Really Odd Rejection

[Anonymous]

Op here. Just spoke to the recruiter because I was genuinely curious. Apparently the reason was lack of tenure in my roles. Which I addressed head on in interviews, and they would've known from looking at my resume.

I understand I'm not entitled to a job, but I do find it frustrating that they brought me in for multiple days of interviews and then rejected me for something that they knew a month ago when I shared my resume.

Thanks for letting me vent!

[Anonymous]

That is super strange. I almost wonder if someone higher up than the hiring manager didn't like you?

Other than that, my only thought is they were anxious about the economy and scared to pull the trigger. Strange that a rejection would be for a reason you knew well in advance of interviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess: Someone internal is getting the role (internal politics) or someone with influence swooped in with a candidate. Anyway, sounds like they did like you, and it’s good practice for your next opportunity.

This happened to me years ago. Great interviews. It was clear the immediate manager wanted to hire me. I had BTDT and could step right in and offer instant value. Bigger boss interview felt more like a go through the process and so it was not surprising when instead he went the "promote from within and let person grow into the role." It was a bummer. I was much younger and less experienced then, so it's unlikely the pay was an issue.

[Anonymous]

Things happen. Maybe you interviewed on Monday and were great and someone came in on Thursday and knocked their socks off!

Usually at that stage there are 2-3 finalists that come in for finalist stage. I had this happen and thought for sure it was mine and didn't get the offer.

I have also been on the hiring side and everyone wanted Candidate A and the CEO wanted Candidate B, so Candidate B was chosen (and didn't last a year). Sometimes it is a group decision, sometimes CEO, sometimes hiring manager.

As you said on another reply the recruiters mentioned lack of tenure in your role. Why are you already applying to roles? Years ago a mentor once told me to stay where I was for awhile (minimum 3 years) as I had been in a different field previously that was known for shorter stints (grant funded/think OFDA or equivalent) . It was good advice, as I advanced and was promoted.

Personally, I don't want to hire someone who is going to leave in a year or two. Things happen of course and sometimes roles aren't a good fit, but if you have a lot of job hopping most people won't even get to the finalists stages. In many fields it takes 6-12 months to actually get your bearings and if you leave after 2 years or less it doesn't always make sense.

Why are you looking to leave your current role? Honestly I would try and stay longer so you can have more accomplishments, but I don't know your situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Things happen. Maybe you interviewed on Monday and were great and someone came in on Thursday and knocked their socks off!

Usually at that stage there are 2-3 finalists that come in for finalist stage. I had this happen and thought for sure it was mine and didn't get the offer.

I have also been on the hiring side and everyone wanted Candidate A and the CEO wanted Candidate B, so Candidate B was chosen (and didn't last a year). Sometimes it is a group decision, sometimes CEO, sometimes hiring manager.

As you said on another reply the recruiters mentioned lack of tenure in your role. Why are you already applying to roles? Years ago a mentor once told me to stay where I was for awhile (minimum 3 years) as I had been in a different field previously that was known for shorter stints (grant funded/think OFDA or equivalent) . It was good advice, as I advanced and was promoted.

Personally, I don't want to hire someone who is going to leave in a year or two. Things happen of course and sometimes roles aren't a good fit, but if you have a lot of job hopping most people won't even get to the finalists stages. In many fields it takes 6-12 months to actually get your bearings and if you leave after 2 years or less it doesn't always make sense.

Why are you looking to leave your current role? Honestly I would try and stay longer so you can have more accomplishments, but I don't know your situation.

I'm not applying to multiple roles. I met the hiring manager years ago and she told me to apply, which I only did bc it was a dream job in my field. I shared this with the hiring manager and recruiter on the first phone screening - "Listen, I know I haven't been at my current role very long but I was laid off a little under a year ago and took a job at a smaller org, but this is the kind of work I want to be doing." They both said, "Oh, totally, we get it." I even said to the AVP, I would feel bad leaving my current role but this is worth it and she said "Yeah but that's business."

Ultimately I will be staying in my current role. It's just frustrating they wasted several days of my week with interviews when they knew they would be rejecting me for something they knew a month ago when I sent in my resume.

[Anonymous]

Something is off here. They don't have their act together or don't have the budget. Idk. But it feels very "you can't join our clique" behavior-ish.

[Anonymous]

Go in another direction shouldn't have too much read into it. I say that when we are switching tree care companies or something. It's a way of saying we went with someone else.

The short tenure thing might have come up late in the process if you and another candidate were nearly equal but the other had more time in roles or even a role that demonstrated key skills or capabilities.

[Anonymous]

Continuing... it's an objective sounding way of saying "in the end we decided to bet on the other horse and tenure was the tipping point."
I do not think they necessarily wasted your time and knew all along. That's understandably hurt feelings talking.
The feedback to take and use is next interview wherever remember you may look like a job hopper so proactively head that off at the pass.
And unless this is the only place that could ever hire you try looking elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Continuing... it's an objective sounding way of saying "in the end we decided to bet on the other horse and tenure was the tipping point."
I do not think they necessarily wasted your time and knew all along. That's understandably hurt feelings talking.
The feedback to take and use is next interview wherever remember you may look like a job hopper so proactively head that off at the pass.
And unless this is the only place that could ever hire you try looking elsewhere.

I feel like these replies, while correct in any other context, miss that she addressed it with the hiring manager who still told her to apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing... it's an objective sounding way of saying "in the end we decided to bet on the other horse and tenure was the tipping point."
I do not think they necessarily wasted your time and knew all along. That's understandably hurt feelings talking.
The feedback to take and use is next interview wherever remember you may look like a job hopper so proactively head that off at the pass.
And unless this is the only place that could ever hire you try looking elsewhere.

I feel like these replies, while correct in any other context, miss that she addressed it with the hiring manager who still told her to apply.

+1 - I think it's not the real reason. Maybe they are anxious about the economy and pulling the trigger, maybe they don't have the budget, but "It's just about your lack of tenure" when she was told to apply and they knew from the get-go that she didn't have long tenure in some roles is not the real reason.

[Anonymous]

Some nepo baby swooped in.

[Anonymous]

Would they have found anything concerning if they searched your social media, OP? Are you outspoken about politics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing... it's an objective sounding way of saying "in the end we decided to bet on the other horse and tenure was the tipping point."
I do not think they necessarily wasted your time and knew all along. That's understandably hurt feelings talking.
The feedback to take and use is next interview wherever remember you may look like a job hopper so proactively head that off at the pass.
And unless this is the only place that could ever hire you try looking elsewhere.

I feel like these replies, while correct in any other context, miss that she addressed it with the hiring manager who still told her to apply.

But at that point they had not yet met the winning candidate. So it was NOT a disqualifying thing. BUT the other candidate was better and one objective difference it was safe and quantifiable to mention was tenure. Things like smarter, better educated, more applicable experience, leadership qualities...these all open a rat's nest.

OP might have gotten the job if not for who else was in the finalist pool. OP needs to get over "being invited to apply." It wasn't a binding promise of being selected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing... it's an objective sounding way of saying "in the end we decided to bet on the other horse and tenure was the tipping point."
I do not think they necessarily wasted your time and knew all along. That's understandably hurt feelings talking.
The feedback to take and use is next interview wherever remember you may look like a job hopper so proactively head that off at the pass.
And unless this is the only place that could ever hire you try looking elsewhere.

I feel like these replies, while correct in any other context, miss that she addressed it with the hiring manager who still told her to apply.

But at that point they had not yet met the winning candidate. So it was NOT a disqualifying thing. BUT the other candidate was better and one objective difference it was safe and quantifiable to mention was tenure. Things like smarter, better educated, more applicable experience, leadership qualities...these all open a rat's nest.

OP might have gotten the job if not for who else was in the finalist pool. OP needs to get over "being invited to apply." It wasn't a binding promise of being selected.

+1. Hiring manager may have a certain number of people they have to interview. "Being invited to apply," could have meant they didn't have enough qualified people organically applying. OP just needs to move on. This is all NBD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continuing... it's an objective sounding way of saying "in the end we decided to bet on the other horse and tenure was the tipping point."
I do not think they necessarily wasted your time and knew all along. That's understandably hurt feelings talking.
The feedback to take and use is next interview wherever remember you may look like a job hopper so proactively head that off at the pass.
And unless this is the only place that could ever hire you try looking elsewhere.

I feel like these replies, while correct in any other context, miss that she addressed it with the hiring manager who still told her to apply.

But at that point they had not yet met the winning candidate. So it was NOT a disqualifying thing. BUT the other candidate was better and one objective difference it was safe and quantifiable to mention was tenure. Things like smarter, better educated, more applicable experience, leadership qualities...these all open a rat's nest.

OP might have gotten the job if not for who else was in the finalist pool. OP needs to get over "being invited to apply." It wasn't a binding promise of being selected.

+1. Hiring manager may have a certain number of people they have to interview. "Being invited to apply," could have meant they didn't have enough qualified people organically applying. OP just needs to move on. This is all NBD.

I like how you say OP just needs to move on when she hasn’t posted since yesterday to update and before that it was several days lol.