecting candidates and/or providing feedback can be a legal minefield. The most generic excuse is the best one and using objective facts is one of the safest ways to reject someone.
- dghlsakjg 6y ago
  I see liability cited as a reason all the time, but I never hear about specific cases or settlements, or even a justification from an actual legal team (HR doesn't count, they are trained to never allow anything as far as I can tell). It comes across from the inside and the outside as pure laziness.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  It's a legal minefield in the sense that there is legal trouble if a hiring manager says "I hired the other candidate because they were white", but there is no such trouble if they just privately think it.
- collyw 6y ago
  Would there be anything wrong with "we really liked you but found someone else better"? That's been the situation in my company recently. None of the candidates were bad, all of them would have been capable of doing the job but we had to choose one.
  - tidepod12 6y ago
    That's what they said. From the article: "They said that I interviewed extremely well, but that they decided to go with another candidate."

uberdru 6y ago

Sure they do. HR metrics are all based around pipelines, just like sales people. They get measured on number of candidates interviewed, and the more candidates interviewed for a specific position the better, as it makes them appear to be doing more 'due diligence'.

tidepod12 6y ago
I've worked at, hired at, and consulted at many companies. I've never once seen an HR department be incentivized to interview people just for the sake of interviewing. At my last two companies, recruiters are measured on the number of candidates that end up being extended an offer, and are negatively measured against the number of candidates that are rejected. If a recruiter is pulling in a large number of people that all get rejected, that's not due diligence, it's wasting everyone's time and is a signal that the recruiter is not very good at identifying suitable candidates.
- thenightcrawler 6y ago
  Even if they make it to the onsite?
  - jayparth 6y ago
    Recruiters are not incentivized to get people to the onsite where I work. Not sure about the original commenter.
- uberdru 6y ago
  I don't doubt you. I'm sure these metrics depend on industry and company size.
passivate 6y ago
>HR metrics are all based around pipelines, just like sales people. They get measured on number of candidates interviewed, and the more candidates interviewed for a specific position the better, as it makes them appear to be doing more 'due diligence'. Wait, is this really a widely prevalent practice? Any stats/data? The primary criteria at my company is retention. Once the HR forwards the resume, the interview only moves forward if the hiring manager is interested in the candidate. The hiring manager wont waste their time with multiple interviews when they know for sure that they're going to reject the candidate. What purpose would that serve?

throwaway2245 6y ago

They thought this candidate was worth asking to prepare an interview task, but not worth hearing the result of that preparation. That's mightily disrespectful and sounds a lot like 'shits and giggles'.

tidepod12 6y ago
When they asked them to prepare the presentation, they likely had full intention to consider them for hiring. Then, another candidate filled the role, meaning the company no longer would be able to hire the author. Informing them of this and cancelling the interview is the most respectful thing they could have done. It's certainly better than wasting the author's time by making them give the presentation even though the company then knew there was no longer a position they could offer.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  I disagree with your statement that it was respectful. Accepting your scenario, this suggests that they did not really want to hire the candidate and at best thought they might settle - when it came to it, they were not even willing to compare the candidate at the next stage, despite already asking them to do this work. They strung the candidate along.
  - tidepod12 6y ago
    You say "strung along", I say "they were willing to give OP a chance at the job even though OP was not fully qualified for it, and when it was decided that the role was no longer available to OP, they told OP that rather than having OP waste their time giving a pointless presentation that wouldn't have changed anything".
    - throwaway2245 6y ago
      I say "They asked OP to do a bunch of wasted work on the off-chance that their prize candidate was not available - even though they were not (under no circumstances) interested in considering the OP against the prize candidate" There's a simple and known solution to not have to do this - which is to conduct fleets of interviews at the same time, so that you can fairly and accurately compare the candidates.

citizenpaul 6y ago

Its the companies place to take the risk. The power imbalance is greatly in favor of the employer. At worst they hire someone not quite perfect but also have a pool of other candidates they looked at to move onto if it really is that bad of a choice.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

KoenDG 6y ago

>It costs a lot of money and people-hours to interview someone. True. Doesn't mean they're managing it properly. >no company is going to waste the time and money to go through 3 interviews with a person Again, assuming the company is carefully keeping track of this. Sounds like an "ideal world" fantasy to me. Yes, the situation you describe is how things would ideally be. But they're clearly not. This happens, a lot more than many feel comfortable admitting.