Question from a pissed off reader.
I have been on a number of interviews over the past year and a trend/rule has suggested itself to me.
If, during the interview, you get told that they are going to be doing multiple rounds of interviews, this is a pretty good sign you are not getting the job, especially if this news comes closer the end of the interview. Time is money, and companies don’t have enough of either to fool around with multiple rounds of interviews. Only government jobs really need to draw out the hiring process like this.
In my latest interview, I was given the ‘we are doing multiple interviews’ line and then told by HR I would be receiving a call early the following week. It’s now Thursday of the following week, and I can’t get ahold of the HR rep because she is on vacation. Her voicemail has directed me to someone else with whom I have left a voicemail, but it occurs to me that I have been thrown off once again.
This isn’t the first time this type of thing has happened to me. The next time I get the ‘multiple rounds of interviews’ line, I think am going to call the interviewer on the carpet. Seriously.
Dude, most companies conduct ‘multiple rounds of interviews’ because no single person is empowered to make a decision. We are a nation of corporate weenies. No one wants to be held accountable for hiring a shitty employee.
That being said, you probably won’t get the job. The odds are against you. That’s just math.
I would consider using Glassdoor or the You-Suck-As-An-Interviewer Automatic Letter Generator ® if you don’t get a call back from the company. Another idea? Open an anonymous Twitter account and post a review of the company and the hiring manager.
It’s about time that companies start paying attention to the candidate experience in the hiring process. Make them pay attention to your concerns, yo.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m actually hearing that companies are conducting more interviews than ever. They have the idea that there are so many good candidates out there that it’s making it even harder to decide (and as Laurie says, a lot of companies suck at making decisions to begin with).
For my last job, I had to interview with sixteen different people. SIXTEEN. I loved the job, but I’m still pissed about the process (it was run by the parent company, not the subsidiary at which I worked).
A lot of companies do this. It doesn’t necessarily mean you didn’t get the job. It just means they suck at recruiting.
You should call the hiring manager, since the HR person has clearly dropped the ball. Maybe you can get an answer there.
Ha! Lauri – did I ever tell you I love you?
I mean…not “in” love, but…”Open an anonymous Twitter account and post a review of the company and the hiring manager.”
Outstanding advice! Seriously.
Sid.
Sounds like POR (Pissed Off Reader) is getting frustrated, cranky and bitter. If he wants to get hire — anywhere — he’s gotta check attitude at the door.
Reality: it’s likely 200+ folks applied for the jobs. About 20 of those were qualified (including POF). About 3-5 were selected for interviews (including the CEO’s nephew and the HR manager’s beautician}. POF gets an interview, feels pretty special (HR does a good job of letting candidates know how lucky they are). Fact is, he’s in the competitive race of his life. Endurance matters. At the end of the day, POF has to prove that he is the best choice from the original 200 candidates (maybe we missed someone?), is personable and fun to be around, won’t shoot up the place, will show up on time and not screw things up, and, even when things get really sucky, will be able to suck it up and get ‘er done. He also has to prove that, despite the fact that he’s *not* as good as the other candidate who wants a bigger salary, he can do the job just as well.
So, yeah, it sucks. It’s difficult. It’s competitive. It should be. So, POF, check the attitude and kick butt. From here on, no more complaining about the process. It’s inconsistent, unfair, duplicitous and sucky. Dwelling on that won’t get you the job.
This reminds me of when I was in high school, I had three separate interviews when I applied to work at a well-known office product retailer. Seriously guys? Three interviews to hock pens and crappy computers?
It all seemed (and still does) a tad unnecessary. The kicker was that I didn’t even get the job. It took them a while (maybe a week or two?) to get back to me and tell me that they had filled the position with an internal candidate.
I guess the time-frame isn’t THAT unreasonable, but three interviews for a low level retail position was ridiculous. I can’t even imagine going through sixteen interviews like Kerry did!
We always do multiple interviews because it IS hard to find the right candidate and because many hiring managers can’t get off the fence. They look at filling a box, and it’s the same box for everyone else with that job title. I think we should take the awesome candidate’s skills and apply it toward specific needs we have. If we have to re-structure a particular work group, so be it! Indivdualize each role, even if the title is the same, so we have the best set of combined skills. But managers spend too much time waffling on that, so they keep soliciting too many opinions.
That said, if they tell you they’re going to call, and they don’t, then they suck. No matter how crazy-busy HR is, you gotta at least email people back by the date you say you’re going to, even if the decision-making date has been postponed.
@Kerry You should call the hiring manager, since the HR person has clearly dropped the ball. Maybe you can get an answer there. Very responsible, sage advice because HR & recruiters never really own the hiring process. Call the person who matters. HR/RCR are just departments and functions that companies use to bring people into an organization. That being said, companies need to feel a call to action. Get this shit right.
@Sid You can love me. I’m okay with it. I’m needy like that. Or don’t love me. The more you ignore me, the closer I get.
@Peopleshark Of course you’re right on 100 different levels, but candidate experiences are in the toilet. HCI just released that survey about the disconnect between employee/employer perceptions. Good advice on the recruiting front because you are brill, but I’d like to encourage job seekers to start blogging and tweeting about these encounters.
@HSA That is so lame it hurts my soul. While there should be multiple rounds of interviews for many people, office max (or whomever) doesn’t need to call you back three times. TIME IS MONEY FOR EMPLOYEES, TOO.
@H.Aria If they tell you they’re going to call, and they don’t, then they suck. That’s all I’m saying. These candidates are emotionally drained. Don’t add to that.
Dear Interviewer: You think a company should take a gamble on you after seeing you once? Really? I mean, you say it’s happened to you more than once that you didn’t make it past a first round. Time to look at what you’re doing.
There are a lot of really talented people out there. Pissed off ones who think one interview will seal the deal don’t get jobs.
@Frank I think this interviewee is just frustrated with dishonest communication, not the number of rounds of interviews.
EVERYONE — here’s what I want to know:
How many times is too many times? Why aren’t we using technology in this process? Can you please buy me lunch?
I had a company interview me three times. That was three trips & the equivalent of a tank of gas on my old 1992 Honda Accord. They wanted me to come in a fourth time and I said no thanks — and then I got an offer. Suckers. Just goes to show you that the # of interviews is irrelevant. I hated HR and they should have hired another candidate.
Most hiring managers I deal with are non-committal to the nth degree. HR gets burdened with looking like the indecisive or disorganized party because we’re the last voice/face the interviewer sees or hears. Candidates who get this kind of treatment usually do fine in employee-friendly markets. They’re good enough to do the job, but they don’t make the manager say “wow.” So the manager doesn’t close the loop while he/she looks for someone who makes them say “wow.” It’s unfair. It sucks. It is how things are. No one likes to hear that they are average, but — by definitition — most of us are. I don’t know this candidate, obviously, but the fact that this experience is repeated may suggest inner reflection is in order.
@Scott No one likes to hear that they are average, but — by definitition — most of us are. True. There are (on average) six candidates for every job, right now, and picking the ‘best’ candidate is often totally subjective and based on the amorphous quality of cultural fit. So I have some sympathy for the reader who isn’t getting any feedback on why he’s not being selected. I think most companies are thinking, “We have the pick of the litter, right now. We’re being greedy and selfish. We want the best. We’re not sure it’s you. We’ll get back to you — maybe.”
Also, why do we need comprehensive organization buy-in for regular candidates? We’re hiring accountants and IT professionals — not saviors and heroes.
Oh shit! I was messing around on that letter generating site and sent one to my HRian husband! I’m curious if he’ll read/notice it.
Isn’t this simply the case of academics and HR professionals continuing to fail to determine the criteria that helps them distinguish between successful and unsuccessful candidates?”
The NFL spends significant time and resources, has hours of performance data, conducts several interviews, and still whiffs 75% of the time. Why should we expect HR to do any better after looking at a resume and conducting 1 or 2 interviews?
Devils Advocate folks: Sometimes, just sometimes, the management team actually gives a shit about getting the right person for the job. Someone who’s going to give a shit about the people involved that are already on the ground. Hard as it is to believe, the hiring team might not believe themselves to be infallible, so they make sure there’s consensus so the poor bastard who gets the job has a chance at keeping it and being semi successful.
Part 2, maybe, just maybe the HR Manager in question is spread thin like every other asshole left behind in today’s corporate structure. Maybe they’re doing the best they can with the resources they have and it’s not possible to prioritize a call back over their existing employees and issues and every other generalist fucking nightmare that presents itself during the day.
Just a thought.
Once again the bourgoisie are taking advantage of the proletariat by disrespecting their time. HR quite often sucks at hiring.
I think we’ve heard all sides of the story and everyone has a point, but I agree with the concept that HR departments as a whole do not give enough thought to how the candidate feels. Even the ones that are stretched thin would do well to invest in their company’s reputation with candidates by stepping back and looking at their interview process… and asking themselves where they can inject the right feedback, at the right time. Involve the hiring managers in the discussions, and and hold them accountable for their part in the exercise. It’s an easy sell, especially now, because EVERYONE knows how it feels to be ignored during an interview process. There is never a time when HR feels it has the breathing room to look at a process but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t step up to the plate and make a slight modification to one of it’s key processes. It can’t be that hard, can it?
Most of my mid- to high-level clients have reported being involved in multiple rounds of inteviews. I think that’s the norm, rather than the exception, with the exception of lower level positions.
I came to the job I’m in now because of their crappy interview process. I was appalled that I interviewed with a dozen different people and because there was no coordination, repeated the exact same interview 12 times. When it came time to make a decision, I had offers from multiple companies, I chose the worst process, because I knew they needed me most. Candidate experience is one of the most overlooked aspects of the interview process, sadly.
Multiple rounds of interviews seem to be the norm and I can deal with that. What I cannot deal with is when I am prepared for multiple rounds of interviews and the folks conducting the interview say to me “I haven’t even read the job description” during the interview process. Love it even more when the a person who is in the position to be a 1 of the 2 man team and she says “I don’t even have experience in this area and I got hired!” That’s awesome!
Laurie, the latest and greatest in my world is being given a “homework” assignment to complete as part of the interview process. I have handed over two marketing plans to two different companies in order to stay in the race for the positions. Super frustrating to hand over proprietary information/ideas, it’s essentially free consulting and feels very dirty.
@Stacey Hahahahahha, awesome. Let us know.
@akaBruno The NFL spends significant time and resources, has hours of performance data, conducts several interviews, and still whiffs 75% of the time. Why should we expect HR to do any better after looking at a resume and conducting 1 or 2 interviews? I guess I would ask why we think interviewing is the right way to hire people.
@Amy I’m with you and not everyone is an arrogant bastard, but but maybe it’s time to start asking why we need multiple levels of consensus. I mean, really, the process isn’t working. Also, I’d like to ask why we expect HR to manage the candidate flow. It’s like sticking your finger in a dam. The dam is cracked. It’s gonna burst. Just a matter of time.
@Michael Amen, brother.
@Michele It cannot. It starts with smart HR people (like you?) asking these important questions. Next step: doing something about it.
@Joan I agree but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
@Puf That is brilliant. You can’t go anywhere but up in that company.
@Natalia I am so sorry. I know how you want to say NO to the homework but you’re scared you won’t get the job. I say, fuck it, do you really want this job? Mark my words, that company sucks. Some HR people justify these behaviors and say, “How are we supposed to know if the person is qualified?” I say, “Do your due diligence. Check references. Ask decent interview questions. Take a leap of faith. You’re not hiring a replacement for Stephen Hawking.” Jesus.
With all of the technology and information we can get from internet sites and whatnot, there is NO reason that a person interviewing for a job should be misinformed or unaware of not only the company that they are interviewing with but the person that they are interviewing with as well. If they are using a recruiter to represent them, then shame on the recruiter for not prepping their candidates before an interview. As for the HR manager or hiring managers, it is PAINFUL how long this process of hiring has become. I have a short list of companies that actually make a decision within 2-3 interviews…. otherwise it is a very long and drawn out process. Here’s the deal though… if you are unemployed its frustrating but look at it like this. The more people you interview with, the more people you meet. And the more people you meet, the more you increase your network… so charm the hell out of them and have fun with each step of the process. Look at each interview as one more chip off the block that you just chipped away and that it gets you that much closer to your goal… which is landing your next job!
Laurie – good question. Is interviewing really the best way to make a hiring decision??? Imagine hiring someone without having to interview the person. How would you do it? I would call his most recent bosses first. I would then talk to a few of his peers or subordinates. Then maybe I would drop by his house when he isnt home to see how neat his room is. Then I would ask him to meet me at a cafe then I wont show up. Then I’ll see how he reacts to that. LOL. So anyone want to redesign the recruiting process?
Bob Sutton’s “Work Matters” blog had a post up about selecting talent recently. The bottom line was that according to the research he quotes, tests of “general mental ability” were the best predictor of who would succeed in the job.
Various kinds of job interviews were five and six on that list:
1. GMA tests (“General mental ability”)
2. Work sample tests
3. Integrity tests: surveys design to assess honesty … I don’t like them but they do appear to work.
4. Conscientiousness tests: essentially do people follow-through on their promises, do what they say, and work doggedly and reliably to finish their work.
5. Employment interviews (structured)
6. Employment interviews (unstructured)
The whole post is here:
http://bobsutton.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/10/selecting-talent-the-upshot-from-85-years-of-research.html
This [expetive] is a certified spoiled little cretin— try working anything freelance– you get so used to rejection, you walk into interviews expecting to be rejected, to where you can EASILY use the takeaway– ((right on, Laurie!!))
“I don’t want to work for this two-bit outfit anyway— See ya!”
Watch the offers fly through the window like flying cockroaches. Nobody likes a nervous kiss-ass.
I had one interview where the negative vibes were like chunky peanut butter– and I said after 20 min “Ok, let’s just stop right here– I know I’m not going to be working here anytime soon– do you know another place that’s hiring??” Shocked, the interviewer gave me a lead– and was just glad to get the interview over with. I loved doing that!! If you have the feeling you’re not getting the job– end the interview and walk out on your own! Empowerment, Man!! Stick it to the man!! Try it— feels Great!! … and you just might get the job.
Why is HR selecting anyone other than HR staff anyway? Or deselecting anyone? Do we have a fair process, is the candidate pipeline adequately diverse? Do we have any trending that suggests remedial action is in order? We’re too involved as it is. We should be training hiring managers how to do it right, filling the pipeline, improving the tools, and getting the hell out of the way.