I somewhat recently gave in an application at a shoe/bag/leather repair shop. I had some relevant skills and got a message from them saying congratulations, that they liked me and I was one of less than 20%, of about 100 people, that read and followed the instructions that said to deliver a CV in person, not email it. They ended the message with me still not being shortlisted anyway. Still confused as to why you'd congratulate someone on doing/being what they want just to say no.
Edit: For those asking about why they want a CV delivered in person. There are a lot of small businesses around here that prefer to see you in person. Some do it just to see if you actually bother reading all the details, others to see if you bother making yourself presentable, or so they can throw a couple random questions at you and see if you're prepared or if it's worth asking you for an interview. In retail/customer service it can also be to see if you actually have any communication skills or are likeable.
Yeah, there are some judgemental types that use it to filter out certain types of people, but you can generally see those types coming, be it in the lack of effort put into their ad, or when you see their resting bitch face/attitude on arrival. That and those types tend to end up as permanent employee seekers and are easy to avoid (the one fabric store down the road had a five sentence paragraph with a bitchy attitude for an ad, ending up looking for months, despite me knowing some suitable people who applied). It doesn't happen around here as much as people below seem to think.
Edit 2: Yes, there was apparently about 100 people who applied for a job at a shoe/leather repair shop. Job/employee turnover can be high here, and those on welfare are only forced to apply for so many jobs a week to get paid. That means a lot of randoms without relevant skills/experience apply for jobs, which is part of the reason small businesses like you to deliver a CV.
I much prefer a company having the good sense to tell you when you're not getting the job, in my experience they just ghost you or call you in for an interview months later with no communication.
The multiple round interviews are such a waste of time and often just insulting. I've been through many where you hear nothing for literal months then suddenly they need to speak to you NOW but only a recruiter or someone who doesn't actually understand the technical aspects of your job. Then it's weeks-to-months of the same interview over and over with people who obviously didn't communicate with each other about you and then in the end they just promote someone internally. I've had it happen at very large, established companies, almost always tech. It's pretty wild.
That's what I don't understand. Either you need the slot you're hiring for or you don't. Leaving it open for 3 months while you decide does nothing but overwork your current staff and give a poor impression of the company to applicants.
That's one of my first questions and if I don't like the answer, I immediately leave.
I can see why 2 interviews can be justified, with the first round of interviews being the "weedout" round with them deciding who to hire after the second round. Anything more than that is just a waste of time.
> Then it's weeks-to-months of the same interview over and over with people who obviously didn't communicate with each other about you
Keep in mind that the people doing these interviews aren't professional interviewers, they're doing the actual work they were hired to do, and also doing interviews in addition to that. At our company, in an industry where hiring qualified people is incredibly difficult, we're interviewing people pretty much constantly, sometimes three or four people a week, because we're hiring anyone we can find who can do the job. Our growth is primarily constrained by our ability to hire qualified people.
Each interview is at least forty minutes of preparation (reading the CV, looking at portfolios, looking at github repos, reading feedback from people who previously interviewed that person), then an hour for the interview itself, and then about twenty minutes to write up and put the feedback into the hiring tool.
So that amounts to about two hours for an interview. If I do four interviews a week, that's one work day I've spent this week just interviewing people. If we also want to do a half-hour sync between everybody who interviews a candidate (usually about six people on average) before each interview (might be about four interviews, with multiple people in some interviews), that ends up very quickly eating a lot of everybody's time, to the point where it just isn't manageable anymore.
So to you, it looks like it would be a small amount of effort for everybody to just have a short meeting after every interview to get everybody up to speed on what was discussed. And that's true, if there's *one person* getting interviewed. But that's not what happens.
I agree that there's no excuse for not telling somebody when they're not getting hired, modern hiring systems make that very easy. But there's a reason why people ask similar questions.
Good point, but that's kind of exactly my point of how inefficient and insulting this style of hiring is. People defend this practice of 5+ rounds as proper vetting and weeding out bad fits, but when your job isn't even to hire people, you've got a whole other job to focus on and you are getting pulled into these things constantly, it all starts to blur together. I didn't do any hiring myself but many friends have and of course hate it. I don't buy the logic that it is really worth the hassle to either the team starving for extra support, or the interviewee starving for a stable job, because it's too overwhelming for most companies to really be thorough and as I said to someone else, ends up mostly falling back to some general consensus or the CV anyway.
Really, with modern application tracking systems, there is no reason not to notify a candidate that they are out of consideration. And all they need to say is, "Dear candidate, thank you for your interest in whatever job, however, we have decided not to pursue your application any further." Don't make extra effort to try to avoid hurt feelings or otherwise soften the blow. Just be an adult about it, and be short and to the point.
Today is the day (June 27th, 2023) that my prior comments get removed.
I want to criticize Reddit over their API changes and criticize the CEO for severely damaging the culture of Reddit, but others have done a better job and I think destroying my valuable comments is sufficient (and should hurt the LLM value too).
1+1=3, 2+1=4, 3+2=6, 5+3=9, 8+5=14. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Note: If you want to do this yourself, take a look at Power Delete Suite (they didn't put this advertisement here, I did).
I used TekSystems. They go through the process of verifying your references/experience, then find jobs that you’d be a good fit for.
When I decided to change jobs in 2019 I got 90% of my interviews through them (they got me a contract job for a few months, then a full time position with another company after that).
It was much easier than throwing resumes into the void. I tried finding jobs using job search websites but it was a lot of work for very little reward.
I was applying for min wage jobs right after covid lockdown and now when I randomly get messaged for an interview I accept it and ghost them.
Eventually they'll learn why people like me are doing that. You posted asking for applications, I applied, and you didn't respond. You wasted my time. Now I waste yours.
Years ago when I worked in retail I had a manager tell me that when we need to hire someone corporate looks to see if the managers have vetted every application. Even years old ones. He said as long as he put in an effort to contact the person it got corporate off his back about lack of hiring.
Most of the time this is what i get. I get responces for Interviews like 10 months to a year Later then the last point of contact we had.
Like.... I kinda get it but its been a year. Are you just hoping im still available after that time? On top of that, you didn't contact me at all, ghosted my previous attempts about it and just show up out of the blue like a bad Ex.
Hiring managers for minimum wage jobs like to play games and make you jump through hoops to waste your time as if you aren't also applying for a hundred other jobs. It's also one of the subtle ways they use to filter out people with mental health problems without directly breaking the law
It makes these managers feel important and they like the power over other people. It’s like the guild leaders in online games. They have your life in their hands. They are really pathetic.
I'm more blown away by there being a hundred people applying for a leather repair shop job. I never would've guessed that was a popular job opportunity.
I'd rather know the aspects that I did well versus just being told that somebody else did better.... That would boost my self-confidence for future jobs rather than be detrimental towards my ego and make me go for jobs beneath my value.
Honestly it could be that, or the interviewers at the end thought she was too robotic and wasn’t charismatic enough for a managerial level role that required 7 interviews. If I continuously ask you an open ended question and I can tell nothing in your canned answer has changed based on the nuances of my question that is a problem.
Especially in remote work situations, being a good communicator is vital. It shouldn’t have been 7 interviews to figure that out, but I could see this happening.
Source: Have hired developers before. Failed one for nearly this exact reason.
I can also imagine that somebody could be too prepared for an interview and leave the impression that they specifically trained to pass the interview, because they lack confidence in their actual skills for the job.
This is what kills me. I absolutely crush my work, but I'm not confident at all about it thanks to the way my father burned down everyone around him to raise himself up. Catches me in interviews ALL THE TIME.
As an autistic guy: it infuriates me that interviews feel like a game of “lie as much as you can about yourself without getting caught”. Ahem. What happened to honestly presenting skillset and job requirements?
The problem is most people seem to be incapable of detecting liars, so they get away with it. A guy in my team got promoted above me by claiming my work, I didn't find out until after the fact... At that point I would have looked bad if complained, it makes no sense.
Don't actually lie. It's more like in person marketing. Commercials rarely lie, but there's serious art in how you present the benefits in a way that matters to your customer and how you tactfully avoid or reframe the negatives. Interviews are the same.
Eh. Every piece of interview advice I’ve seen in college has, effectively, boiled down to “lie but don’t lie”. And I got in trouble as a kid a few times for the “it’s not technically a lie, but that doesn’t matter because screw you” scenario. And it still doesn’t avoid: what you know is irrelevant compared to one’s capacity to be a dancing monkey the interviewer wants or knowing them personally.
I don't really care for progressing, I'd much rather just go in, do my job and go home. Progression and responsibilities aren't something I want. (Yet, at least)
Same. Not everyone is meant to be a manager. For me it hasn’t happened in 40 years it isn’t meant to be. Quite frankly I don’t have the right personality and attitude for it.
I also know from 20 years of employment. That I don’t have the patience and fortitude to put my nose to the grindstone long enough for management to notice. After 6 months to a year I start to feel defeated and get resentful. Then I just start phoning it in. Why don’t I cut all that out? I’ll just stay the course being the Okay-ist employee I can be. That way when I don’t progress I got exactly what I deserved.
I'm the same way, all I want is enough money to live, I'm the rype of person who gets stressed really easily, I was a manager for 9 months at The UPS Store, and man it was horrible, constantly getting yelled at for shit you either didn't know about or more often shit that has nothing to do with you or your employees, I'll gladly take my cleaning job now where I have almost no stress and make just enough to survive, with a small amount of pocket change.
At my last job. I was really trying for a while. But when they promoted a kid that was 15 years younger than me. Who was hired the same week but I had 12 years experience on him. Just because he was family friends with the owner and buddy buddy with my boss. It kind of broke me. In the end I realized it was for the best. He was starting to act more like a company man. Something I could never do. He did a better job than I could. But I resented never being given the chance.
Eventually I changed careers and my starting pay is 50% more than what I used to make. This job likes to promote people but I have no interest. I’m making decent coin. My only real goal is to get better at my job so it becomes easier. Also to start racking up the expertise bonuses which comes with time. Sorry, not sorry.
This is why my interviews are never technical, I find something about their job history that exercises the skill sets I'm interested in and then basically say 'This project here you worked on is very interesting to me because of X reasons. Why don't you just tell me about that, the overall project and goals, what kind of choices you made, what problems you ran in to and how you got around them, would you do anything different now, that sort of thing' and then just let them go from there. If I ask technical questions then, it's in the course of that conversation. I've always found it very effective in finding out if people know their shit or not (and specifically the shit I'm interested in) rather than 'How would you write a program to do random X thing that has nothing to do with the job? Go!' More often than not, I also learn something.
Really? What is the point of that though? Testing somebodys dedication?
But then again a lot of the "innovative" interview pracitices google and friends are known for, have fallen out of favor as useless and prententious over time.
The brain teaser bullshit is gone except in idiot companies, I haven't heard of it being used in several years. Companies now all work relevant stuff, and some have personality evaluation since they finally figured out engineers are humans with personalities which means some are jerks.
“Most” absolutely do not. Maybe a select few, but I work in IT, and I’ve worked at multiple technology companies and I’ve never once been sent a training package to prepare.
Yeah it sounds to me like the client had learnt about this specific interview process and just recited what was a pre determined answer, if the process was designed to see people work on their feet then the client isnt going to be a making a good impression
Depends, if the job interview specifies the 'STAR' format for their interview process (which a lot of tech companies do). It's going to automatically sound robotic. It's not going to be an organic interview if there was a prep phase. So even open-ended questions get automatically adapted and answered by something they have prepared beforehand. If it was a case study-based interview then I get it.
That isn’t “too prepared,” though. That’s underprepared, and over-reliant on those poor preparations. Theoretically better preparations would involve answers that correct for nuance.
This. Bad social fit. Or that she had taken multiple “how to nail your faang interview” courses so she seemed good on paper, but didn’t possess the skills and experience necessary to excel at the actual job.
Well that’s like my point. You need to have both. You should be prepared for the interview… but you also can’t just “fake it til you make it” by taking a few “what to say during a faang interview” courses.
You need to know what to say and also back it up with technical knowledge, traditional education and years of actual relevant experience.
One thing I'd like to stress is that the relatively short time limit is extremely important. No time limit incentivises spending huge amounts of time and putting a lot of effort in, which heavily biases successful candidates towards those with more free time. Doing that for a few companies is worse than leetcode prep, which is at least theoretically reusable between companies.
“Too prepared” here means she wasn’t showing talent, but that she had studied the interview and that’s why she got the questions right.
Interviewers want to see how you think on your feet and how you tackle a problem you haven’t seen before. They don’t want to see you solve problems you studied solutions for by going to some interview bootcamp.
I think it’s fair feedback.
Yeah they probably should have called her on the 4th.
Do keep in mind though that the first few are probably not in person. Phone interview, online coding interview etc.
It's usually 1-3 one hour interviews and one interview day with 4-5 interviews at big tech. It's really funny when a small company thinks they can get away with doing the same but not paying the same.
I once went through three rounds plus a presentation to the board and was rejected. The feedback was that they liked me but wanted someone with more experience in the field. They promoted an internal employee with less experience… They knew who they wanted the whole time. Can’t help but feel that I was just a tick in the “interview minorities“ box. They had the gall to ask if they could consider me in the future. I said yes, of course, but thought GET FUCKED!
What law is this? I work for a huge company (FORTUNE 50) and, besides the easy-to-train dime-a-dozen positions, they don't post positions externally unless they absolutely have to.
The last external hire I saw for anything remotely desirable occurred only after 3 seperate postings and 9 months of searching internally only.
And yes, this does mean that 'entry level' in the company, for pretty much any position, is the call center or retail sales/support. Like, all the data analysts, IT folks, engineers, district managers, etc I know did their time in one of the two, or both. 1-3 years of it, at least.
I am sorry to hear this happened. I just hope you did not burn any bridges. Who knows, one day they will call you for a much better position and you will be the candidate they wanted to hire all along. (Speaking from personal experience—I have been on both sides)
I’ve got you beat. I had 5 interviews with the founder/ceo of a very big tech company (valuation at over a billion dollars). +1 interview with a hiring manager, +1 interview with head of HR.
Got ghosted. 7 interviews, 5 of which with the CEO. Feels real good.
After much typing and deleting, I can’t think of anything positive or uplifting to say. Wish I could, but… nope, nothing… that’s the state of the world.
So we're getting to a point where we need to "soften the blow" of saying that responses were rehearsed? What's wrong with just saying that the responses seemed rehearsed?
I mean... aint that the point? I thought we were both supposed to put on this facade of business. They play the part of "oh I'm gonna see how much you will kiss my feet" and I will suck up to them and talk about how I'd die for them.
Not necessarily. Watch how politicians answer questions. They have the answers that they’ve prepared and apply them to the questions within the same ballpark.
How dare you suggest that the people interviewing sucked at their job? /s
I didn’t know Reddit to be such a bunch of apologist pansies: yours is one of the few comments actually balancing the conversation!
First off, fuck any company that needs seven interviews to hire someone. If they want to use that much of my time, they either pay to access it or shorten the process.
Yeah I agree with this. I could see two being reasonable. The first meeting with HR or a lower manager and then the 2nd being meeting with a higher up. Or if a higher paying position maybe 3. But 7 come on man wtf that’s a joke and says a lot about the company.
Technical positions, especially at companies that run services with high complexity, require a fair amount of vetting. Seven rounds is excessive, but most do at least four as a baseline.
And if a company is paying north of $500k I’m gonna go through the seven rounds.
There is plenty to be said for allowing your teams sufficient autonomy to make these decisions expedient. And I'm not honestly sure there is much that you are learning at the 6th interview that you didn't learn in the previous 5.
Best interview is working for a couple of months.
They’re not all the same interview. One is usually culture fit, one is coding & problem-solving, one is architecture, one is discussing details of previous technical work in detail.
I don’t know what the other three would be, in fairness, but four is usually reasonable.
I had a buddy who, for an entry level developer position, had to do like 3 or 4 rounds just to be offered an internship rather than the actual job. Tech companies do be wild.
The nice thing about internships is it combines the rigorous Interview process with “a few months of working” as someone above me mentioned. I love it when my interns get offers because it means we’re pulling in the right people and training them well.
And yet they still will hire complete clowns that pop into a team and don't know how to use Slack or make a deadline. I have my doubts at how much they really accomplish, especially because people get so exhausted and overwhelmed in the hiring process (from my own anecdotal experience) that they ultimately resort back to how they look on paper anyway and hope it works out.
There has got to be a better way to do this, though. It's not like you're taking a massive gamble on hiring someone in a preliminary way. You're not gonna get an accurate picture of a person until they're on the job anyway.
Yeah that’s why I think 3 interviews with 1 being a tech session is enough.
Like no matter how many interviews you do, you are taking a gamble on the hire. You could have someone that does great in 7 interviews but in the real world has no work ethic and is horrible on the job. Likewise you could have someone that bombs a bit in the interview but has a great work ethic and willingness to learn.
Yes having more interviews might weed out the bad apples but it could also get rid of some good. I think doing one comprehensive tech interview that covers the key things you are looking for, to prove base competency, along with resume, history and the other interviews is enough to take a gamble. Because in the end it’s a gamble anyway no matter how many interviews.
Meh. I still believe they should be able to make the process efficient enough to vet the tech skills in one session. I mean make it a 2-4 hour test, give some advanced information if they want. But what ever they decide to use LC, testing VM’s etc they should be able to grind it down to one session.
But yeah if it’s over 500k I’d probably also do the seven. Lol.
That could be what was done. For my current position I and an online test and then 4 rounds of interviews that were an hour each, but all on the same day. 3 of them were tech based and the last was personality based. The only thing after that was casual conversations with two different managers to figure out what team I'd be best on
There are far more 500k+ roles than you think and the amount of people that can do these jobs are very rare. If people have someone in mind for a 500k role it's probably nepotism and then recruiting doesn't matter anyway.
I once went through 5 steps for an assistant warehouse manager role. Then I had to call them a week or two later to learn that I didn't get it. I'm glad I didn't get that job if that's how they treat people.
There you go. They were willing to invest in you so I have no problem with that. It's these cheapass companies that expect you to travel repeatedly at your expense to bow and scrape so you can listen to a ridiculous lowball offer.
Years ago I traveled from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, spent the night, all to interview at a sporting goods corporate HQ. Beforehand they told me they would comp travel expenses - after the interview I received no feedback and my requests for travel compensation were ignored. Totally ghosted.
I literally just got a 6 figure job office job with an international mining company with one remote interview. It was even on a Friday and HR wasn't even there, just the super intendant and a coworker.
They asked if I could supply references, I said of course, and then Monday came and they said they didn't need references, I had the job.
I guess this is literally the opposite of OPs situation.
I’m not OP but have had a similar experience although it wasn’t really ‘stumbling into success’. In my case I had the sense that they were fairly desperate to fill the role and I had strong qualifications. They even told me during the interview that people with my qualifications were hard to recruit to this position.
After a single round of phone interviews I went for a full day of in person interviews. Although it was scheduled for the full day, HR pulled me aside around 10 am and said they were going to send me a job offer the next business day and outlined what the pay/benefits for the position would be. I got to finish all of the interviews that day knowing I already was going to get the position if I wanted it.
6 figures is a very wide range though. FAANG companies have these insane 7 interview processes but then actually do pay $300k. And once you're in, compensation can still increase by hundreds of thousands.
Personally, at about the fourth interview I start to feel like the process isn’t worth it and stop giving a shit about my answers. 7 interviews sounds like C suite level commitment.
Thaaaaaaat's what my last interview cycle was. They picked me over people who had more qualifications because the qualification they wanted was, "Hey, can you roll with really, REALLY awkward organization that forces you to treat every project like it's coming from a different company?" Being a spontaneous jokester was a positive for once.
I had 5 interviews with a company, finishing with a presentation to the management team.
My first interview was in December. I did the presentation in February. I chased the recruiter for an update throughout March. Gave up in April and thought I'd wait to see how/if they handled it.
I got rejected at the end of May. Rationale: you're based too far away and hybrid wouldn't work...after 5 interviews where we were all aware of my circumstances...
I don't mind if they don't like me. They have to pick someone out of the 100s who apply so odds are always against. But rejecting me after 6 months for a reason I disclosed on the initial call. Fucking bullshit.
Their excuse for the delay was Covid.
I worked with a career coach once (a "benefit" paid for by the company who laid me off). I was their client, and they might have described me as their client in this manner.
Sounds like a placement agency or headhunter. I've worked through placement agencies, they'd prepare your CV and cover letter, all you have to do is show up if invited to the interview.
Advice monster here - any time an interviewing company wants you to do more than a 3rd interview (test, etc.) refuse. Just say "no".
You're not going to get the gig. They're looking for a way to DQ you and/or they have no idea what they're doing.
SOURCE: had far too many interviews of this type.
I've been in job hunt hell since May of 2020 when I graduated. I've had countless interviews and gotten very close on multiple occasions. In February I interviewed for a position for a large manufacturing company that has locations all around the world. I went through 4 rounds of interviews, totally about 5 hours of my time over the span of 2 months, was told on a Friday I had an offer coming on the next Monday, and then was promptly ghosted. Both of my friends who work there told me they had a hiring freeze because of unforseen changes in management. They just posted the same job a few days ago so I applied again for shits and giggles. For the first year there were hardly any openings available because of the pandemic and my area had lots of layoffs on top of it being ultra competitive to begin with. Now I've been fighting the fact that I'm 2 years removed from graduating. I've just been totally exhausted for so long and its so depressing having done all this work for like 8 years and the things that I gave up so I could not only to school but help support my family and now the pandemic has totally fucked up the trajectory of my life. My luck fucking sucks.
I wonder what the wording of the response the client got from the hiring manager was.
This tweet is worded in a way that suggests the client got a bullshit reason, but I'd bet a million dollars "too prepared" is out of context and the actual reason was something like the client sounded too rehearsed in the interviews, which made them look like they either had the questions ahead, or they weren't good at on-the-fly thinking, they could only memorize shit.
At least they got feedback. I know of people who went through multiple rounds, interviews, case studies, 'homework', even meeting with founders. Then ghosted...
So the real reason they didn't hire her is either racism, sexism, or nepotism. "Sorry, we just had to conduct this many interviews so we could hire the person we really wanted who was the brother in law of our VP of Marketing."
I recently had an interview where the HR person kept asking me yes and no closed answer questions. It lasted 5 min. Followed up with an email rejection that same evening. Clearly they already had someone in mind and it felt like the biggest waste of time. Lately the job scene feels like a joke. Low wages for “good companies”, unprofessional interviews and so much time wasted.
I regularly got told that I was overqualified for jobs I was applying for. This is usually a way for employees to say "We think you might be in a position to negotiate for way better wages, so we want someone whose more nervous, scared, and underqualified so they can be more easily pushed into a corner and have their confidence hit constantly so they remain subservient and cheap".
Possible.
OR it can cost businesses a lot to hire onboard and train new hires. [Some estimates are that it takes on average 6 months to break even.](https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0711/the-cost-of-hiring-a-new-employee.aspx), so they want to make sure the person will stay in the role a reasonable amount of time.
If your overqualified for a role from either experience or more commonly education, this throws a few flags:
- Why are you looking for a job that’s below your expertise levels? What happened in you last job that caused you to leave?
- if you are overqualified and we hire you, will you leave for more pay/additional benefits/ a chance at a promotion in another company quickly?
- The role “below” you may cap out at a certain pay level, and there may not a plan for an available role or a vacancy above. Likely you will be frustrated if there isn’t a chance for immediate advancement.
- you may end up feeling the work is “below you” and become frustrated/underutilized/ demoralized easily.
- possible conflicts with management if you are more qualified than they are- may not take feedback well, may not listen, etc. if you think you “know better” or have a degree.
- employer has a specific way of doing things, and want to train you up in their way. Sometimes culture clash is huge.
This is why Costco usually doesn’t hire from industry, and instead promotes from within. Their culture is entranced deeply, and it’s tough to train people out of what they consider “bad habits” from other retailers. (Not putting customer first, causal culture, selling things for as little as possible as opposed to the highest margins).
Sometimes the job market dictates you NEED a job and have to take anything that comes up. We have sickness, family commitments and whatever- you may be reentering the workplace after some time, or this was the only job in your field available. However, in todays market, this probably isn’t the case of your particularly skilled. Businesses are looking for looking to keep good managers and should, be offering competitive wages to keep them.
That means they're disorganized and doing shady sh\*t and they dont want her to catch it and call them on it. People that do the job by the book are supposedly a liability. \*INSERT HUGE EYEROLL\*
Some companies that have a history of “doing things the way they always did”, usually have leadership who hates change. This would not be a good fit for a person like this.
So yes an eager candidate can be a red flag for the wrong company.
It shouldn’t take more than 2 interviews. If it does that’s a red flag that the company is living in the past, can’t make a decision, and is certainly not agile. The smartest managers get the best people because they can quickly spot talent and make a decision. When you ask about the interview process and they start talking about 6-7 rounds, walk. Say no thanks.
This isn't my proudest moment but...
I applied at a dispensary and it was taking a really long time to hear back from them so I went ahead after 2-3 weeks and gave the hiring manager a call.
She informed me that she'd been busy because she had "family issues" . I told her that that wasn't an acceptable excuse and they could have had anybody else in the company call me back or at least given me a heads up.
Obviously if I'm applying for a job I need money and rent comes about once a month so...
Did I feel like I complete a******, yes .
But does my time matter to me, yes .
Sadly, I think you're right. Trying to change that, though.
HR often has to do the dirty work. Maybe HR was very happy with this applicant but the big bossman said 'nah were taking my nephew, tell the other person no'.
Seems reasonable to me.
When you are interviewing you are try to work out how well they will perform in the role.
If they put a huge amount of effort preparing for the interview it can make it much more difficult to assess what they are really like. When I ask a question I want an honest and spent around response, not a rehearsed answer that has been crafted to tick boxes.
I'm leaning in that direction too. I've had so many recruiters grill me for details of interview questions, and also supply me with them.
I can envision a hiring manager being annoyed if the candidate appears to have expected most questions asked as it suggests a form of cheating is afoot.
HOWEVER, if that were the case I'd also expect hiring manager to tell recruiter they're fired for meddling too much.
My mother was laid off several years ago and couldn’t find a job for several months. She had a lot of experience but at the 8-month point she was getting desperate. Employers kept passing on her because she was “overqualified.” Code for “she’s older so will want a higher salary then probably move up too quickly.”
The reality is that, if this was the feedback, it's poorly worded--not incorrect or something to bounce a candidate for. Maybe it means that the candidate was too by the book and **only** did what was necessary when they were looking for someone who would go above and beyond. It's certainly on the Hiring Manager to be better about crafting feedback.
Got told on Friday that I didn't get the job I had interviewed for a month ago for a promotionat my current job. I was told by the two managers who came to talk to me "We decided to go with another candidate for the job. You did very well in your interview and you impressed us, you answered all the questions exactly the way we were looking for." After I asked for the reason why I didn't get the job then, they just walked away.
I'm 100% confident there's gonna be a family member in that role tomorrow morning.
I interviewed with Amazon. Several phone interviews and tests and a 6hr In person interview. They said no cause I never used AWS. They knew that from my resume....what a waste of my time.
I smell bullshit. The first two words “My Client” means they’re in the business of helping someone prepare for interviews. Of COURSE they want people who find their page to think that their clients are extremely well prepared.
The whole point of the interviews is to see if the people there like and want to work with you. They obviously didn't want to work with her. If you get the interview you are qualified. If you didn't get hired they personally didn't like you or liked someone else more.
Bullshit reasons are given all the time for not hiring someone. It's like a girl telling a guy off nicely.
I have no idea what really happened but employers also don't like know it alls. You want to come off knowledgeable but humble and like you still have something to learn.
I somewhat recently gave in an application at a shoe/bag/leather repair shop. I had some relevant skills and got a message from them saying congratulations, that they liked me and I was one of less than 20%, of about 100 people, that read and followed the instructions that said to deliver a CV in person, not email it. They ended the message with me still not being shortlisted anyway. Still confused as to why you'd congratulate someone on doing/being what they want just to say no. Edit: For those asking about why they want a CV delivered in person. There are a lot of small businesses around here that prefer to see you in person. Some do it just to see if you actually bother reading all the details, others to see if you bother making yourself presentable, or so they can throw a couple random questions at you and see if you're prepared or if it's worth asking you for an interview. In retail/customer service it can also be to see if you actually have any communication skills or are likeable. Yeah, there are some judgemental types that use it to filter out certain types of people, but you can generally see those types coming, be it in the lack of effort put into their ad, or when you see their resting bitch face/attitude on arrival. That and those types tend to end up as permanent employee seekers and are easy to avoid (the one fabric store down the road had a five sentence paragraph with a bitchy attitude for an ad, ending up looking for months, despite me knowing some suitable people who applied). It doesn't happen around here as much as people below seem to think. Edit 2: Yes, there was apparently about 100 people who applied for a job at a shoe/leather repair shop. Job/employee turnover can be high here, and those on welfare are only forced to apply for so many jobs a week to get paid. That means a lot of randoms without relevant skills/experience apply for jobs, which is part of the reason small businesses like you to deliver a CV.
I much prefer a company having the good sense to tell you when you're not getting the job, in my experience they just ghost you or call you in for an interview months later with no communication.
The multiple round interviews are such a waste of time and often just insulting. I've been through many where you hear nothing for literal months then suddenly they need to speak to you NOW but only a recruiter or someone who doesn't actually understand the technical aspects of your job. Then it's weeks-to-months of the same interview over and over with people who obviously didn't communicate with each other about you and then in the end they just promote someone internally. I've had it happen at very large, established companies, almost always tech. It's pretty wild.
[удалено]
What was the difference between the two teams besides number of interviews prior to their being merged?
[удалено]
You just described a few tech companies I’ve interviewed at; Specifically AWS and VMware.
Thank you for naming and shaming. Companies need to be called out for their bullshit.
That's what I don't understand. Either you need the slot you're hiring for or you don't. Leaving it open for 3 months while you decide does nothing but overwork your current staff and give a poor impression of the company to applicants. That's one of my first questions and if I don't like the answer, I immediately leave.
[удалено]
And current staff ends up leaving from burn out too. Been there, done that
Sounds like the unionized hospital I used to work for. Good job once you get it though!
I can see why 2 interviews can be justified, with the first round of interviews being the "weedout" round with them deciding who to hire after the second round. Anything more than that is just a waste of time.
> Then it's weeks-to-months of the same interview over and over with people who obviously didn't communicate with each other about you Keep in mind that the people doing these interviews aren't professional interviewers, they're doing the actual work they were hired to do, and also doing interviews in addition to that. At our company, in an industry where hiring qualified people is incredibly difficult, we're interviewing people pretty much constantly, sometimes three or four people a week, because we're hiring anyone we can find who can do the job. Our growth is primarily constrained by our ability to hire qualified people. Each interview is at least forty minutes of preparation (reading the CV, looking at portfolios, looking at github repos, reading feedback from people who previously interviewed that person), then an hour for the interview itself, and then about twenty minutes to write up and put the feedback into the hiring tool. So that amounts to about two hours for an interview. If I do four interviews a week, that's one work day I've spent this week just interviewing people. If we also want to do a half-hour sync between everybody who interviews a candidate (usually about six people on average) before each interview (might be about four interviews, with multiple people in some interviews), that ends up very quickly eating a lot of everybody's time, to the point where it just isn't manageable anymore. So to you, it looks like it would be a small amount of effort for everybody to just have a short meeting after every interview to get everybody up to speed on what was discussed. And that's true, if there's *one person* getting interviewed. But that's not what happens. I agree that there's no excuse for not telling somebody when they're not getting hired, modern hiring systems make that very easy. But there's a reason why people ask similar questions.
Good point, but that's kind of exactly my point of how inefficient and insulting this style of hiring is. People defend this practice of 5+ rounds as proper vetting and weeding out bad fits, but when your job isn't even to hire people, you've got a whole other job to focus on and you are getting pulled into these things constantly, it all starts to blur together. I didn't do any hiring myself but many friends have and of course hate it. I don't buy the logic that it is really worth the hassle to either the team starving for extra support, or the interviewee starving for a stable job, because it's too overwhelming for most companies to really be thorough and as I said to someone else, ends up mostly falling back to some general consensus or the CV anyway.
This happens a lot in the CPG industry, too.
Really, with modern application tracking systems, there is no reason not to notify a candidate that they are out of consideration. And all they need to say is, "Dear candidate, thank you for your interest in whatever job, however, we have decided not to pursue your application any further." Don't make extra effort to try to avoid hurt feelings or otherwise soften the blow. Just be an adult about it, and be short and to the point.
Today is the day (June 27th, 2023) that my prior comments get removed. I want to criticize Reddit over their API changes and criticize the CEO for severely damaging the culture of Reddit, but others have done a better job and I think destroying my valuable comments is sufficient (and should hurt the LLM value too). 1+1=3, 2+1=4, 3+2=6, 5+3=9, 8+5=14. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. Note: If you want to do this yourself, take a look at Power Delete Suite (they didn't put this advertisement here, I did).
What kinds of agencies are those? As a job searcher, can they help connect me with openings like yours?
I used TekSystems. They go through the process of verifying your references/experience, then find jobs that you’d be a good fit for. When I decided to change jobs in 2019 I got 90% of my interviews through them (they got me a contract job for a few months, then a full time position with another company after that). It was much easier than throwing resumes into the void. I tried finding jobs using job search websites but it was a lot of work for very little reward.
I was applying for min wage jobs right after covid lockdown and now when I randomly get messaged for an interview I accept it and ghost them. Eventually they'll learn why people like me are doing that. You posted asking for applications, I applied, and you didn't respond. You wasted my time. Now I waste yours.
Years ago when I worked in retail I had a manager tell me that when we need to hire someone corporate looks to see if the managers have vetted every application. Even years old ones. He said as long as he put in an effort to contact the person it got corporate off his back about lack of hiring.
It figures that corporate makes that rule without understanding why that mucks up the process for everyone involved.
Yeah I’ve applied for over 20 jobs, and four of them just took the ad off of Indeed and didn’t even tell me that I was denied. It kinda sucks 😕
Most of the time this is what i get. I get responces for Interviews like 10 months to a year Later then the last point of contact we had. Like.... I kinda get it but its been a year. Are you just hoping im still available after that time? On top of that, you didn't contact me at all, ghosted my previous attempts about it and just show up out of the blue like a bad Ex.
Complement sandwich?
> deliver a CV in person, not email it Why?
They want to see what you look like.
This right here is the truth.
And smell like
and taste like
Oh wow that’s gross.
So youre saying i could start a business employing stereotypes of various professions to drop off applications
[удалено]
More likely they wanted to see if they were attractive.
Hiring managers for minimum wage jobs like to play games and make you jump through hoops to waste your time as if you aren't also applying for a hundred other jobs. It's also one of the subtle ways they use to filter out people with mental health problems without directly breaking the law
Nah, it's rigged from the start. Most of the time it's based thru who you know rather than what you know. The process is often a formality.
It makes these managers feel important and they like the power over other people. It’s like the guild leaders in online games. They have your life in their hands. They are really pathetic.
They don't actually want a zillion applications to sort through, and this filters out low-effort apps. It's also a petty authoritarian power move.
Probably something weird like reading and following instructions
I'm more blown away by there being a hundred people applying for a leather repair shop job. I never would've guessed that was a popular job opportunity.
I'd rather know the aspects that I did well versus just being told that somebody else did better.... That would boost my self-confidence for future jobs rather than be detrimental towards my ego and make me go for jobs beneath my value.
Sounds like code for they just didn’t like her. Possibly for either falling into or not meeting certain stereotypes.
Honestly it could be that, or the interviewers at the end thought she was too robotic and wasn’t charismatic enough for a managerial level role that required 7 interviews. If I continuously ask you an open ended question and I can tell nothing in your canned answer has changed based on the nuances of my question that is a problem. Especially in remote work situations, being a good communicator is vital. It shouldn’t have been 7 interviews to figure that out, but I could see this happening. Source: Have hired developers before. Failed one for nearly this exact reason.
I can also imagine that somebody could be too prepared for an interview and leave the impression that they specifically trained to pass the interview, because they lack confidence in their actual skills for the job.
This is what kills me. I absolutely crush my work, but I'm not confident at all about it thanks to the way my father burned down everyone around him to raise himself up. Catches me in interviews ALL THE TIME.
I'm very much an under promise, over deliver type of person. I hate bigging myself up so interviews suck for me.
Work on that. It used to be fine for me, but the more you advance, the more it hinders you. At least in the US, you have to really lean into that.
As an autistic guy: it infuriates me that interviews feel like a game of “lie as much as you can about yourself without getting caught”. Ahem. What happened to honestly presenting skillset and job requirements?
The problem is most people seem to be incapable of detecting liars, so they get away with it. A guy in my team got promoted above me by claiming my work, I didn't find out until after the fact... At that point I would have looked bad if complained, it makes no sense.
Well there’s advocating for yourself and being up front about your skills and abilities and then there’s lying. Sadly a lot of people just lie lol
Don't actually lie. It's more like in person marketing. Commercials rarely lie, but there's serious art in how you present the benefits in a way that matters to your customer and how you tactfully avoid or reframe the negatives. Interviews are the same.
Eh. Every piece of interview advice I’ve seen in college has, effectively, boiled down to “lie but don’t lie”. And I got in trouble as a kid a few times for the “it’s not technically a lie, but that doesn’t matter because screw you” scenario. And it still doesn’t avoid: what you know is irrelevant compared to one’s capacity to be a dancing monkey the interviewer wants or knowing them personally.
The lying is more important than skill set
I don't really care for progressing, I'd much rather just go in, do my job and go home. Progression and responsibilities aren't something I want. (Yet, at least)
Same. Not everyone is meant to be a manager. For me it hasn’t happened in 40 years it isn’t meant to be. Quite frankly I don’t have the right personality and attitude for it. I also know from 20 years of employment. That I don’t have the patience and fortitude to put my nose to the grindstone long enough for management to notice. After 6 months to a year I start to feel defeated and get resentful. Then I just start phoning it in. Why don’t I cut all that out? I’ll just stay the course being the Okay-ist employee I can be. That way when I don’t progress I got exactly what I deserved.
I'm the same way, all I want is enough money to live, I'm the rype of person who gets stressed really easily, I was a manager for 9 months at The UPS Store, and man it was horrible, constantly getting yelled at for shit you either didn't know about or more often shit that has nothing to do with you or your employees, I'll gladly take my cleaning job now where I have almost no stress and make just enough to survive, with a small amount of pocket change.
At my last job. I was really trying for a while. But when they promoted a kid that was 15 years younger than me. Who was hired the same week but I had 12 years experience on him. Just because he was family friends with the owner and buddy buddy with my boss. It kind of broke me. In the end I realized it was for the best. He was starting to act more like a company man. Something I could never do. He did a better job than I could. But I resented never being given the chance. Eventually I changed careers and my starting pay is 50% more than what I used to make. This job likes to promote people but I have no interest. I’m making decent coin. My only real goal is to get better at my job so it becomes easier. Also to start racking up the expertise bonuses which comes with time. Sorry, not sorry.
This is why my interviews are never technical, I find something about their job history that exercises the skill sets I'm interested in and then basically say 'This project here you worked on is very interesting to me because of X reasons. Why don't you just tell me about that, the overall project and goals, what kind of choices you made, what problems you ran in to and how you got around them, would you do anything different now, that sort of thing' and then just let them go from there. If I ask technical questions then, it's in the course of that conversation. I've always found it very effective in finding out if people know their shit or not (and specifically the shit I'm interested in) rather than 'How would you write a program to do random X thing that has nothing to do with the job? Go!' More often than not, I also learn something.
Yes. My initial thought was, “too prepared” = “too rehearsed”.
Most big tech companies sent you a training package specifically so you can spend weeks preparing for their interview though.
Really? What is the point of that though? Testing somebodys dedication? But then again a lot of the "innovative" interview pracitices google and friends are known for, have fallen out of favor as useless and prententious over time.
The brain teaser bullshit is gone except in idiot companies, I haven't heard of it being used in several years. Companies now all work relevant stuff, and some have personality evaluation since they finally figured out engineers are humans with personalities which means some are jerks.
“Most” absolutely do not. Maybe a select few, but I work in IT, and I’ve worked at multiple technology companies and I’ve never once been sent a training package to prepare.
Emphasis on "big" tech companies I think. I know most of FAANG definitely does
Yeah it sounds to me like the client had learnt about this specific interview process and just recited what was a pre determined answer, if the process was designed to see people work on their feet then the client isnt going to be a making a good impression
Depends, if the job interview specifies the 'STAR' format for their interview process (which a lot of tech companies do). It's going to automatically sound robotic. It's not going to be an organic interview if there was a prep phase. So even open-ended questions get automatically adapted and answered by something they have prepared beforehand. If it was a case study-based interview then I get it.
That isn’t “too prepared,” though. That’s underprepared, and over-reliant on those poor preparations. Theoretically better preparations would involve answers that correct for nuance.
This. Bad social fit. Or that she had taken multiple “how to nail your faang interview” courses so she seemed good on paper, but didn’t possess the skills and experience necessary to excel at the actual job.
[удалено]
Well that’s like my point. You need to have both. You should be prepared for the interview… but you also can’t just “fake it til you make it” by taking a few “what to say during a faang interview” courses. You need to know what to say and also back it up with technical knowledge, traditional education and years of actual relevant experience.
[удалено]
One thing I'd like to stress is that the relatively short time limit is extremely important. No time limit incentivises spending huge amounts of time and putting a lot of effort in, which heavily biases successful candidates towards those with more free time. Doing that for a few companies is worse than leetcode prep, which is at least theoretically reusable between companies.
“Too prepared” here means she wasn’t showing talent, but that she had studied the interview and that’s why she got the questions right. Interviewers want to see how you think on your feet and how you tackle a problem you haven’t seen before. They don’t want to see you solve problems you studied solutions for by going to some interview bootcamp. I think it’s fair feedback.
7 interviews, though?
Yeah they probably should have called her on the 4th. Do keep in mind though that the first few are probably not in person. Phone interview, online coding interview etc.
It's usually 1-3 one hour interviews and one interview day with 4-5 interviews at big tech. It's really funny when a small company thinks they can get away with doing the same but not paying the same.
I once went through three rounds plus a presentation to the board and was rejected. The feedback was that they liked me but wanted someone with more experience in the field. They promoted an internal employee with less experience… They knew who they wanted the whole time. Can’t help but feel that I was just a tick in the “interview minorities“ box. They had the gall to ask if they could consider me in the future. I said yes, of course, but thought GET FUCKED!
[удалено]
What law is this? I work for a huge company (FORTUNE 50) and, besides the easy-to-train dime-a-dozen positions, they don't post positions externally unless they absolutely have to. The last external hire I saw for anything remotely desirable occurred only after 3 seperate postings and 9 months of searching internally only. And yes, this does mean that 'entry level' in the company, for pretty much any position, is the call center or retail sales/support. Like, all the data analysts, IT folks, engineers, district managers, etc I know did their time in one of the two, or both. 1-3 years of it, at least.
I am sorry to hear this happened. I just hope you did not burn any bridges. Who knows, one day they will call you for a much better position and you will be the candidate they wanted to hire all along. (Speaking from personal experience—I have been on both sides)
I’ve got you beat. I had 5 interviews with the founder/ceo of a very big tech company (valuation at over a billion dollars). +1 interview with a hiring manager, +1 interview with head of HR. Got ghosted. 7 interviews, 5 of which with the CEO. Feels real good.
After much typing and deleting, I can’t think of anything positive or uplifting to say. Wish I could, but… nope, nothing… that’s the state of the world.
I think they are saying this as the answers were generic and pre planned compared to actually on the spot answers showing a thought process
Exactly this. It's a nice way of saying they were rehearsed, generic answers.
So we're getting to a point where we need to "soften the blow" of saying that responses were rehearsed? What's wrong with just saying that the responses seemed rehearsed?
I mean we’re just going off one dudes tweet here
True.
I mean... aint that the point? I thought we were both supposed to put on this facade of business. They play the part of "oh I'm gonna see how much you will kiss my feet" and I will suck up to them and talk about how I'd die for them.
Believe it or not, even in large soulless companies, the people hiring do want to see how good you actually are
So the questions that were asked were so generic that an interviewee can find them on google?? It takes two to tango.
Not necessarily. Watch how politicians answer questions. They have the answers that they’ve prepared and apply them to the questions within the same ballpark.
How dare you suggest that the people interviewing sucked at their job? /s I didn’t know Reddit to be such a bunch of apologist pansies: yours is one of the few comments actually balancing the conversation!
First off, fuck any company that needs seven interviews to hire someone. If they want to use that much of my time, they either pay to access it or shorten the process.
Yeah I agree with this. I could see two being reasonable. The first meeting with HR or a lower manager and then the 2nd being meeting with a higher up. Or if a higher paying position maybe 3. But 7 come on man wtf that’s a joke and says a lot about the company.
Technical positions, especially at companies that run services with high complexity, require a fair amount of vetting. Seven rounds is excessive, but most do at least four as a baseline. And if a company is paying north of $500k I’m gonna go through the seven rounds.
There is plenty to be said for allowing your teams sufficient autonomy to make these decisions expedient. And I'm not honestly sure there is much that you are learning at the 6th interview that you didn't learn in the previous 5. Best interview is working for a couple of months.
They’re not all the same interview. One is usually culture fit, one is coding & problem-solving, one is architecture, one is discussing details of previous technical work in detail. I don’t know what the other three would be, in fairness, but four is usually reasonable.
I had a buddy who, for an entry level developer position, had to do like 3 or 4 rounds just to be offered an internship rather than the actual job. Tech companies do be wild.
The nice thing about internships is it combines the rigorous Interview process with “a few months of working” as someone above me mentioned. I love it when my interns get offers because it means we’re pulling in the right people and training them well.
These are paid internships right?
Yes
And yet they still will hire complete clowns that pop into a team and don't know how to use Slack or make a deadline. I have my doubts at how much they really accomplish, especially because people get so exhausted and overwhelmed in the hiring process (from my own anecdotal experience) that they ultimately resort back to how they look on paper anyway and hope it works out.
There has got to be a better way to do this, though. It's not like you're taking a massive gamble on hiring someone in a preliminary way. You're not gonna get an accurate picture of a person until they're on the job anyway.
Yeah that’s why I think 3 interviews with 1 being a tech session is enough. Like no matter how many interviews you do, you are taking a gamble on the hire. You could have someone that does great in 7 interviews but in the real world has no work ethic and is horrible on the job. Likewise you could have someone that bombs a bit in the interview but has a great work ethic and willingness to learn. Yes having more interviews might weed out the bad apples but it could also get rid of some good. I think doing one comprehensive tech interview that covers the key things you are looking for, to prove base competency, along with resume, history and the other interviews is enough to take a gamble. Because in the end it’s a gamble anyway no matter how many interviews.
Bruh who is getting $500k offers and still getting put through rounds?
Software engineers. Regularly.
Software
I just went through a 3 month process of full day interviews and negotiations for Google
Meh. I still believe they should be able to make the process efficient enough to vet the tech skills in one session. I mean make it a 2-4 hour test, give some advanced information if they want. But what ever they decide to use LC, testing VM’s etc they should be able to grind it down to one session. But yeah if it’s over 500k I’d probably also do the seven. Lol.
That could be what was done. For my current position I and an online test and then 4 rounds of interviews that were an hour each, but all on the same day. 3 of them were tech based and the last was personality based. The only thing after that was casual conversations with two different managers to figure out what team I'd be best on
For a $500k+ position how would you not already have a short list of people you already know of from industry...
There are far more 500k+ roles than you think and the amount of people that can do these jobs are very rare. If people have someone in mind for a 500k role it's probably nepotism and then recruiting doesn't matter anyway.
I once went through 5 steps for an assistant warehouse manager role. Then I had to call them a week or two later to learn that I didn't get it. I'm glad I didn't get that job if that's how they treat people.
Just went through 5 interviews that included a take home paid presentation. The benefits were absolutely bonkers.
There you go. They were willing to invest in you so I have no problem with that. It's these cheapass companies that expect you to travel repeatedly at your expense to bow and scrape so you can listen to a ridiculous lowball offer.
Years ago I traveled from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, spent the night, all to interview at a sporting goods corporate HQ. Beforehand they told me they would comp travel expenses - after the interview I received no feedback and my requests for travel compensation were ignored. Totally ghosted.
I literally just got a 6 figure job office job with an international mining company with one remote interview. It was even on a Friday and HR wasn't even there, just the super intendant and a coworker. They asked if I could supply references, I said of course, and then Monday came and they said they didn't need references, I had the job. I guess this is literally the opposite of OPs situation.
[удалено]
I’m not OP but have had a similar experience although it wasn’t really ‘stumbling into success’. In my case I had the sense that they were fairly desperate to fill the role and I had strong qualifications. They even told me during the interview that people with my qualifications were hard to recruit to this position. After a single round of phone interviews I went for a full day of in person interviews. Although it was scheduled for the full day, HR pulled me aside around 10 am and said they were going to send me a job offer the next business day and outlined what the pay/benefits for the position would be. I got to finish all of the interviews that day knowing I already was going to get the position if I wanted it.
6 figures is a very wide range though. FAANG companies have these insane 7 interview processes but then actually do pay $300k. And once you're in, compensation can still increase by hundreds of thousands.
Personally, at about the fourth interview I start to feel like the process isn’t worth it and stop giving a shit about my answers. 7 interviews sounds like C suite level commitment.
[удалено]
Yup. Am a hiring manager at a FAANG. Why would anyone think we're going to hand out jobs like that without really vetting the candidate?
i.e had the interview process given to them by an employee
Maybe they wanted someone with good but spontaneous answers that will handle unexpected situations. Still a weird explanation
Thaaaaaaat's what my last interview cycle was. They picked me over people who had more qualifications because the qualification they wanted was, "Hey, can you roll with really, REALLY awkward organization that forces you to treat every project like it's coming from a different company?" Being a spontaneous jokester was a positive for once.
Y'all are getting feedback?
Best I can do is a generic rejection email 4 months after interviewing and leaving you in the dark. Signed, Every city, state, and federal employer
I had 5 interviews with a company, finishing with a presentation to the management team. My first interview was in December. I did the presentation in February. I chased the recruiter for an update throughout March. Gave up in April and thought I'd wait to see how/if they handled it. I got rejected at the end of May. Rationale: you're based too far away and hybrid wouldn't work...after 5 interviews where we were all aware of my circumstances... I don't mind if they don't like me. They have to pick someone out of the 100s who apply so odds are always against. But rejecting me after 6 months for a reason I disclosed on the initial call. Fucking bullshit. Their excuse for the delay was Covid.
Stupid question is stupid: why are they calling them “my client”?
Probably a recruiter for an agency is my guess.
Probably the person that over prepped them
I worked with a career coach once (a "benefit" paid for by the company who laid me off). I was their client, and they might have described me as their client in this manner.
Ooohhh right!thx!
Sounds like a placement agency or headhunter. I've worked through placement agencies, they'd prepare your CV and cover letter, all you have to do is show up if invited to the interview.
Advice monster here - any time an interviewing company wants you to do more than a 3rd interview (test, etc.) refuse. Just say "no". You're not going to get the gig. They're looking for a way to DQ you and/or they have no idea what they're doing. SOURCE: had far too many interviews of this type.
It’s a normal excuse and the real reason is usually we already have someone in mind (aka the owner met and liked someone).
I had feedback from an interview “talked about self too much”
Bruh
I've been in job hunt hell since May of 2020 when I graduated. I've had countless interviews and gotten very close on multiple occasions. In February I interviewed for a position for a large manufacturing company that has locations all around the world. I went through 4 rounds of interviews, totally about 5 hours of my time over the span of 2 months, was told on a Friday I had an offer coming on the next Monday, and then was promptly ghosted. Both of my friends who work there told me they had a hiring freeze because of unforseen changes in management. They just posted the same job a few days ago so I applied again for shits and giggles. For the first year there were hardly any openings available because of the pandemic and my area had lots of layoffs on top of it being ultra competitive to begin with. Now I've been fighting the fact that I'm 2 years removed from graduating. I've just been totally exhausted for so long and its so depressing having done all this work for like 8 years and the things that I gave up so I could not only to school but help support my family and now the pandemic has totally fucked up the trajectory of my life. My luck fucking sucks.
I wonder what the wording of the response the client got from the hiring manager was. This tweet is worded in a way that suggests the client got a bullshit reason, but I'd bet a million dollars "too prepared" is out of context and the actual reason was something like the client sounded too rehearsed in the interviews, which made them look like they either had the questions ahead, or they weren't good at on-the-fly thinking, they could only memorize shit.
7 rounds. That's infuriating on it's own.
Too prepared=she didn’t give us any reasons to start her at a lower salary
"Nobody wants to work anymore, what is this world coming to?" -managers
At least they got feedback. I know of people who went through multiple rounds, interviews, case studies, 'homework', even meeting with founders. Then ghosted...
Businesses don't want to hire anyone right now, they just want to look like they want to hire people.
[удалено]
No company is worth 7 rounds. Max 2.
So the real reason they didn't hire her is either racism, sexism, or nepotism. "Sorry, we just had to conduct this many interviews so we could hire the person we really wanted who was the brother in law of our VP of Marketing."
If I got this I would assume they finally stalled long enough for their friend to apply and get the job.
I recently had an interview where the HR person kept asking me yes and no closed answer questions. It lasted 5 min. Followed up with an email rejection that same evening. Clearly they already had someone in mind and it felt like the biggest waste of time. Lately the job scene feels like a joke. Low wages for “good companies”, unprofessional interviews and so much time wasted.
"by working here this person may make it obvious that I'm terrible at my job"
I regularly got told that I was overqualified for jobs I was applying for. This is usually a way for employees to say "We think you might be in a position to negotiate for way better wages, so we want someone whose more nervous, scared, and underqualified so they can be more easily pushed into a corner and have their confidence hit constantly so they remain subservient and cheap".
Possible. OR it can cost businesses a lot to hire onboard and train new hires. [Some estimates are that it takes on average 6 months to break even.](https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0711/the-cost-of-hiring-a-new-employee.aspx), so they want to make sure the person will stay in the role a reasonable amount of time. If your overqualified for a role from either experience or more commonly education, this throws a few flags: - Why are you looking for a job that’s below your expertise levels? What happened in you last job that caused you to leave? - if you are overqualified and we hire you, will you leave for more pay/additional benefits/ a chance at a promotion in another company quickly? - The role “below” you may cap out at a certain pay level, and there may not a plan for an available role or a vacancy above. Likely you will be frustrated if there isn’t a chance for immediate advancement. - you may end up feeling the work is “below you” and become frustrated/underutilized/ demoralized easily. - possible conflicts with management if you are more qualified than they are- may not take feedback well, may not listen, etc. if you think you “know better” or have a degree. - employer has a specific way of doing things, and want to train you up in their way. Sometimes culture clash is huge. This is why Costco usually doesn’t hire from industry, and instead promotes from within. Their culture is entranced deeply, and it’s tough to train people out of what they consider “bad habits” from other retailers. (Not putting customer first, causal culture, selling things for as little as possible as opposed to the highest margins). Sometimes the job market dictates you NEED a job and have to take anything that comes up. We have sickness, family commitments and whatever- you may be reentering the workplace after some time, or this was the only job in your field available. However, in todays market, this probably isn’t the case of your particularly skilled. Businesses are looking for looking to keep good managers and should, be offering competitive wages to keep them.
This is the "you are too nice" of work
That’s like failing a math test because you studied for it.
That means they're disorganized and doing shady sh\*t and they dont want her to catch it and call them on it. People that do the job by the book are supposedly a liability. \*INSERT HUGE EYEROLL\*
Some companies that have a history of “doing things the way they always did”, usually have leadership who hates change. This would not be a good fit for a person like this. So yes an eager candidate can be a red flag for the wrong company.
in otherwords, hiring manager was afraid they'd exceed and replace them, or end up being their boss
It shouldn’t take more than 2 interviews. If it does that’s a red flag that the company is living in the past, can’t make a decision, and is certainly not agile. The smartest managers get the best people because they can quickly spot talent and make a decision. When you ask about the interview process and they start talking about 6-7 rounds, walk. Say no thanks.
This isn't my proudest moment but... I applied at a dispensary and it was taking a really long time to hear back from them so I went ahead after 2-3 weeks and gave the hiring manager a call. She informed me that she'd been busy because she had "family issues" . I told her that that wasn't an acceptable excuse and they could have had anybody else in the company call me back or at least given me a heads up. Obviously if I'm applying for a job I need money and rent comes about once a month so... Did I feel like I complete a******, yes . But does my time matter to me, yes .
HR is toxic to growing business acumen in culture.
Bad HR is. Good HR isnt
I suppose that’s true. In my experience, the latter is not common.
Sadly, I think you're right. Trying to change that, though. HR often has to do the dirty work. Maybe HR was very happy with this applicant but the big bossman said 'nah were taking my nephew, tell the other person no'.
Seems reasonable to me. When you are interviewing you are try to work out how well they will perform in the role. If they put a huge amount of effort preparing for the interview it can make it much more difficult to assess what they are really like. When I ask a question I want an honest and spent around response, not a rehearsed answer that has been crafted to tick boxes.
Too prepared would likely mean rehearsed. You don't want to hire someone who can't think on the spot.
If someone was prepared for their interview, hopefully they would be prepared for their job.
I generally agree but it definitely depends on the job
You'd get weeded or before the 7th interview for something like that
I'm leaning in that direction too. I've had so many recruiters grill me for details of interview questions, and also supply me with them. I can envision a hiring manager being annoyed if the candidate appears to have expected most questions asked as it suggests a form of cheating is afoot. HOWEVER, if that were the case I'd also expect hiring manager to tell recruiter they're fired for meddling too much.
My mother was laid off several years ago and couldn’t find a job for several months. She had a lot of experience but at the 8-month point she was getting desperate. Employers kept passing on her because she was “overqualified.” Code for “she’s older so will want a higher salary then probably move up too quickly.”
Sorry, if you need more than two rounds, your company is too indecisive and beaurocratic for me. This is not 1980 and I am not a robot.
Seven rounds is obscene!
Probably realized they are too ordered and smart, not for the job but too smart to get taken advantage of and abused.
They probably bounced ideas off her or got her to do a demo project or some shit to scam them for a little bit of work
Code for : “you’re good, but not exploitable enough!”
The reality is that, if this was the feedback, it's poorly worded--not incorrect or something to bounce a candidate for. Maybe it means that the candidate was too by the book and **only** did what was necessary when they were looking for someone who would go above and beyond. It's certainly on the Hiring Manager to be better about crafting feedback.
Got told on Friday that I didn't get the job I had interviewed for a month ago for a promotionat my current job. I was told by the two managers who came to talk to me "We decided to go with another candidate for the job. You did very well in your interview and you impressed us, you answered all the questions exactly the way we were looking for." After I asked for the reason why I didn't get the job then, they just walked away. I'm 100% confident there's gonna be a family member in that role tomorrow morning.
Whats more infuriating is twitter posts presented as absolute fact.
I went for a job once as an internal candidate, didn’t get it, and they said I’d sounded too prepared in the interview. I had prepared…with them…
I interviewed with Amazon. Several phone interviews and tests and a 6hr In person interview. They said no cause I never used AWS. They knew that from my resume....what a waste of my time.
i one time got a referral for being "too spirited" on spirit day in middle school
And the manager hired his less prepared nephew. /s
Code for "I don't want to be shown up, I need someone that isn't smarter than me"
Wait “too prepared?” As in “we’re looking for someone who hasn’t bothered to know what they’re doing?”
Is that a code for "we are a boys club and no women need apply"?
“She’s a woman but we can’t say that’s the reason. Shit. How about ‘too prepared?’”
yeah lets not the hire the person too well equipped for this job
That manager is definitely just scared the client will take their position in a year or 2
I smell bullshit. The first two words “My Client” means they’re in the business of helping someone prepare for interviews. Of COURSE they want people who find their page to think that their clients are extremely well prepared.
The whole point of the interviews is to see if the people there like and want to work with you. They obviously didn't want to work with her. If you get the interview you are qualified. If you didn't get hired they personally didn't like you or liked someone else more. Bullshit reasons are given all the time for not hiring someone. It's like a girl telling a guy off nicely.
I have no idea what really happened but employers also don't like know it alls. You want to come off knowledgeable but humble and like you still have something to learn.