Stringing me along...ugh

[Anonymous]

Since late-May I've had 4 interviews at a large association, with my last interview in mid-July. Recruiter said all of the initial feedback is positive, just waiting for additional feedback from people who have been on vacation. I've checked in with the recruiter on the dates she's requested (I.e "if you don't hear from me by August 1, please reach out"), each time saying "feedback is good, just waiting for the manager to make a decision."

This back-and-forth has gone on 4 times now, and in the meantime, I have a separate recruiter who doesn't want to submit my resume for another position until I know the outcome of this one.

I really, really want this job, but at what point do you just say...enough? And, why do companies drag out these processes? Don't they want to fill positions as quickly as possible?

[Anonymous]

I don't think you have the job and if you do, do you want to work for a company so disorganized?

[Anonymous]

My guess: You weren't the top candidate. They're offering the position to other candidates first and waiting to hear back. They're keeping you on hold in case the other candidates decline. Then they'll offer it to you.

This could actually work toward your advantage. If other people have turned it down, you might have more leverage in negotiating a higher salary.

Aside from that, I would think hard and long if you actually want to work there. Associations can be just as (if not more) bureaucratic than the federal government, except there is less job security and usually lower pay. Four interviews is a red flag to me. I understand most places do more than one interview, but four seems excessive, especially given the the fact that you are being strung along. It seems that after the third interview, they should have known if you were a top candidate, at which point they could have said, "you're one of three top candidates. We need you to come in and meet with the director." At least then, you'd get the sense they were being transparent and open.

Why do you really want the job? Is it because you really need a job or you think it will be a good fit? Do you know anything about the culture of the place?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the feedback.

I've been told I'm a finalist for the position, but after the 4th interview (which happened a day after the 3rd) various key team members were on vacation, which is a main reason things have moved slowly.

My reason for wanting the job? My current org is a mess, and this place seems like a great "next step." While this org might be a mess as well, this would be a significant pay increase, larger team, shorter commute. I also would like to leave my current job no later than mid-September, or else I'll really be screwing them (a huge project kicks off in November). Otherwise, I'll feel obligated to stay and see it through (until January).

I hate to feel like the "runner up" for a job. Do companies treat these hires differently that first choice candidates?

[Anonymous]

I would think the people that give feedback would give it back immediately as the interview is fresh in their minds (whether it is a round robin thing after the interviewee leaves or in an e-mail).

I would take a shot at the other job so you don't have your eggs in one basket.

[Anonymous]

What kind of recruiter does not continually work for the person who hired them pushing and pushing until they have a job? That sucks. Lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the feedback.

I've been told I'm a finalist for the position, but after the 4th interview (which happened a day after the 3rd) various key team members were on vacation, which is a main reason things have moved slowly.

My reason for wanting the job? My current org is a mess, and this place seems like a great "next step." While this org might be a mess as well, this would be a significant pay increase, larger team, shorter commute. I also would like to leave my current job no later than mid-September, or else I'll really be screwing them (a huge project kicks off in November). Otherwise, I'll feel obligated to stay and see it through (until January).

I hate to feel like the "runner up" for a job. Do companies treat these hires differently that first choice candidates?

12:02 here. If you were told you are a finalist, then, yes, I would suspect the delay is that they are offering to someone else and waiting to hear back. The "team members are on vacation" is just a stalling tactic because it's likely a decision was made pretty quickly. In fact, it's likely the decision was made after the 3rd interview.

No, I don't think it matters once you are hired that you weren't the first choice. It happens often. Many times, companies and organizations don't get their first choice (for any number of reasons). That's why they string people along, because it's always a possibility their first choice will turn it down.

I was the first choice recently for a job. I was told I was the first choice, and the offer was made the morning after my interview. I turned it down (for a variety of reasons -- that's the topic of another thread). They hired someone I know (she doesn't even know I interviewed for the job). We aren't friends, but we are acquaintances through working in a similar field. I don't even think she knows she was the second choice. So I doubt it affected the way they treated her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What kind of recruiter does not continually work for the person who hired them pushing and pushing until they have a job? That sucks. Lazy.

What makes you think OP is the only candidate the recruiter is working with? Most recruiters work for the employers primarily. They make you feel like they're working for you, but they get paid by the employer. So they usually have more than one candidate that they are putting forward to the employer to fill a position.

My guess is the recruiter is talking to more than one candidate but trying to stay on good terms with OP because if OP might be the ideal candidate for a different position with a different employer.

At the end of the day, the recruiter's primary incentive is to find someone the employer will hire. Employers are fickle. So recruiters usually want to have a few possible candidates to present to the employer. The recruiter gets paid when the position gets filled.

Never believe a recruiter is working for you (the person looking for a job). You don't pay them. They are working for the entity or person who pays them. That's the organization or company looking to fill a position.

[Anonymous]

As someone who works for an association, I can say that many are Great. At least mine has Great hours, great salary in comparison to true non profits, and great benefits.

My guess is that people truly are on vacation. August is dead in DC and it can be hard to get sign off from everyone. Also if something important drops we have often halted hiring just bc of capacity issues and the hiring isn't a priority. Good luck!

[Anonymous]

This happened to my husband and my close friends, who all work in very different fields.

It's the state of the job market nowadays, OP. The power is in the employers' camp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of recruiter does not continually work for the person who hired them pushing and pushing until they have a job? That sucks. Lazy.

What makes you think OP is the only candidate the recruiter is working with? Most recruiters work for the employers primarily. They make you feel like they're working for you, but they get paid by the employer. So they usually have more than one candidate that they are putting forward to the employer to fill a position.

My guess is the recruiter is talking to more than one candidate but trying to stay on good terms with OP because if OP might be the ideal candidate for a different position with a different employer.

At the end of the day, the recruiter's primary incentive is to find someone the employer will hire. Employers are fickle. So recruiters usually want to have a few possible candidates to present to the employer. The recruiter gets paid when the position gets filled.

Never believe a recruiter is working for you (the person looking for a job). You don't pay them. They are working for the entity or person who pays them. That's the organization or company looking to fill a position.

I missed that the recruiter who didn't want to submit her resume for another job was a different recruiter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for the feedback.

I've been told I'm a finalist for the position, but after the 4th interview (which happened a day after the 3rd) various key team members were on vacation, which is a main reason things have moved slowly.

My reason for wanting the job? My current org is a mess, and this place seems like a great "next step." While this org might be a mess as well, this would be a significant pay increase, larger team, shorter commute. I also would like to leave my current job no later than mid-September, or else I'll really be screwing them (a huge project kicks off in November). Otherwise, I'll feel obligated to stay and see it through (until January).

I hate to feel like the "runner up" for a job. Do companies treat these hires differently that first choice candidates?

Meh, it's not dating. I know how you feel, but I was the second choice for my current company too. The first actually accepted the job and then backed out. Been here 8 years and now I'm the boss of the group so turns out they liked me after all.

[Anonymous]

If it makes you feel better op; I once interviewed at A large financial institution - due to vacations schedules we did things pretty backwards.

I started with the vP of the group. He liked me, so I met the CMO. The CMO liked me so I met the CFO. Then the CEO. Then the SVP of the division. Then four divisional heads. Nine interviews on 9 different days.

Then I met the person who id report to. You know how some people you meet you instantly know you won't click? It was nails on a chalkboard from "hello".

Didn't get the job. Now THAT was annoying!