E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSJob seekers expect to have two or three interviews with an employer before they land a position. But 10 interviews?
Ebonee Younger’s interview odyssey began in September when she embarked on her quest to land an HR manager’s position at a rental truck company.
Ten interviews and a lot of sweat equity later, Younger, who lives in Birmingham, Ala., ended up not getting the gig.
“The whole experience cost me two new suits, a new pair of shoes, $40 in stationery and postage -- I wrote handwritten notes to almost everyone I spoke with -- two paid time-off days, and $200 plus in taxi fare,” she explained.
“I'm not so much irritated that I didn't get the job, I was just disappointed in the candidate experience,” she noted. “I really believe they could have, and should have, made a decision earlier in the process.”
Unfortunately, Younger’s interview purgatory is not unusual. Employers are increasingly putting applicants through a seemingly endless cycle of interviews these days, a byproduct of the tight labor market. Some hiring managers feel they have the upper hand because unemployment, at over 8 percent, is still relatively high so they can put candidates through a hiring rigmarole. Others are just too inept to trust their own judgment, or are fearful a wrong hire will get them in hot water.
“We have found employers take a lot longer to select someone these days,” said Charley Polachi, co-founder of executive recruiting firm Polachi Inc.
“During the boom, hiring decisions were made in a snap,” he explained. But now, “there’s this perception of a big supply of people so they keep interviewing.”
Besides, he added, most managers today aren’t good or effective interviewers because budget cuts have done away with any real training on how to hire.
And it’s not just employers looking to fill permanent jobs who are putting candidates through the interview wringer. Adecco, one of the nation’s top temporary staffing firms, has seen an uptick in the number of interviews required for temps as well.
“The interview process for those applying to these jobs are more frequently being conducted as if they are being looked at for permanent positions,” said Bob Kovalsky, senior vice president for Adecco Staffing.
Some believe the lengthy process for all gigs today is all about money.
“Companies shouldn’t just settle for a seat filler because they need someone right away,” maintained Josh Tolan, CEO of Spark Hire, an online video job board. “A bad hire is more than just a mistake, it could be detrimental to the success of your team and your company.”
Tolan estimated that “nearly 46 percent of new hires fail within 18 months, and a bad hiring decision can cost a company upwards of 200 percent of a year’s salary.”
Despite such numbers, job seekers put through weeks of interviewing are beginning to feel like contestants in a never-ending beauty pageant.
Ginger Mathews, who lives in Phoenix, started her quest to land a trainer job with an insurance firm in January and eight interviews later she’s still in limbo.
This is how it all went down, she says:
- One phone interview that lasted 40 minutes.
- A few days later, that was followed by a one hour 15 minute Skype interview.
- A week later, that was followed by a 45-minute in-person interview at a corporate office about 20 minutes away.
- That was immediately followed by another 45-minute in-person interview at the corporate office, which was followed by another 45-minute in-person interview.
- About a week to ten days later, a one-hour in-person interview at the corporate office about 20 minutes away, which was immediately followed by another one-hour in-person interview at the corporate office, which was followed by another one-hour in-person interview at the same corporate office, on the same day.
She went through a similar endless chain of interviews for a sales coaching job with another employer, but ended up with no job.
Tons of interviews may seem like a good problem to have for many job seekers who have been unable to get past the online application to talk to a human being, but endless interviews and no job can be just as frustrating.
“These jobs do not come with six-figure incomes and it is not as though I am applying for jobs where I am responsible for great sums of money, or working as an aide to President Obama,” Matthews explained.
“I have to ask, is this the new norm?” pondered Matthews, who is scheduled for her ninth interview with the insurance company on Monday.
Leave a Comment:
Sounds like this company does not employ people capable of making quick decisions. I'm surprised they can stay in business, being this slow to decide something as mundane as hiring an HR person. Imagine how they would do when it comes to making a decision about making a capital investment, or responding to a competitive threat.
In a lot of places HR is completely dysfunctional. I see it in mine and we're in HR Consulting. I've had colleagues who were trying to switch jobs within the company be told they're overpaid and that the manager would rather hire someone from the competition, or someone without experience for cheaper. I've had a colleague never hear back after a second interview, only to run into the new hiree in the hallway. I've applied for jobs that didn't even exist anymore but were never removed from the board. The HR person responsible had left the company and nobody took over his load.
I had a similar experience...but unfortunately, in todays market, they can do what they want. Back in 1999, I graduated in engineering and had job offers on my answering machine (yes, remember those). I wasnt even looking for a job as I was in grad school.
Today is different. When I was laid off back in 2009, I had 5 interviews over a 6 hours duration for a position. I was physicall/mentally exhausted. A verbal offer and then they stalled over the next 2 months of red tape and they ended up going with someone else! Worse part, there expert in their technology was fundamentally wrong on his engineering! What do you do in that situation? Call him out? I didnt.
In the end folks I am glad I didnt get the job because you dont want to work for people who dont know right away if they have the right talented person. I later interviewed for a company where after 2 hours the manager asked me 'what will it take to join us'. How is that for an amazing experience! Point is, he knew (or didnt know) right away if I was the right person. I am still with the company and its the best company I have ever worked for. They really value their people.
Remember people, you are interviewing the company as much as they are interviewing you. I know its difficult especially if you are out of work (i know).
You are so right , we are interviewing them as well. That's what I have always done. And I have been know to get up and excuse myself from an interview that is not showing me what I am expecting from the company or it's personal. ( I do have an advantage because I am military retired and have an income to fall back on ) But I still feel why would I want to work for a company that plays games and shows no respect for my time as well ?
I applied for a job at a minor cable television network, only to end up interviewing for another job at the same network when the first position was filled. For the second job (that of a coder-- and I had no idea what that kind of work entailed going in, by the way), I was on a short list of six interviewees for the day and was told outright, "You're not qualified for this position, but you had such a unique resume that I thought you should come in." Well, that's why I didn't apply for that one in the first place...
"there expert"
Not sure I would hire you if you do not know the difference between and among "there," "their", and "they're."
Oneiron: Jayfos did say that his degree(s?) was/were in engineering. As I remember, the typical engineering graduate's knowledge/skills in grammar and spelling can be lacking. Actually, I worked with some engineers who were lucky to spell their own names correctly! My brother, on the other hand, was literate and articulate: one of the few engineers who could write, and he still availed himself of editorial help. My background? technical writing, a skill that requires better typing/keyboard skills than I usually exhibit.
In 10 interviews they can use the candidate as a consultant for free.
I would ask during the 3rd interview (nicely) what they're doing and when a decision is going to be made.
HR should stand for Human Rot. Because that is about what HR people are worth. They don't deal with "humans" at all except to put them through the ringer. They always tow the corporate line and usually at the human's expense.
If you are one of those people that work in HR, and you know who you are, don't you love being hated by the very people you disserve? Seriously, you are not popular and usually secretly derided.
If I interpreted the article correctly, this job candidate had two phone interviews and two in-office interviews. That does not seem unreasonable. For a professional position, it is not unusual for an in-office interview to consume most of a day and involve speaking with a number of people.
YIP ~ "Corporate Incompetence" at its Best ! Many of these "HR" Human Resource morons with their supposed college degrees, are nothing more than brain dead time wasters, they waste company time and make themselves look busy by conducting repeated interviews and asking the dumbest questions for a JOB's that don't even pay $30,000 a year - they make you feel like your applying for the position of CEO,,,, but thats what these Over - Glorified Colleges & Universities are CHURNING out now days - Incompetent Lazy Worthless Idiots and Corporate America just eats up these morons like kids with Candy ! Why else do you think Corporate America is in so much Trouble and having to close many stores, and their Corporate Staff is in trouble with the Law, everything from the SEC to the FTC and DOL - to the IRS to FBI the list just keeps growing. The days of the good Corporate America as we knew it back in the 1960's - 1970's are over gone History - NOW what you have are Over-Glorified College Idiots running around so Clueless and mindless its Pathetic . Welcome to the New Work Generation and with it more MIS-MANAGEMENT in the Corporate Sector !
Nerm_L,
I understand your point and I agree, in part. If the potential employer was respectful of a candidates time as well as their own, and they should be, then schedule all the interviews in one day. This would be best for the organization as well as the candidate.
When I'm going to interview for a position for a Sr. Engineer, I ask right up front, "can we be efficient and get all the interviews done in one day please?" If they can't, I don't go because they are not organized.
oneiron-4324713
Not sure I would hire you if you do not know the difference between and among "there," "their", and "they're."
you intimidated by my degree, brah? Seriously, your only comment is to nitpick an honest typing mistake made that im sure you've done and everyone else has?
@Bill in Mill Creek -- For a professional position - the company is investing in you as an employee AND you are investing your knowledge-skills-abilities and future earning potential in the company. My experience is that the company staff spend as much or more time trying to sell you their company as you do trying to sell yourself.
My experience is that the first in-office interview is for the hiring manager and the staff you will be interacting with on the job. The second in-office interview is so the hiring manager can sell you to their bosses. Unfortunately, it is necessary to accommodate office politics - and - that factors into my decision to make my investment in the company.
Sorry Jayfos. oneiron is 100% correct. your ignorance has only been compounded by your moronic retort. try reading some books (not comic books). i would not hire you to cut my lawn.
10 interviews is just plain stupid- if the company isn't sure by about the 3rd interview then what's the point? The applicant who is hopeful should pad themselves with other options and not invest all their eggs in one basket, so to say, or end up disappointed (and out of some money!) in the end. The HR gestapo is such a worthless and overpaid bunch.
my apologies jayfos. i just re-read your post. first time i read it, it seemed worst than it was the second time. sorry. your post does make a good point. there their, we all have done it when writing or talking to the computer. sorry.
oneiron...........I know not about jayfos, but, heed ye well the words of Fred Craven. He has authored 75 books and therefor knows of which he speaks!
She should be glad that she didn't get hired there. Any outfit that requires 10 interviews is clearly dysfunctional and would be a terrible place to work.
So true! Even the job I had that only had one interview was the most dysfunctional place I had ever worked, but I simply cannot imagine something like this!
Who cares, the problem to me is they don't tell you the process because one doesn't exist. So you think an interview or two, like normal, but they keep stringing you along. No one in their right mind would agree to 5+ interviews, much less 10 before hand.
I had a similar experience, several phone interviews, which are no big deal, a couple lunches which to me are more awkward than an interview. This was over Thanksgiving and xmas, so a period about 5 weeks. So many people got involved that scheduling became a real issue.
I was lead to believe they would make an offer, and that there would be one more meeting with a higher up. Not an interview, just to make sure we meshed. Which of course is an interview in my book. After the New Year I was told HR said the position was open too long and they were taking it away from the department.
I was employed, and I pretty much realized this company was screwed up, but my recruiter kept pushing me to hang in there and to keep an open mind. Not a big deal because I wasn't that interested and was employed, but for someone w/o a job, seems like it would have been devastating. To be told they are going to make an offer to then be told the position doesn't exist. It was a six figure salary with bonus.
It's not the way you treat people, and companies that take this approach end up with employees who will put up with this non-sense. While not always true in a recession, but normally people who put up with it, don't make good employees. Which is showcased in this article, they can't even hire more dysfunctional employees without making it one big cluster F. Think these people are going to make good sound financial decisions, hah, not likely.
You're probably right. But sometimes I wonder..."what if?"
Multiple job interviews, pissing in a bottle, Unicrew tests all for a $10/hr job.
Why work?
Those unicrew tests are the worst....Question #43 have you ever hit your boss?
Our country is a mess.
I wonder how many actually answer "yes" to #43.
For #43, it would be tempting to ask "does this include hitting your boss with an automobile?"
I went through that, and when they asked "will you be able to take a urine test" I said sure, and they said "that will be $25 for the test" and before I handed over any money I asked if that means I am being offered a job, they told me "no this just means that you will be able to interview again if you pass". I got up and left, because no way was I going to fork over $25 for a urinalysis test without being offered a job, considering I have not worked for 3 yrs now. This country is a huge mess, and unfortunately I am about to give up even bothering to look for work because I don't even get called for interviews anymore because of how long I have been out of work, no one will touch me with a 10 ft pole it seems. Pretty bad that I now know how ex prisoners feel when they get paroled.
Frustration with tons of interviews that go nowhere has been a norm for me. On one occasion I had 5 interviews for a position as a register cashier. What is worse is the employers who seem to skip all of that, look at your credit history, rather than your employment history and deem you unworthy of employment. I have seem that way to often. Yes I have some bad credit, does that mean that my work history despite good references from previous employers is not even a consideration. seems that way to me.
Too much emphasis is put on our "credit ratings" in this country. It is NOT a true reflection of how we are as people because the three credit bureaus all paint a different picture and their reports are frequently erroneous. My parents once had my name on their Visa as an authorized user, not a co-signor. Regardless, my credit report implied that I had a credit card with a $30k limit and listed me as an owner of the account. One quick little dispute submission and the credit bureau took it right off of my file, but this is proof of how they monkey around with our credit files. Also, when I bought my car I knew what my "score" was from one bureau (which was favorable enough), but the dealership used a different bureau and it was, rather mysteriously, over 50 points higher.
I work in a nonprofit company where I've been trying to get another position since last August. I've had two experiences with two different departments. One department made me interview with 15 people over 5 days and 10 separate interview sessions for 30 minutes to 1 hour. The other position cost me two interviews for about 1 hour each. In both cases, I was the second runner up but I've known every person I interviewed with for at least 5 years. I think in my case, the first interview had to do indecisiveness and lack of clarity about the position for that manager and the second one had to do with a new mandate coming down the pipeline the night before and changing the position overnight in the hiring managers mind. It's tough out here and NOT a happy place to be. Neither job was a management position and I am probably overqualified for both.
The process also has me wondering if my age is a factor. I'm 49. all for jobs ranging from 9 to 12 $ per hour. It;s crazy.
49 is not old ... don't give up! God willing ... I'm sure you'll find something soon!
Drivera5-1: Unfortunately you are correct about the age thing. My husband at age 47 had to find work as the company he had worked for for years as a production supervisor closed putting 88 people out of work. He heard "Oh, you're overqualified" many many times. He ended up taking a job for $8.10 an hour at a grocery store and now has worked his way up to management after 10 years.
Tex-3203 is right though. Don't give up!
It basically comes down to certain hiring individuals feel the need to control the potential employees life. Lots of people looking for work, therefore those who hire re going to run them through the mill because they can and they do it to justify their own jobs.
If these companies can point to studies that prove, "When you put a candidate through 10 interviews, you're more likely to choose well," great. But I'll bet they can't: They just end up hiring more narcissists, who, according to articles published last week, interview well.
You are correct! They will hire whomever comes in and smiles just right, says just the right thing, etc. Never mind that they may not know how to count, add, or subtract; or know the differences between their, there, they're; or two, too, and to. They sure look good in a suit though...
I have to agree with Gumps that you would not have wanted to work for that company. Think of the interview process as a time to "date" the company. Do you want to work somewhere where it takes them that long to make a decision? If you worked there and needed a decision on a special project, would it take them weeks to decide? The hiring process is a good indication of what the rest of the company is like.
Thing is, though, when you're unemployed, you often don't have the luxury just to "date" a company. You kind of have to marry the first one that says yes, even if it's a lazy, abusive slob.
InterviewToSuccess and Dave in NM are both right.
I was in the position four years ago where I just had to go with who said yes, and it got me a job for 3.5 years. It's not an ideal situation, but sometimes that just has to be done. Now, even though I quit that revolting job, I can afford to be somewhat picky and "date" the companies, which is what you should consider an interview to be IF you have the choice to.
Of course the thing to remember is this: It is easier to get a job if you already have a job. Someone such as me that has been out of work for one year this coming Friday, it's not so easy. I am going to take that job where maybe they're abusive, don't seem to know what the hell they're doing from one day to the next because I don't have a choice in this market.
The bad thing for that company is I'm a damn good worker. Once a few months pass and I've shown my worth (whether they actually see it or not) I'm going to start putting my resume back out there to get what I want. When you have a job, you're in the driver's seat. At this point, I am looking for stuff even if I know it'll suck for a few months knowing that later this year I can then get what I want, not what some empty suited HR person says I should take.
That's what's wrong with employees today and why no onw will hire yoiu with that attitude. Your purpose in being employed is to bring value to the company, not to youself. The hiring company cares about what you can bring to them, not what you take. You are not a damn good worker if you are looking to leave soon after being hired. No wonder it takes so long to find good candidiates.
It's time to walk away. After a third interview, if they can't make up their mind, tell them you are concerned about the management of the company and will be passing.
I have done exactly that TWICE
I have also told an employer to take a hike for jerking me around. Sh*t or get off the pot, people.
Done it! I had one call me up and excitedly invite me for an interview the same day that I got a promotion at my old job, and I politely told them that they were too late--after taking six months to go through applications--and unless they could match my new salary I was not interested.
And as far as the interview process for temps goes: if you make it past the Agency interview and get hired as a temp, then you are on a permanent interview with the "company" waiting to see if they will bring you on full time. When I first started I wasn't aware that they could just continue to extend your "contract". I have been waiting to be hired for 2 years.
And a big problem with temping is that if the employer wants to take you on full-time, they usually have to buy out your contract or pay a fee to the agency, meaning it's cheaper for them just to hire someone off the street, even though you've put in the time and learned the position.
Not true if it is a temp for hire position...
That just gives an employer time to train and see if your qualified for the job and if not it lets the get rid of you without repercussions...
Large companies have often been this way.
The main goal in a large company is to not make a mistake. Making progress on projects takes a back seat to not making mistakes. This often leaves people in a state of "analysis paralysis".
This atmosphere often trickles down to small companies that hire a bunch of large company people.
I totally agree. During the recession, many employees from global companies who were laid off ended up in small companies. They are trying to implement their experience in hiring which quite frankly does not fit well with a smaller organization.
It's a "buyers" market because of the number of available applicants for each job. But, indecisiveness has its own penalty. I was recently interviewing for three separate IT Project Management jobs. Typically there is a phone interview for a handful of resume-qualified candidates, followed by a face to face interview for a smaller group (2 or 3). Sometimes there is a second face to face if there are stakeholders that they specifically want you to meet. I had a phone interview with all three companies. I had a face to face with two of the three. And those two had me come in for a third, and then a fourth time. Still no offers. Then the first company had me come in (they apologized for the delay... the hiring mgr was on vacation). And the afternoon after that face to face, they made me an offer.. which I accepted. Nearly a week later, both of the other two companies contacted me to come in yet again. They seemed a bit surprised when I told them I had accepted a position elsewhere. That falls into the "snooze you lose" category. I mirror the other comments here. If you can't hire someone after a couple/three interviews, there are probably a lot more disfunctional things going on in your company.
This many interviews only shows either the ineptness of those making the final decision, or the feeling that the only way to show ones worth is to show how many interviews they have conducted! Either way it's a waste of resources (time and money)!
What really kills me is when they put you through the ringer for a slave job paying slave wages. One interview should be enough, after all you're not interviewing for President of General Motors! No wonder America is all f--ed up!
And, pray tell us oh dear employers what are the costs of so much indecision and time wasted to your organization?
Is that your new definition of efficiency? Inquiring minds would like to know.
If you feel push around by a potential employer tell them to F-off. Seriously, you don't need them.
Sometimes, though, after months without a nibble, with unemployment running low and the wolf at the door, yeah - you do.
If a company can't make a hiring decision after 2-3 interviews, tops, you don't want to work for them. They have no vision or clarity on what they are looking for.
Jim, not entirely the case now. As the article sort of points out, there is a bit of the 'bigger better deal' mentality out there. I had several companies that I interviewed two or three times with drag out the process while I was the 'best candidate' they were continuing to try to find 'better' and in a lot of cases, that meant local to them or lower salary expectations.
I documented my submissions and interviews for every job during my search. I was able to see who I interviewed with and when and even kept summaries of the discussions, pro's/con's of each person and the job in general. I can look back and see where I was being lead along while they continued to look for other candidates.
One of the keys is when you are told 'it's down to the top 3' and after the top 3 interview, there are additional interviews still being scheduled. There are also signals when you are the #2 candidate, like being told you are in the top 3 and once the 'final' interviews are over, you'll hear back within X days and after X+1 or X+2 days, you start getting excuses that the hiring manager is out of town or the HR person is not available. Definitely signals that they want you to stay available or on the hook to them in case their #1 turns them down at the last minute.
Another key is if a company wants you to pay your way to come see them or if they don't want to bring you in for a face to face. If it's too costly to fly me in for an overnighter, what will it be like to actually work there??
All things to be aware of when interviewing...
Ahh, but if they think there are better candidates out there and that is the reason for the drawn out process then you still don't want to work for them...
I had the experience of interviewing multiple times to return to work at a different division of a former employer (one of the largest, most well recognized corporations in the world). I was told at the end of the 1st, informal phone interview that they thought I was a great candidate. After the 2nd interview, I was told something to the effect of "you are clearly the right candidate for this position, I'm going to talk to HR about getting the ball rolling on extending you an offer letter." That was followed by an HR person who wanted to conduct the standard, generic "what would you do if" intereview - she finished and said "I think we are very good here, I'll find out how they want to handle extending the offer." That was followed by a week without conversation followed by a call from the original person of "I'm soo sorry, I've been out of the country - I've had a couple of calls from the HR person trying to find out what she needs to do, so I'm going to follow up and get everything cleared to move forward." Followed by interviews by two other managers... followed by an interview with another HR person... followed by a phone call with the original interviewer stating something to the effect "I wanted to touch base and try and figure out what the next step should be."
At that point, my response was "Five intervews ago, you said the next step was that you were going ot get HR to issue me an offer letter. At this point, I'm really not interested in further conversations or interviews, I believe my credentials and qualifications were established about 2 months ago." The response to that was an offer letter late that afternoon for a monetary value that pegged the top of the salary band. My response to that was to take it to my current employer and negotiate. I had long since ceased to be interested in working for the other company due to their internal issues.
Incidentally - it happens that I have friends that work in the organization - thus why I know the offer was for top of the band, that during the process the candidates were weeded down from 7 to 1 (me) by the first HR intereview, and that they are on the 3rd person in the role they wanted to hire me for in the year and a half since. Sometimes, it really is incompetence...
I've interviewed and hired many people in the AE business. I pre-qualified the resumes HR gave to me and interviewed my top 3-4 candidates.
I knew within in 15 minutes if I wanted to hire someone. The rest? It was up to them to prove to me I should hire them as I wasn't convinced in the first few minutes.
A second interview might happen if I were sharing this person with another team or if the person wasn't right for my team, but might be a good fit for one of my other partners.
Anyone that drags someone in for more than 2 (or maybe a third?) interviews isn't doing their job correctly and the candidate might want to ask themselves if they want to work for a firm that can't make a decision.
Running an endless interview process is a great way to confuse motion with progress for incompetent managers and HR departments. Count your blessings you don't have to work with these people!
During my unemployment stint, I found a lot of employers know what they DON'T want and not so much what they do. The job I landed was several interviews over the course of 10 weeks to get the offer. I interviewed with at least a dozen people during that time, some on the phone and then face to face. In the end it was a good salary offer which I was able to negoitate a bit higher as well as a relocation package which was quite generous.
One company I interviewed with, I did three phone screens and then they flew me in and out same day, where I interviewed with 7 people in that one day. This was one where they knew what they didn't want in a candidate. And I learned I didn't want to work for them. :) That all came when I asked the guy who would be my boss, "What are the 3 things that keep you up at night?" I was told, "If I have to tell you those, why should I hire you. You need to be able to come in and tell me where the problems are!"
While I understand his thought process, it's also not 'smart' to walk into a job in a new company in a new industry and expect you know what their problems are until you start investigating and asking questions to get leads and common themes to what problems exist. I explained that to him, but he just seems POed at me for even suggesting that I should want to know what he saw as the biggest issues. He also told me he didn't want to even have to think about the area I would be leading and he just wanted it off his plate. The irony is that everyone else I spoke with during the interviews that day noted that this was a good question and were very forthright with their feedback.
I later closed out my interviews that day with the recruiter and told her I felt he got the wrong perception of me and that he held onto that frustration. She told me that was just how he was and she would talk with him. A few days later, I got the call that I was not moving forward in the process and I suggested to the recruiter that they not have the position I was interviewing for report to him, but rather into the finance organization (CFO) or direct to the CEO, rather than engineering. When asked why, I told her, it was his comments about how he just wanted the area I would have been leading 'off his plate' that seemed to indicate he didn't have any time to spend in that area nor care about that area...
I later found out that the person they hired does not report to that guy. Maybe I helped educate them during my process?
All in all, glad I did not get offered or accept that job as I'm in a much better location/position than that would have been by any means!
What irks me is when you have an initial HR phone interview, then a phone interview with the hiring manager, then they fly you to do a face to face interview, then make you wait a few weeks, only to find out they are not interested with you. Can't think how many times this happened to me. It really makes me wonder at how efficient this company is if they waste thousands of dollars, the time of managers, etc. Why are companies complaining that they cannot find competent help when they do this crap to so many people. I agree with others, corporate America is f'ed up.
chuckzul...you were likely in my boat, which is 'the best candidate they have seen SO FAR' and they want better in either a lower salary expectation (i.e. someone more desperate) or someone local. I found many companies would settle for a local candidate with less experience and lower level skills just to avoid the cost of flying out for interviews and or the potential need/request for relocation of the best candidate.
Note to employers: If you have no plans to offer relocation, say so up front or make it clear in the job posting. Also, don't dismiss candidates that are not local, since some of us are willing to relocate on our own dime for a great company/opportunity and you miss out when you only will look at local candidates.
The amazing part is that this is also becoming the norm for low-paid manual labor jobs. After 2 interviews at a staffing agency, I was subjected to 2 more interviews with the actual employer, 2 weeks of run around, then get called back in to the staffing agency to be told that the company had already filled the positions (there were 20 of them). All for a $10/hour job. Even after a heart attack that has given me heart failure, and an employer that fired me for that reason 3 years after the fact, I have still worked non-stop since the event 4 1/2 years ago. And this is happening in a state that only has a 3.2% unemployment rate.
I had this same problem with Goldman Sachs. I was warned that they were notoriously slow when it came to hiring and they would put you through numerous interviews but boy I had no idea how seriously they took that. First time I interviewed 5 times. Each person I interviewed with gave my recruiter great feedback and said that if the hiring was up to them I would have the job. Then the position stalled due to the holidays in 2010. I heard nothing for 5 months then out of the blue I am contacted by my recruiter again because they are asking if I'm still available. So the whole process started all over again. Why???? I had already made it through 5 rounds of interviews and this position was for the same department. I had 7 interviews this time and finally I said that's enough. This wasn't for a position as department head, financial analyst or even a manager...I was just going to be the Executive Assistant for a group of 3 analyst’s. I couldn't believe it. If they would do this for a 45K a year job what must that do to the analyst and wealth managers? I told my recruiter that a total of 12 interviews should let them know whether they want to hire me or not...if they can't make up their mind after that many conversations and face to face meetings, then I don't want to work for them, no matter how prestigious the company. Less than 3 weeks later I landed my dream job and Goldman's is on the front page because one of their employees has called them out publicly. I'm very glad that I didn't make the cut. They don't sound like a great place to work unless you are in a high end position making lot's of money for them. Very glad I'm where I'm at!!
I am also seeing more invasive questions. One potential employer, has a second application that has the following:
What is my spouse's occupation and employer?
Parent's name and current city. Parent's occupation and employer.
In-law name's and current city and their occupation and employer.
Do I own my car? Year and Make, payment.
Do I pay alimony or child support, if so how much?
Any dependents?
If it is for a high security position then these questions are legit, think national security. If not, then the questions are beyond the pale and totally out of line.