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

[CompetentChaos]

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?

Sounds like either a ghost job or a company that has no idea what they are looking for.
Either way, lucky escape.

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.

I shouldn't think it has fallen through. They didn't want any of the candidates, and are now readvertising.

They may have not found the kind of candidate they wanted and decided to readvertise to see if they get more replies . Sometimes they add in to 0lease do not apply if you have already done so.

You could ask, what have you got to lose, if you don't have to see again, if it is an external role, let it go.

Sorry, should also have said, that sucks for you OP. It's never nice to be rejected. But we all are at some point, so mark this one down to experience!

Happened to me.
i thought I was a great candidate on paper.
Then they re advertised. Felt bad. Sorry.

You should not have been told you were the preferred candidate. I used to be a hiring manager and preferred candidate basically meant the person the panel wanted to offer the job to but only HR could make the offer. It would be dependent on references and any issues which needed to be negotiated with the preferred candidate, which would be a job for HR liaising with the hiring manager back and forth.
So basically the way I would read what you are saying is that something in the informal chat or the references made them change their minds and they have not had the decency to tell you that they will actually be re-advertising. But it’s odd. Shortlisting and interviews take up time, apart from anything else. I would tend to think you are probably better off looking for something else if this is how they behave.
I also think you should be able to ask for feedback.

Hiring is an art not a science. I've been on a few interview boards. I've always thought I've got it right, but sometimes, regret my choices when I have to work with them. So I imagine I've got it wrong in rejecting candidates too. What I'm trying to say is, try not to take it personally. The interviewers may not have thought you a good fit, but that could be on many grounds that have to do with the nature of the role and their ideas of what they are looking for. So ignore, try again somewhere else.

I imagine they didn’t appoint anyone.

I’d assume they didn’t hire the first time round, or the preferred candidate had a change in circumstance. Very unlikely that someone will have immediately started without notice to an existing employer and then quit immediately too.

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.

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

To me that reads like they felt it was too steep a learning curve for you so they weren't going to offer it to you. Rather than they weren't going to offer it to anyone. But don't be disheartened, people rarely get every job they apply for.

I think that’s shoddy practice, to be honest. When they went to interview the panel should have had a clear set of criteria which shortlisted candidates needed to meet, and the questions should have been designed to ascertain whether candidates could actually do the job and/or what training would be required.

Plus, if they were still not sure whether you met the criteria at interview and would be able to do the job without a steep learning curve, they should have been very clear about this in the follow-up discussion, and not called it an informal chat with you as the preferred candidate.

i mean, they could have offered you training in the time it is going to take now to shortlist and interview again. I would chalk it up to experience and move on.

I once went for a role, had lots of good feedback and murmurs that it was going to go my way. The day I went to chase for an update I saw it advertised as TWO jobs, basically one role split into two and the salary split also. That was a weird one... onwards and upwards @CompetentChaos there are better things ahead for you.

You'll find something better. Keep your head held high.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.