To be annoyed they rejected me just 20 minutes after my interview

[Thehappyscientist]

I applied for a (highly specialised) job. I felt I did well in the interview and they asked me lots of additional questions and spent half an hour just discussing personal things and asking me lots of questions relating to how I would fit within the company.

But just 20 minutes later (yes 20 minutes) they called to say I didn't have enough direct experience of the role and they noticed I'd also applied for a different role(same pay and qualification) in the company. They felt I interviewed very well and my experience matched that job much more and asked had I received the job interview invite as the manager mentioned he had shortlisted me for that position. When I explained I'd not received the invite she said no one had turned up so maybe there had been a problem with the letters being sent out. She said she would give that information to the manager and he will contact me to arrange a meeting.

I understand not being successful but surely there's some kind of etiquette about the time you can reject an applicant? 20 mins after interviewing just makes me feel they never even considered me and seems a bit rude. And yet they seemed so interested. I've never even heard back the same day never mind 20 mins after interview.

I'm not going to dwell on it but AIBU to think this was rude and shows they never even gave me a proper chance to be considered?

Thanks everyone. No way was I considered properly.
But not much I can do now. I will apply for the other position.

I rarely hear back from unsuccessful interviews so I'd be delighted to know so fast. Easier to move on.

I think that's a bit off, too. I wouldn't reject a candidate so quickly but our processes don't move that fast anyway. We generally tell the successful person as soon as we've decided, but we don't decide that fast - part of our processes designed to weed out unconscious bias recommend waiting a day and rechecking day our thoughts. Not a huge long job, just short if checking in with ourselves to be certain we've been careful. Then we'd tell them, wait for acceptance then we'd have HR reject the other applicants - could be several days, and we always offer feedback as soon as we're asked (so do ask!).

I think it's too soon to say no - you sound like a reasonable fit, we'd want to know if the other person accepted first before rejecting you.

Dh has been known to cut interviews short if it becomes clear that they are not suitable for a role (he is incredibly busy). But it sounds like they like you and hopefully something will come of the other role.

Sounds the other role is a good fit for you and you have a good chance of that. I've had rejections from 2 jobs but then they actually created a new position for me because they really felt they could use me. And in another case I didn't get the job I went for but when they rejected me they offered me a similar job (unfortunately in a less desirable location so I declined).

If you don't hear anything from the other role today then I'd give them a call tomorrow and explain what you were told. What have you got to lose?

As someone who sometimes helps with recruiting, I know we sometimes reject people because they aren't quite the right fit, but then keep that person in mind for jobs we know are likely to come up in the future.

It's disappointing but you do seem rather negative in outlook and I wonder if that comes through on interview (you mentioned you often get rejected at interview stage). Whilst pragmatism and realism is good, if someone seems on a permanent downer, as a recruiter you do wonder what impact that might have on the rest of your team.

Alternatively, they might have realised that you were such a good fit for the other role that they wanted the other department to be able to act as quickly as possible.

Maybe i'm naive but i'd have taken it very positively- that although there were better candidates for the first job, i obviously interviewed really well and was a clear candidate for the other job so they wanted me to know asap that i was getting an interview for that (especially as there was some f-up with the interview invites going out)

If you were utter balls you'd have just got a generic "no thanks" in the post

My friend was turned down for a junior role immediately after interview. They suggested he might be interested in a more senior role and asked him to apply. He got it.

Also, if someone invites you for interview and doesn't give you a proper rejection they're recruiting wrong. It's rude and disrespectful of your time not to at least thank you for coming in and let you know, and I would seriously side eye any employer that does that.

Wow, Otherpeoplesteens Did they pay back your travel expenses? I think I would have made a bit of a fuss in your shoes. A bit of a chat indeed!

I thought it was standard to hear almost right away and much kinder to the candidate!

They moved quickly to let you know that whilst you're not right for the role you interviewed for, they see you as a potentially good fit for the other role and their company overall. That's a positive outcome and reflects that they did consider you properly.

If they thought you were unsuited to the company you probably wouldn't have heard anything back until later or tomorrow and would have got a more standard rejection. They liked you enough to check your candidacy internally with the other hiring manager.

You should be pleased not pissed off!

Did they hell, WhiteRose. Problem about making a fuss is that in that industry a few individual headhunters wield a lot of influence. This was a £100k plus post too, so it's safe for them to assume I could afford the expenses or pass them to my current employer.

20 minutes or 24 hours rejected is still rejected.

When I interview or assess candidates we have a very strict scoring system and will know pretty much if you are successful or not once we get to the half way point.

It doesn't take that long to tot up scores so I'd not be bothered about the 20 minutes at all. I'd be pleased they wanted to discuss the other role and had gone to the trouble of discussion with the other hiring manager.

From what you have posted they don't seem to have done anything wrong and have actually gone above and beyond the necessary. You agree you were the least experienced. Now move on.

I know what you mean, OP; it feels a bit peremptory to be 'rejected' so fast. But if it's a very technically specific job then presumably it's easy for them to accept or reject based on some very specific criteria, which would make it an easy decision.

Also, if they knew about the other job and could see that you'd be a good match for that, maybe they wanted to alert you to it asap so you could apply? Especially as it seems as though someone has buggered up the invites and presumably time is now of the essence for recruiting for that one.

I don't understand when you say 'I will apply for the other position.' –I thought you said you had?

Anyway, I hope you get an interview and a job offer for that one!

Thanks everyone. No way was I considered properly

Except that your posts before say the exact opposite. You sound really entitled op and that's not very attractive in a candidate.

I'd rather know the outcome ASAP.

I once had to wait nearly TWO WEEKS for a stupid admin job ffs!

I think you are feeling annoyed about this as the level of preparation and effort and tension that went into your getting ready for this interview doesn't seem to correlate with the company taking 20 minutes to reject you.

But don't be downhearted, as they HAVE considered you - it's just that it's for a different job.

That's the great takeaway from all this. You are still in with a chance at a job. Much better than watching and waiting for the phone to ring to get the bad news about the first job.

They weren't rude, they took time to draw you out in the interview which is what you do when you want to give someone the very best chance to show what they can do, they liked you but recognised you weren't the best candidate for that role and so they gave you a prompt answer and explanation and a suggestion for where you might best fit within the company. They even offered to help you get another chance by speaking with the other recruiting manager.

If you have robust selection criteria you don't need to spend hours agonising over every candidate and you can be prompt with letting people know. It doesn't mean anything negative at all.

I've never done any interviewing myself, but I read a guide to interviewing that said you should make a decision about the candidate straight after the interview.

YABU it's very often obvious quickly if the person is the one or not. There is nothing polite about extending an already agonising wait.

it is unusually quick. As they will need to contact the sucessful candidate first to be sure they wish to accept, so that means they have made the decision and spoken to the person who got the job and then you in just 20 mins.

However it sounds like you may still have an opportunity for the other role.

TBH I'd rather hear back after 20 minutes than have to wait several months for an answer, which recently happened to DH after a really promising interview. Turned out they did originally want him but company had made a load of redundancies so it complicated things and he didn't get the job. But it was so horrible waiting for such a long time as the job would have involved moving abroad and it was just awful having the uncertainty of not knowing where our family would be living in 6 months time! So I find it hard to sympathise with your 20 minute rejection

I'd rather know 20 minutes later than 2 weeks later as has happened to me before!

You may well have been the last one to be interviewed and if you're the only one without experience you're going to be bottom of the list. So maybe they rang top of the list person straight after you, they accepted and then they rang other people to let them down.

Yes I was last to be interviewed and had the least experience. There were 3 positions going. They only interviewed 5 though!