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?

They have already decided who is going to get the job

I'm still waiting to hear back from one job interview in 2011 and one in 2015...! 😡

Another vote for it being a positive interview. The other hiring manager is obviously very keen to see you.

I was rejected the same day once - I had to spend 4 hours on the train to get there and 4 hours back, then opened the email to receive the news 10min after I got home. I was not pleased I would have liked to have at least 1 evening of hopeful anticipation!!

I get why you're cross op

YABU OP, and a bit bonkers really.

You have said:
No in hindsight I don't have the necessary experience for that role. I'm technically qualified but everyone else interviewed had done the exact role previously

And

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

So they have seen everyone else already. When I interview I schedule 15-30 mins inbetween each candidate to score with my colleagues on the panel, and we put each candidate in a ranked order. So within 15 mins after the last candidate I know exactly who I would offer the role to and who else is above the line in the event that the best candidate declines.

You admit you don't have the right experience. They did a detailed interview with you which obviously revealed that and confirmed you weren't right for the job. I think it's pretty rude to assume you weren't considered properly here.

I think rejecting someone after 20mins is thoughtless. It seems kinder to let the applicant think they're being given some consideration at least.

A colleague of mine went for an interview and had barely got back to her car before they called her to tell her she was unsuccessful - she was really upset, it felt like a real kick to the teeth after and interview that she thought had gone well. If they had waited until the end of the day it would have made her feel better.

Wouldn't it be a better use of his time to ensure that no-one totally unsuitable gets to the interview stage? Its accepted good practise that interviews should be a level playing field - which would involve all candidates being given the opportunity to answer all questions.

If it's a civil service type interview then everyone gets scored on every question as they go along. Interviewers average their marks. Person with top mark gets job, no discretion allowed - no point in making people wait really.

I've never been rejected that quickly but did once get offered a job on the spot, and they got very arsy when I didn't want to confirm within 5 min whether I wanted to relocate to the other end of the country for a job that was totally different to the one advertised. Offer was good, pressure wasn't.

I've cut short an interview as it became clear i wouldn't like working at the company, they did seem shocked though

I don't think it would be "kind" to mislead someone into thinking they have a chance when the interviewer knows immediately they are not right for the role.

You can aim to be kind in how you deliver the message. But to delay giving the news is lousy if it leaves you with false hope. Better to move on and use your energy and emotions more constructively once you know the outcome.

And how does the interviewer know this immediately? Colour of their skin? Lack of a penis? Use of wheelchair? Their weight? Breast size?

Having done lots of recruitment over the years I know that the only way to tell if someone whose suitable enough to be selected for interview is actually suitable is to listen to the responses to the questions we are asking. You can't tell at a glance.

Someone came for an interview as a health care assistant recently. Looked dirty. Greasy long unbrushed hair and stank so bad we had to spray perfume once they left. To be honest no matter how well they interviewd they wouldn't have got a job.

For my current job I had 5 interviews.

1st (by telephone) - I was told immediately I was through to the next round

2nd (face to face) - I was told immediately I was through

In between the 2nd and 3rd I was told to keep myself available for a half day for interview number 4.

3rd (face to face) - I had to go and occupy myself in the building for 15 minutes whilst the interveiwer added up my score, then I came back into the room and had my feedback and told I was through

4th (face to face) - I had feed back mid-way through the assessment and again at the end of the assessment. I was told the next day that I was through to the last round. (though I'd already guessed because of the feed-back)

5th (face to face) - a 15 minute chat with the director, and he confirmed at the end that I had the job. I was rung the next morning (it was 7pm) with the job offer.

From the interviews I have done, we know pretty much immediately if there is a fit or not. There can be some discussions but some cases are very clear cut.

Starduke it is exactly this selection for a 'face that fits' that accounts for so much discrimination in the workplace. Why not just put up a sign saying "No blacks/women/gay people/disabled need apply "?

Oh wait, that'd be illegal so better find another way.

I had something similar once. Went to a job interview and they spent half of the interview telling me about another great job in the same large dept they had going which they wanted me to agree to be considered for. (Didn't even have to apply separately.) Turns out that some one wanted to move sideways and the firm had to go trough the motions of advertising the job externally, even though the other woman was guaranteed to get it. The other job they were lining me up for was the job she was vacating! I was offered the other job and went on to work there for a couple of years. (The line manager for the original job told me some time later that he preferred me for the first job, but the head of dept had already guaranteed the other person the job already, so it was never truly available.) Maybe something similar in your case OP?

MrsSparkles
"Dh has been known to cut interviews short if it becomes clear that they are not suitable for a role (he is incredibly busy)"

I don't care how incredibly busy he is. This is so fucking rude. Does he know how demoralising the whole job searching process is?

Maybe he could one day find himself not so "busy" and find himself on the receiving end.

A few shit interviewers, non-repliers or finding out they've taken someone on before he even gets there.

See how fucking chipper he is then.

I have mutually cut an interview short with an interviewee when they realised the job didn't entail what they thought it would.

I have also found interviews are quite short with people unsuitable for the role (or with weaker candidates) as they give shorter answers and you don't develop as much rapport with them so we all talk less.

In the case of the OP, with 3 roles going. I have in the past offered 2 roles prior to seeing all candidates as I don't want to lose outstanding people and then with the weakers candidate I would then compare against the last candidate on whether either are suitable for the role. So I would definitely be able to make my mind up in about 5 minutes after finishing the last interview. If OP was not suitable for the role, it would be a definite no. If OP was a 'maybe', then I'd wait until the other candidate accepted or declined.
So I think YABU as you said you weren't a good fit for the role so why would they offer it.

I would love a rejection (well acceptance more) 20 min later. Normally I have to wait at least a week (sometimes even 3 weeks), so yes I'd love a response after 20 min.

When that happens so quickly it's because they've already given the job (in their heads, if not officially ) to another candidate. But fortunately the other job sounds better for you anyway.

@barbarian, I should have been clearer and not used "immediate". By the end of the interview it seems that the interviewer concluded that the OP was not the preferred candidate and would have been able to reach this decisions as OP was the last to be interviewed and the least qualified. Sometimes least qualified isn't in itself a deal breaker but if on balance there are other more suited applicants the interviewer should be able to make that judgment at least by the end of the interview having already had other benchmarks. My post was based on the facts OP had already shared. Not quite sure why you're bringing up a discrimination angle as it doesn't seem relevant here.

cheese I originally brought up the subject of discrimination in response to a p.p who said her husband sometimes cut interviews short if he felt a candidate wasn't right because he was very busy. Not being allowed to complete an interview whilst other candidates are, would be an excellent basis for a discrimination case (unless you revealed halfway through that you'd lied on your cv or announced you ate babies).

And yes - I did take your immediately to mean "immediately on entering the room" rather than "immediately after the interview". My bad.