HR/Recruitment People...what does this mean when you readvertise jobs?!

[campino]

Best friend works in a very specialist IT role. Finding a new job can be tricky as vacancies are few and far between, as are suitably qualified/experienced people. Finally the perfect vacancy has come up in central London and she's been offered an interview. HR have informed her that the vacancy is to be readvertised, with her interview date rescheduled to a couple of months away when the re-advertised post closes.

Having a bit of a debate... I personally think this is a good sign potentially indicating that competition for the post is minimal and she is likely to stand a good chance. Friend thinks it's likely that whilst she has got an interview, her application was considered weak, hence the readvertising for a better pool of candidates.

Opinions please?!

I would go with you only if her interview had remained unchanged. Unfortunately because they also changed her interview it does sound like they are trying to get a better candidate. She shouldn't let it put her off though, if she Already has an interview date she has a good chance as anyone else who gets an interview.

Could be any number of reasons

• post holder has asked to stay on a while longer
• salary budget has been cut, cost saving
• project/tech delay
• few applicants
• shouldn't have been advertised yet
• change of manager/structure

Ive just done this and it was because there was only one suitable person to interview from 30+ applications...it doesnt mean that person might not be perfect for the role but you need at least 3 good candidates to have a someone to judge against.

To be fair ive only extended the advert for two weeks not two months...thats a bit :/

We have a policy that we can only appoint with a minimum of three candidates to choose from. Could be similar here. Even if we have one strong candidate we can't only interview them.

We are the same as pp. I work in IT and we need a minimum of 5 strong candidates before interviewing. By strong that means all essential criteria met

Thanks everyone!

I've often wondered, when they say "previous candidates need not apply" does it mean they've got you in the pool as if you applied already.
Or does it mean "you were all crap and we don't want an application from you"?

Sounds like she isn't what they're looking for, but comes close enough that a modified job offer might be made if they don't get better applicant. Best not to get too hung up about this one and to keep applying.

If I we say previous applicants need not apply it does unfortunately mean we thought the previous applicants were crap.
I would worry a bit in your friends position that they might have someone internal lined up and ate ticking boxes by readvertising.

Yes they've confirmed that her application has been 'carried over' so she will be interviewed when the readvertised post closes, along with the other succcesful candidates shortlisted from the new batch.

The post already went internal and was not filled.

Thanks gamer I've always wondered

My previous IT job - they didn't interview me for it when it was first up, but some weeks later, it was readvertised with a slightly lower spec, as they had failed to get enough applicants, and I was then interviewed and got it.

We've currently got a senior tech vacancy, and we're not getting many suitable applicants. IMO, this is because the requirements are excessive - yes you want good candidates, but I'd be surprised if someone who has expertise in all the required skills (let alone the desirable ones as well) actually exists. So I won't be surprised if we have to lower expectations and readvertise.

I just send them helpful links to articles about how tech companies alienate women.