Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

92 replies

CompetentChaos · 14/11/2025 19:43

For context, last month I was told I was the preferred candidate for this exact role, invited for an informal follow-up chat… then heard nothing for two weeks until I chased and only then was told it was a no. And now the role has been re-advertised. Not even a different version of it - same job, same salary, same fixed-term end date.

I’m genuinely baffled. How has it fallen through this quickly? Did the person they offered it to reject them, ghost them or did something go wrong immediately? It just feels so strange to see it pop back up again this soon.

AIBU to be surprised?

OP posts:
dizzydizzydizzy · 15/11/2025 02:31

CheeseWisely · 14/11/2025 19:45

In the past I’ve had an employee stay for about 3 weeks before deciding it wasn’t for her and leaving without notice. I did the sensible thing though and contacted my second choice to see if she was still looking, which happily she was and has now been with us coming up 2 years.

We had own who stayed only 1 day.

Thatweegirl · 14/11/2025 22:50

I really don't understand why you are baffled. The job has been advertised as before because it is not the job that is the problem. The problem is that they think that the role is too much of as steep learning curve for you. So they are re-advertising to find someone who can to the job. They clearly were not convinced that you can do the job effectively off the bat.

I am sorry to be so blunt OP, it has happened to me before too. And it does sting to know that they would rather not appoint than appoint you. But honestly I feel like we all have to be blunt to help you understand what has happened here, as it is very strange that you don't.

WonderlandWasAllAHoax · 14/11/2025 22:35

It seems pretty straightforward to me.

You interviewed well but you don’t have the skills required to hit the ground running, and neither did anyone else, so they’re having to re-advertise - it’s incredibly common.

user593 · 14/11/2025 22:24

This happened to me once. It turned out some experience which was deemed ‘preferable’ in the job description and which I didn’t have suddenly became essential but they relisted the job description without amending it. It was very annoying at the time as they’d basically assured me the job was mine and then left me hanging for two weeks before changing their mind. That said, I considered it a lucky escape in the end.

PollyBell · 14/11/2025 22:20

This happens all the time there is nothing dramatic about it they just want to see other people

Isittimeformynapyet · 14/11/2025 22:19

CompetentChaos · 14/11/2025 22:00

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.

Show quote history

Did you keep repeating yourself during the informal follow-up? Could that have put them off?

TheCryingTheBitchAndTheFloordrobe · 14/11/2025 22:18

This isn’t odd or baffling at all though, it’s really commonplace.

They liked you but thought you weren’t quite up to scratch skills/experience wise.
They didn’t find anyone to fill the role.
They readvertised the position.

This happens really often. Sometimes (but not always) there will be a clause in the ad to say previous applicants need not reapply.

Overthebow · 14/11/2025 22:05

CompetentChaos · 14/11/2025 22:00

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.

Show quote history

Or they didn’t want any candidate as they said it would have been a steep learning curve for you and so it was a no for you, and now they have re-advertised to try and find other candidates.

proximalhumerous · 14/11/2025 22:02

CompetentChaos · 14/11/2025 20:02

Yeah my friends said the same thing at the time - that telling me I was the preferred candidate was unprofessional because it created an expectation they can’t guarantee. After the informal chat (which they invited me for immediately after the interview to attend the next working day), when I chased them after 2 weeks, they told me they had been really impressed with my application, interview and written task but felt the role would be a “steep learning curve” so they “weren’t going to offer it at that time.” That was the full explanation.

What’s baffling is that this was only a few weeks ago and now the exact same job is back up again with no changes to the description or requirements. If the role was such a stretch, I’m not sure how it’s suddenly not or why they didn’t just reach back out before re-advertising. I’m not expecting anything from them but it does all feel a bit odd, and I agree it says something about how they operate.

Show quote history

It was a stretch for you - at least that was their assessment. The advert wasn't directed at you, so not sure why it is so baffling that they re-advertised.

Original poster
CompetentChaos · 14/11/2025 22:00

UnintentionalArcher · 14/11/2025 21:54

@CompetentChaos Do you know if it was definitely offered to someone from the first round of recruitment? If you were their preferred candidate but they decided against you for some reason then it would make sense that others were less suitable and they re-advertised.

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.

OP posts:
UnintentionalArcher · 14/11/2025 21:54

@CompetentChaos Do you know if it was definitely offered to someone from the first round of recruitment? If you were their preferred candidate but they decided against you for some reason then it would make sense that others were less suitable and they re-advertised.

Original poster
CompetentChaos · 14/11/2025 21:49

Thepossibility · 14/11/2025 21:44

Are you certain your references are solid and positive?

Yes, my references are solid and positive. I’ve never had any issues with references in previous roles and I’ve always moved on with strong feedback and good relationships.

Given how the process unfolded - being explicitly told I was the preferred candidate, then an informal chat, then two weeks of silence until I chased, I don’t think it was a reference issue. It feels much more like something changed internally or they were simply indecisive.

Either way, I’m not losing sleep over it. I’ve moved on to other applications.

OP posts:
Thepossibility · 14/11/2025 21:44

Are you certain your references are solid and positive?

DappledThings · 14/11/2025 21:41

coxesorangepippin · 14/11/2025 21:33

They obviously hired the wrong person, who hadn't worked out.

They're throwing the net out again to see who's out there.

It's shit op, it really is.

Seems far more obvious they didn't hire anyone at all and are trying a second round of recruitment rather than someone being hired and not working out that quickly. It's really not an unusual situation.

Zempy · 14/11/2025 21:39

I would think they hadn’t recruited anyone so had to re advertise. Happens regularly in my sector (legal)

coxesorangepippin · 14/11/2025 21:33

They obviously hired the wrong person, who hadn't worked out.

They're throwing the net out again to see who's out there.

It's shit op, it really is.

vincettenoir · 14/11/2025 21:29

In this instance I would ask for feedback. It might help you in your search to find out more.

RoseAlone · 14/11/2025 21:24

It sounds like you did fine at the interview but the informal chat told them that you weren't a good fit for the team, or your references were iffy. My bet is that although were fine at answering the questions about what you would do in such and such a situation or about the actual job, personality wise, they didn't think you'd work out. It happens. Something else will come along.

CarefulN0w · 14/11/2025 21:23

It sounds tough OP, but I do think that “a steep learning curve” meant you didn’t have the skills and experience they wanted, so they have gone back out to advert.

What I would say is that if they took the trouble to invite you back for a second chat, you weren’t far away from what they wanted. Can you continue to develop and build your CV for the next opportunity?

ForCraftyWriter · 14/11/2025 21:21

CompetentChaos · 14/11/2025 20:02

Yeah my friends said the same thing at the time - that telling me I was the preferred candidate was unprofessional because it created an expectation they can’t guarantee. After the informal chat (which they invited me for immediately after the interview to attend the next working day), when I chased them after 2 weeks, they told me they had been really impressed with my application, interview and written task but felt the role would be a “steep learning curve” so they “weren’t going to offer it at that time.” That was the full explanation.

What’s baffling is that this was only a few weeks ago and now the exact same job is back up again with no changes to the description or requirements. If the role was such a stretch, I’m not sure how it’s suddenly not or why they didn’t just reach back out before re-advertising. I’m not expecting anything from them but it does all feel a bit odd, and I agree it says something about how they operate.

Show quote history

Surely they thought you were the ideal candidate, but you turned out to be not what they wanted. Then they were left with no one so they’ve readvertised. Or they offered the job to someone else after interview, and they declined the offer so readvertised.

medievalpenny · 14/11/2025 21:17

What’s baffling is that this was only a few weeks ago and now the exact same job is back up again with no changes to the description or requirements. If the role was such a stretch, I’m not sure how it’s suddenly not or why they didn’t just reach back out before re-advertising.

I think you've misunderstood them. They thought the role would be too much of a stretch for you personally, not all candidates generally. That's why they haven't contacted you and that's why they're re-advertising - to find someone who can do it.

Brightbluesomething · 14/11/2025 21:04

I dont understand what’s confusing here. So you were the best out of the people who applied, so their preferred candidate. Probably not ideal to tell you but they did. After meeting you twice, they felt you didn’t have the knowledge skills or experience for the role and told you this by saying the learning curve would be too steep for you.
They then readvertised to find someone who can do the job. Perfectly standard practice.

Just because you’re disappointed doesn’t mean to say they’ve done anything wrong. I hope you find what you’re looking for elsewhere.

DappledThings · 14/11/2025 20:56

CompetentChaos · 14/11/2025 20:02

Yeah my friends said the same thing at the time - that telling me I was the preferred candidate was unprofessional because it created an expectation they can’t guarantee. After the informal chat (which they invited me for immediately after the interview to attend the next working day), when I chased them after 2 weeks, they told me they had been really impressed with my application, interview and written task but felt the role would be a “steep learning curve” so they “weren’t going to offer it at that time.” That was the full explanation.

What’s baffling is that this was only a few weeks ago and now the exact same job is back up again with no changes to the description or requirements. If the role was such a stretch, I’m not sure how it’s suddenly not or why they didn’t just reach back out before re-advertising. I’m not expecting anything from them but it does all feel a bit odd, and I agree it says something about how they operate.

Show quote history

Why is it baffling? Not managing to appoint anyone and then readvertising for a second round of applicants is pretty normal.

Original poster
CompetentChaos · 14/11/2025 20:56

MargaretThursday · 14/11/2025 20:42

Did they actually use the term "preferred candidate"?

Because I've seen the situation where someone says something like, "we enjoyed interviewing you; you'll be hearing from us by the end of the week" which is a kind of bland nicety but it's been heard as "I was the top candidate and it's a forgone conclusion that I'll be offered it."

What is said/meant isn't always what is heard.

But the extra you heard about "steep learning curve" is basically saying they want someone who has the skill set now, not that they're capable of getting it, and they're hoping to find someone who won't need the training.

Yes, they explicitly said “you are the preferred candidate.” Not a nicety, not something I inferred. It was said directly to me in the informal follow-up meeting after my interview.

OP posts:
IDontHateRainbows · 14/11/2025 20:45

I dont get what's baffling. They interviewed you, decided you weren't the one, neither was anyone else, they've gone back to advertising the role.

Perfectly commonplace.