3 ms·
I see a few possibilities: 1) Recruiter was misinformed and/or policies changed while you were interviewing. A lot of companies, including some of the big name
by PragmaticPulp 5y ago
I see a few possibilities:
1) Recruiter was misinformed and/or policies changed while you were interviewing. A lot of companies, including some of the big names, have been changing their remote policies in 2022. They're also playing off each other and the hiring market, so the situation is evolving quickly. Given what I've seen lately, it's possible that they were hiring remotely when your process started but they ended that policy before you crossed the finish line. (EDIT: Op mentioned scheduling interviews around the holidays in a different comment. With such a long interview cycle, I'd expect changing policies is the most likely explanation)
2) Recruiter was lying. I actually don't think this is likely because the recruiter would just be wasting their time. Recruiters don't actually gain anything and lose a lot of opportunity cost by running dead-end candidates through the pipeline for jobs they know won't be accepted.
3) You might have been switched to a different opening or department during the interview process. If the initial hiring manager declined you, they may have found someone else who wanted to pick up the thread. They should have notified you about the difference, of course.
4) Finally, it's possible they decided you weren't a good fit for remote work. Hybrid remote/in-office companies are becoming more picky about who they're allowing to work remote because not everybody can handle it. Usually the strongest candidates are afforded remote opportunities, but borderline maybes will be asked to be on-site at the start so they can be closely mentored.
- irvingprime 5y agoNumber 4 is an interesting point. Personally, as a hiring manager who works exclusively remote (though my company does have offices) if I thought someone was borderline or even under the line at handling remote work, I would not make them an offer at all. Well, I might if we were talking about an internship and there was someone on site I trusted to keep an eye on them. Otherwise, one of the most important things I look for in any direct report is the ability to do their work without the need for a lot of hand-holding. IOW, if I don't trust them to work remote, then I just don't trust them.
- PragmaticPulp 5y ago> IOW, if I don't trust them to work remote, then I just don't trust them. It really depends. There are a lot of good people out there who don't do well with remote work. A lot. If your company is mostly remote, it makes sense to pass on people who aren't great at remote work. But if you have in-office teams where they'd be a good fit, it can still be worth bringing them in if (and only if) they're interested in an in-office position. It's really hard to tell if someone can handle remote work during an interview, though. People who have successfully worked remote and have good references are easy. People who have only worked in offices and want to go remote are much harder to evaluate in an interview context.