job interviews but no one appointed to the role. Why?

[jibadeah]

So all the people who met the essential criteria are interviewed.

This includes a number people (including me and 2 colleagues) who have working in an identical role for several years. Our feedback from the interview was ok, none of us are given a glaringly obvious reason why we weren't offered the job, we are just given the impression someone interviewed better. Fair enough.

But no one is appointed and the job is readvertised.

Why would this happen?

They obviously didn't think any of the candidates were up to the job, even if they did meet the essential criteria on paper. Awkward with internal candidates, but I've had to re-advertise on several occasions in this situation. Getting the right person is so very, very important!

Sorry, just seen you are doing an identical role right now. Identical to the one advertised? If so, why would you apply? More hours?

No it's not internal, a different company but doing the exact same role. The job is more secure and has better T&C.

Oh I see, that makes more sense. Difficult to say without knowing the specific job role, but perhaps their expectations of the role are a bit different? They obviously didn't find whatever it was that they were looking for.

Hope you find something soon!

Could there be a no staff poaching agreement between the two companies that they might be seen to be breaching?

There'll be someone on the panel going, "I don't know what I want exactly, I just wanted something... different."

While their colleagues get increasingly frustrated about the empty post and everyone being overworked.

Perhaps the preferred candidate turned down the role. When you say you weren't given a glaringly obvious reason for not getting the job, did they write to you afterwards, or speak to you? If not the latter, then you could ring them up and ask for more specific feedback. If the company feels that none of the candidates quite matched what they were looking for, it is absolutely appropriate for them to readvertise the vacancy, rather than offer the position to the best interviewed candidate. Another consideration is whether any changes have been made to the job and the advert. Perhaps their requirements have altered in some way.

Employing someone new is often as much about finding the person who will fit into your team as it is about qualifications and experience.

I recently (6 months ago) interviewed for a new position in my team. All 5 of the people we interviewed were experienced and qualified. Yet by the end of the interviews we had a firm favourite, a second choice and were agreed that none of the others were suitable. In fact, the young man we employed was the least qualified and experienced of the lot, and our second choice was also just starting out in their career. Yet these two 'fit' in a way the others didn't. If both of them rejected the job offer we would have had to re advertise.

There's a bit of alchemy in employing new staff. There's nothing worse than employing a new team member who has all the skills and qualifications but, 6 months down the track, has proved them self to be a lazy, misogynistic, entitled arselicker with a propensity for tantrums. Or even worse someone who is so passive they need to be hand held every moment of the day.

Not that I'm implying you are like that OP, I have just suffered from the poor recruitment decisions of others in the past.

I was once in a position where my application was turned down, and the job was re-advertised. I have sent an email saying that as the position is still vacant, is it possible to re-consider my application? I offered to explore the perceived weakness that was identified during the first interview.

I was subsequently invited for a second interview, and offered a job, that lasted 7 years until I outgrew the role.

It is possible that I haven't presented myself well enough on the first interview and that their concerns were resolved to their satisfaction later. Or perhaps they were looking for somebody different but failed to attract them with what they offered.

Surely the answer is because they are fussy, and didn't find anyone who quite matched their needs?

Not really seeing the issue here.....

It's frustrating for you, and they should be prepared to give you feedback. Not enough experience of X, or you are too experienced for the role and won't stay, or ...

From your recollection of the interview, was there anything you felt you didn't match up to? What did they keep probing?

Maybe they realised their job spec didn't match what they really needed, and this only became apparent when they interviewed the candidates.

I was interviewed for a role with a lot of responsibility. I had 4.5yrs of experience of similar roles but I was only mid 20s. I felt the interview went well but a few weeks went by without hearing. They finally sent me a letter saying thank you but no. Then the job was readvertised, exactly the same advert but stating "5 years experience" (this was before age discrmination rules).

I think they had reservations about my age considering I would have been heading up a large team, but must have been umming and arring.

The thing is, an interview is to get a feel of (not literally!) a potential colleague - if this didn't matter we wouldn't have interviews and would just be appointed on the strength of our applications. As well as skills and experience, they will be looking for a "fit". Maybe they thought you were too quiet or loud, or might not be assertive enough, or too assertive or whatever.

I remember interviewing someone once who just wouldn't make eye contact - on paper they were great but as a large part of the job involved interaction they didn't give us confidence that they could actually do the job.