More employers should tell people if they're unsuccessful

Thanks.

I got a reply today that they are just waiting for the HR Advisor to sign off the role.....
Erm, should that not have been done before advertising, shortlisting and interviewing???

Good. Dont accept crumbs. How cheeky of them.

• @frankentall

It was for a firefighter position, like I said it’s unusual in general but it was common for the industry and area. It’s a stupidly long process in the US.

1- a list is built with interested applicants which stays active for up to 2 years (1000’s of names long)
2- once a test is declared all parties on the list are invited to the written test
3- anyone from the list takes the test IIRC about 1000 tested with him
4- A month or so later anyone who passed the written test is invited to take the physical test or provide proof of pass of the standard test if still valid
5-An application is submitted
6- A grade is assigned to each applicant on written test, physical test, and application
7- the top 40-50 applicants are invited to interview
8- a new list is prepared ranking all of the candidates
2-8 can take about 4- 6 months

In his case three tiers were established of about 7 candidates each. The first tier was hired immediately… the second tier was hired the next year… and good ol’ tier 3 was invited back to interview in year 3 and he was hired about 4 months later.

We had written them off when we found out out he was in tier 3, he was in similar hiring processes to this with different departments at the same time…

After their 3 was hired the city then went back to step 1 the next batch hired after him was 2 or 3 years later.

@ChimneySweepLiverpool if nothing else at least you didn’t have to go through all of that!

I've been ghosted by companies quite a few times and I've took this attitude. I don't chase, if they can't be arsed to even email me then it's not somewhere I'd like to work.

More and more companies are really slow in organising stuff.

DH went for an interview four weeks ago and they said they would get back to him, they just needed to speak to a director about the salary range and where they could place him. Nothing since.

Sometimes they have other people to interview at a later date.

I've had this, OP, and it's so annoying!

Last year I interviewed for a job in a different department of my current organisation. Many times the lead interviewer reiterated that I'd hear by the end of the week (interview was Wednesday). Friday came and went... nothing. On Monday I emailed the guy and got an out of office reply - he'd gone on holiday for a week! I emailed one of the other interviewers and asked if they could update me and they got the lead to phone me the next day.

I was miffed that not only had they insisted I'd know by the end of the week, but he went on holiday having made the decision but without having informed me. To make it worse, I was leaving a teaching job so had to hand my resignation in by the end of the month, which he knew as I told them very clearly, and his return date from holiday was the last day of the month!

Just rude. You made a decision, you can make a 3-minute phone call to each candidate (there were 4 of us) or, at the least, send a two-line email.

OK, that's not really how you put it initially though, is it?

no it isn’t

he didn’t get the job
they kept his details on file
when the vacancy came up again for similar or same position… they contacted him

I think allergictoironing has hit the nail on the head.

3 years? That is just fucking ridiculous; and pointless.

It's a small company, and just last week was the half term holidays. So there's a fair chance someone crucial to the selection has been off all last week & is plodding through their in box in the order the emails came in rather than on an urgency basis.

Not necessarily, especially in a big organisation when they have to get through various levels of approval. Also, even if you're not top of their list, you might still get an offer in the person above you turns it down, which would take a bit longer.

I do think not letting applicants know that they are unsuccessful is very rude, especially in the age of mass emails. At the very least, they could say that if you don't hear from us by a certain date, assume you didn't get the job. It's not that difficult.

On a couple of times I had to make some BS to my employers when I had interviews (didn't want to mention the i word) on my days in. They had to get colleagues and myself to work different days, it is very frustrating that you put in the effort of researching the company, think of suitable scenarios of "tell me a time when/where....." questions.

Then the potential employer makes zero effort in responding to you about you weren't successful. Sometimes the reasons why you weren't successful do help in future interviews which I mentioned in a pp.

Before e-mails, a family friend went to an interview. About 10 days later, she got a phone call from the potential employer asking would she like to start next Monday. They only sent said she was successful in a letter which was lost in the post two days after the interview.

Because she needed 2 weeks notice to leave her job, she was able to defer the start date of the new job to coincide with the start date. She had leave to use anyway so her first 2-3 days of her new job, she was paid leave from her previous employer.

for just 12 people they have an sole HR person who can’t even do her job properly!

the HR contact… is she only HR?

I absolutely agree with you, OP. I watched my kids go through this numerous times when they were looking for a job. The effort needed for a simple "thanks but no thanks" is minuscule compared with the emotional and physical effort that goes into applying for a job and sweating on the result of an interview, and I find it hard to accept that organisations can't find the resource even for that.

only 12 staff and this delay and inefficiency?