to think this is shoddy after a job interview?

[LindorDoubleChoc]

Had job interview early last week, after a preliminary phone interview. I was there being interviewed by two people for nearly 2 hours and had to complete some written tasks (like a simple test).

When I left the woman who interviewed me said they would let people know by the end of the week or possibly Monday. I asked how many they were seeing and she replied "4".

So I haven't heard anything and just feel in my bones that I'm not going to by the end of today. If I don't, AIBU to think this is an absolutely unacceptable way to treat the unsuccessful candidates, given that there were such a small number?

I WAS sad at the thought of not getting the job, now I feel I'd sooner not work for a business that is so ... rude? is that the word?

Now that's just ridiculous. Someone else could've contacted her in that time. Many people would've taken another job by that time and the company would have to do the whole recruitment process again

DH has recently been offered a new job. He was one of the last 2 still in running for it and after a 9.30am second interview he was told that they would make their decision that day. By lunchtime he hadn't heard anything and assumed he hadn't got it but that they were waiting for the other candidate to accept before they contacted him. They then emailed at 2pm asking if they could do a Teams call at 4.30. Having been offered it, he asked to sleep on it as it's going to be a massive upheaval for us as a family and then called back the following morning to accept the job.

For teaching interviews you only ever used to get a call if you got the job & they never bothered to call if you didn’t get the job.

Sometimes they offer a job & wait to hear yes or no before they let the other candidates know. That gives them chance to still recruit from that field.

The important point is that they haven't told you that they're not offering you the job.

I went for a job interview a couple of years ago, hadn’t heard anything after a week so rang to check, was told by the recruitment company ‘If you haven’t heard anything after 2 weeks it means you didn’t get the job’

Just bloody rude IMO, in this days and age how much effort does it take to send a blanket email to interviewees saying thank but no thanks!

4 people in total, just 4. It would take less than two minutes to write a suitable "thanks but no thanks" email. I reckon I could do it in 60 seconds.

But there's a hundred things that need to be done before that! They haven't decided who to send those emails to yet. You're being absolutely ridiculous here. It still hasn't reached the end of their deadline, so they still haven't actually done anything wrong.

I'm not being ridiculous because I said in my op "IF I don't hear by the end of today aibu ..."

You are being ridiculous because you are complaining about something that hasn't actually happened. You said "I WAS sad at the thought of not getting the job, now I feel I'd sooner not work for a business that is so ... rude". They haven't been rude yet. They might never be.

But you started a thread about it at lunchtime, so you're obviously already seething about it, and have assumed you're going to hear nothing back.

No news is good news

take a chill pill. Go for a walk. Distract yourself

It’s not just offering someone the job, they need to have someone formally accept the position. If their first choice declines, and that does happen, then the job may be offered to their second choice.

It’s not right but it’s pretty standard.

I was job hunting last year and I probably didn’t hear back more than I did. It’s rude but seems to be the norm.

I interviewed three people last week and hoped to get back to them by the end of the week however I have offered it to our first choice and am waiting for them to send references and accept the position which is also dependent on their visa. There is a lot involved in recruiting someone. If the first choice says no or can’t get their affairs in order there is a second choice who is also suitable so I am reticent to turn them down yet - equally if the second choice person is offered it I could hope they would start feeling positive and this might not be the case if they knew they were second choice.
That’s why we say we ‘hope’ to get back to people by …….
It’s horrible when the power is all on the recruiters side but if as you say you are ‘over’ this company then please do as someone says above and take back the power and tell them you are no longer interested. An interview should be a two way process and if there were things you didn’t like about them then it’s not for you.

God, if only recruiting was as simple as interviewing four candidates and then sending four emails! Where I am I have to get approval from HR, have a conversation with them and with the budget holder about the salary I can offer, and then get sign off further up the chain. If the person I offer to wants to think about it overnight, they can, and in the meantime I won’t contact unsuccessful candidates in case the first choice person doesn’t accept, and I can then offer it to the second ranked person. If the first choice candidate negotiates on salary or conditions, that can take a couple of days to resolve up and down the line. So while I might make a decision on who is the top candidate within a day of interviewing them, being in a position to make an offer can take a bit longer, and being sure the other candidates are unsuccessful and communicating that to them can take even longer than that.

Maybe they have offered it to another candidate but they haven't accepted yet. Maybe they have given them a deadline to confirm whether they accept or not. If they weren't possibly going to contact people til Monday maybe this is what is currently happening - they have spoken to someone today, they have asked for time to consider it, and they don't want to ring others yet to say no in case the first choice says no.

I hope for their sake they've gone with someone who can listen to and take constructive feedback.

Why wouldn't you have sorted a salary offer before interviewing people? Surely you would have to tell the job seeker such a thing. And approval for what?

Isn't it the case most companies might advertise a pay scale or point, with the general belief the candidate will start at the lower end. If you get a candidate who asks to start at the top of the scale then that might need to be checked.

I was once on a panel where we said something similar, we were planning to discuss and agree at the end of the day (Friday) but we’re all really tired so put in a diary appointment for first thing Monday, one of the panel then got unwell during the weekend and we had to wait a week for her to come back. I did feel bad for the interviewees, also because our first choice undoubtedly probably assumed they were our fourth choice but the reality is some things are outside your control.

This is normal and if they’ve offered the job to someone they will need to make sure the offer has been accepted before going back to other candidates to tell them they’re not successful on this occasion. As others have said, this job won’t be their only priority and there’s a whole process

We have pay scales, and the appropriate one is advertised to potential candidates in the job ad. I can sometimes argue that a particular candidate should be appointed part way up the pay scale if they offer skills and experience that warrants it. But it needs to be approved by HR and further up the organisation so I’m not just appointing my mates on inflated rates. In the public sector we are accountable for every penny of tax payers’ money, and quite rightly so. Unless you are the sole proprietor of a business I can’t imagine that a hiring decision which costs more than anticipated could be made by one person in isolation. Surely there are checks and balances in private companies too?

I think your organisation is very different indeed to the small business I was interviewing for @UpTheWomen. There isn't an HR department. I was interviewed by the owner of the company and one other. I was told the salary during the interview. Etc.

Maybe one of the panellists is ill today or they are so busy with a business emergency they haven’t had time to discuss it any further. Maybe it’s harder to choose between 2 of the candidates. They wanted to “sleep on it”, discuss it further between themselves or speak and discuss with other employees. Also as someone who has recruited you wait for 1st choice to accept before letting the others know they are not successful so maybe waiting on that.

I've recruited. The first thing is to decide which candidates are "appointable" and which are not.
Let's assume you are appointable.

Once, we had 3 appointable candidates. The first 2 turned us down, which took time. No 3 was a great fit for the role. Maybe you're No 3.

Another time we couldn't decide between 2 candidates. In the end we interviewed them both again. Which also took time, and it was still a difficult choice.

Good luck with your job search.

Many companies employ on a set rate. Often NMW.