Job rejection - what am I doing wrong?

[doskant]

For the third time in a row I have been enthusiastically told I was “perfect” and “one of the top” applicants for a role by an HR rep only to miss out.

The first was a role I was headhunted for via LinkedIn on the basis of my published background and indeed would have been perfect for. They told me I was their first choice and asked me to apply (despite not advertising externally). Called a week or so later after I applied to say I had missed out. Someone in-house (and apparently hopeless so didn’t last long) was appointed. The talent acquisition person sounded befuddled and apologetic herself.

Then there was another time I applied for a “chief” role. They interviewed three people and I missed out. They then completely invented a deputy role out of the blue that had never previously existed and told me I had been successful in being appointed to that role (that hadn’t even been advertised), telling me the chief role had been given to the better applicant. Confused, I gave them the benefit of the doubt and took it only to discover the chief was mostly absent and totally useless when she was there so I carried her the whole time. Like the previous example I discovered her experience, skills and qualification was far removed from mine.

And just now, after being told again I was a “rare talent” and almost offered the job then and there they are now telling me I’ve missed out again.

WTF is going on? Bad juju?!

Can you press them for some more specific feedback - to say you've had a couple of interviews now where you've had excellent feedback but narrowly missed out to someone else and you would greatly appreciate any feedback that they could provide to help you in your search for a new challenge, etc.

I've had similar but when really pressed they did come back with feedback as to what specifically had swung them towards the other candidate.

It's a shame about the first one - I would somewhat write that one off as just being a case of them assuming an internal candidate had the edge with internal connections and knowledge (obviously incorrectly).

Another thread on interviews just reminded me of another thing. When I eventually quit the second job (deputy) the chief struggled as she was so incompetent. No surprises there. So she and another employee were in touch asking me for help in getting her job done. I stupidly obliged and gave her a heap of invaluable knowledge. Though she quit soon after anyway as she simply couldn’t do the job. During this time they kept asking me to come back and continue in the deputy role alongside her and got shitty when I gracefully declined!

@wheresmymojo I pressed in the first two examples and they insisted several times they had a better applicant. I’m honestly not being an arse when I say... they were not better applicants!

I agree with pp you need to be specific with the recruiter that you are actively seeking constructive feedback. Unless someone really screws up, once you get to senior levels the feedback mostly just talks about 'relevant experience' etc, which is often not entirely true but easy to say. In reality it often comes down to something like one candidate being more confidence-inspiring or energetic, for example, and people chicken out of giving that feedback, and many candidates don't want to hear it anyway.

I shouldn’t let it get to me but this last one was a bit of a dream job for me. I really am perfect for it and it won’t come around again any time soon

If they took you on as deputy then I suspect something about you gives them the impression that your experience and capability are great but you aren't the right fit for leadership. This could be your communication style, or how you discuss strategy / budgeting / management or other senior skills. As PP suggested it's worth pushing for feedback, even prompt them e.g. "I've got close but missed out on a couple of senior roles that I'm interested in and hoping that you can guide me in where I need to improve fitting the interview process e.g. Communication style, strategic planning ideas etc. Do you go through recruitment agents? They can be useful for getting feedback that an interviewer might not give you directly.

@MRex Thanks, I have been thinking about using a recruitment agent as I've always gone it alone. Will definitely try that.

In the second case I did push and push and the interviewer just got annoyed and kept insisting the other applicant had more experience. I looked her up on LinkedIn and she absolutely did not. Not even a fraction of mine. I thought maybe it was incomplete and didn't show everything yet working with her she couldn't even do the basics. In terms of leadership skills she had none. I had to take the lead in everything and she got the credit. This was obvious to everyone, even her. I don't want to give too many details, but imagine if the job was for an architect and I had been a qualified architect for 15 years and she was a marketing officer yet she got the role. It's that extreme.

In the second example she really shouldn't have needed a deputy anyway. There actually wasn't enough work for two. There was only the chief role initially and I could have done that alone easily. I did almost all the work as the deputy because she did very little in the few moments she was there. And there were no hidden parts of the job that took up her time either. I knew everything that was going on. It's almost like they created the deputy job so I could work behind the scenes and enable her to just front up and put her name on things. Still unsure why.

It does sound odd. Recruiters should be able to help give you some more insight.

I think unfortunately recruiters and HR throw around phrases like 'first choice' and 'rare talent' very easily and will often say that to multiple people. I assumed it was so that people believe they missed out very narrowly and would stay loyal to a recruiter rather than use another one because of feeling the recruiter didn't give them enough info or prepare them well enough for what the company wanted.
Hope something works out for you soon.

You're making a big assumption here: you're assuming that they're looking for the most competent person for the job and recruiting on the basis of ability and experience. That's not always the case.

What are the politics like at that organisation? It strikes me that you'd get more illuminating answers from the office gossip than the head of HR. Maybe the role is 'under review' and they're planning a big restructure and asset-strip so don't want anyone too good at the job. Maybe the successful applicant is an internal one and you were there just to make up the numbers, Boris Johnson-style. Maybe she's sleeping with the boss.

Whatever the truth is, not all companies are happy to give meaningful feedback. I've had some contradictory nonsense as feedback in my time. It's always wise to bear in mind that though a job may look great for you on paper, in practice it can be anything but. And conversely, the right job can turn up in unexpected places. Maybe you need to keep an open mind. Good luck.

Did they ask you to interview so that they could say that they advertised the job externally when in reality they wanted the internal candidate?

Often experience of an organisation or change trumps skills and experience required for a role. This definitely applies for all roles within finance here chief roles are often given to former project or programme management professionals regardless of the function.