To be completely thrown seeing a job re-advertised literally weeks after they rejected me?

OP, you need to ask them for feedback. It sounds like something you said in the informal follow-up chat might have put them off, or maybe another hiring manager thought you didn't have the right experience and over-rode the one who said you were preferred. Either way, you won't know until you get feedback. This is something I say quite a lot on here - you need to communicate. Communication is the key.

Id ask. But I know of three companies that have been advertising my job roles constantly for 4 years. I've been invited for interview, mined for information and then told no. There is no job, it's just how they operate.

Its not nice, but dont let it throw you. What's for you won't pass you.

Steep learning curve - you’re not professionally ready - don’t reapply, they’ve told you!

i know it’s not nice to be rejected but it’s clear.

I agree. It did cross my mind that OP’s inability to understand the very simple and reasonable explanation of why she was unsuitable for the role is vindication of why they did not offer it to her.

Sometimes things just don't work out. We had two front runners interview for a job; I was on the second and final interview round, I preferred candidate A, my co-interviewer agreed she'd done well but hadn't been that impressive on her first interview. Colleague preferred candidate B who did seem quite impressive and appeared potentially to be a better fit for our organisation, so we went for her.

As it turned out, she really wasn't much use, no matter how hard we tried, and after we had a performance review with her after a couple of months when we set some basic targets for her to reach, she resigned. If A had been available we'd have gone back to her, but she wasn't, sadly.

They meant the job was a steep learning curve for you.

They decided to look for someone with more knowledge and experience of the role.

i don’t understand why you are baffled. They have given you a very credible explanation of why you were rejected. As well as good feedback on your interview performance. It’s normal to feel a bit dejected, but you should completely understand why you didn’t get the job and why it’s been readvertised.

It doesn’t matter, they rejected OP’s application and said there would be too steep of a learning curve. OP is trying to see signs that are not there.

Exactly, OP sounds delusional.

Just because the employer had a pool of candidates who applied for the job previously, it doesn’t mean they need to hire specifically from that pool - as opposed to putting the vacancy back out again for better candidates. OP is unable to see that their application wasn’t suitable for the job, and that the employer does not have to revisit their application before starting a new recruitment campaign. It’s not a case of going to the next candidate in the list, because they already said OP is unsuitable.

including - and especially -you

completely unnecessary.
OP was their first choice out of the pool they received.

I don’t think it’s odd at all. You just sound like you’re wanting some sort of vindication and are clutching at straws.

The truth is, they don’t want YOU for the role. Just let that sink in. The rest that follows should then make logical sense.

Something went wrong in your application process and they went off you completely. You said it yourself, they didn’t think you had the experience. “Steep learning curve” is not a good thing, they’re basically saying you’re a wildcard and that perhaps you oversold your experience and that unraveled later.

Hence, they put the job back out for applicants because they had ZERO viable candidates from the first round (including - and especially -you). It doesn’t mean they need to change anything about the job listing to put it up a second time. They didn’t reach out because they don’t want you for the role.

The fact that this is baffling to the OP does suggest she’s not that experienced. You can easily see that they’ve gone through a recruitment process and having to weigh up whether to take a risk on the OP or not and have decided she’s not right. It can be really surprising how different a pool of candidates can be over a month.

Was the informal chat with someone not on the interview panel eg a higher executive? They may have put the cobblers on it.

My CFO wants to meet potential hires and has final say. If she says the person isn't suitable then that's it.

She asked for feedback and they said it would be too steep a learning curve.

Unfortunately and somewhat bizarrely OP has interpreted this to mean the role would be too difficult for anyone, rather than as it must have been intended I.e. that it it was too difficult a role for her and therefore she is not suitable.

I really don’t see what is so odd. They didn’t find the candidate they were looking for so have re advertised in the hope that they receive more CVs next round

telling you you’re the preferred candidate isn’t ideal though

They honestly, push to shove could have found there as a dealbreaker in why they didn’t want you eg we really need her to be better at (a certain skill that they just felt/ you said you didn’t have). Years ago in another job we saw a list of why they didn’t hire people and it was kind melting- some money, some doesn’t seem like he’d react well under extreme pressure, personality wise definitely not a match etc. Nothing you can do if they actually told you it was a no

As a recruiter my hunch is that there was some misalignment among the hiring stakeholders and you should not have been told you were the preferred candidate as they didn’t all agree. This is terrible but I have seen it happen.
So they either offered someone else who didn’t accept or they couldn’t agree to offer anyone and are now re advertising.
The less likely option is that someone started and then left very soon, given the short timescale, but I have absolutely seen that happen too.

OP it's not odd.

You were their preferred candidate out of those who applied.
After meeting you twice they decided that the role would be too steep a learning curve for you, so they did t offer it to you.
instead They decided to re-advertise the role to hopefully find someone with more relevant skills/ experience this second time around .

They were still advertising for at least 2 months afterwards. There was just something about me they didn’t like, not skills and experience so something intangible. I’m really intrigued to know why but have tried to not take it personally

Probably, while technically solid and able, not a cultural fit for the current team and/or company. There are people who you know would be brilliant at the role but likely won’t fit well in the current team due to personality, working style etc. That in no way means a ‘bad’ personality or working style, just not a fit. If team cohesion is important, things like this are factored in.

No, I don’t know whether they actually offered it to someone else. All I know is they told me I was the preferred candidate in the informal follow-up, then after two weeks of silence, said it was a “steep learning curve” and a no, and now the role is being re-advertised exactly as before. So either the person they preferred over me declined or something fell through. Either way, it’s still odd how quickly it’s back up

I don’t think it’s a mystery. There were candidates, of which you were the preferred candidate. However, even as the preferred candidate they decided your skill set was not a required match right at this point in time, so you would not be hired. I can’t imagine anyone else actually being offered the role as it sounds like others were even below the skill-set you have.

I would think they then spent a bit of time thinking about the role, whether it should be recouped, feasibility of someone actually existing with the skill set they want, reconsidering whether the $$ being offered is really a match for what they are looking for etc. I would think the upshot is they have decided to cast the net again as they feel there is a chance of a fit. If they don’t get anyone this time either they’ll have to either specifically headhunt, or look to rework the role/reorg current positions to create something more feasible for matches recruitment or what not.

I don’t think this is odd, not uncommon in my experience. The only odd thing is telling you that you were the preferred candidate, which again, you would have been, before fully assessing that even as the preferred candidate you were not a fit, as that is unprofessional.

How have they behaved? They are not doing anything wrong we are all grown ups they have specific requirements and are looking for those

I had a very similar experience when I was job hunting about 4 months ago.

Same role and industry I’ve been working in for 15 years +, I could do it blindfolded basically. There would only be a handful of people in my city as qualified for this job as me.

Two interviews went quite well I thought, but then the recruiter contacted me to say they weren’t going to progress me.

They were still advertising for at least 2 months afterwards. There was just something about me they didn’t like, not skills and experience so something intangible. I’m really intrigued to know why but have tried to not take it personally.

Plus I soon after got a fab new job on more money so that helps.

They didn't find a suitable candidate first time round so re-advertised.

That’s a bullet dodged, OP, if that’s how they behave. I’m sorry. The same thing happened to me - I was flown out for an interview and basically love-bombed, and then didn’t get the job. They’re still looking - and it hurt, but now I’m very glad I didn’t move across the country for a job where they’d treat people like that.
something better (with better communication and more professional) will come along.