Land of Confusion

There's too many people
Making too many problems

Cant you see 

This is a land of confusion.

- Genesis

Sure, I know.  If you grew up in the 80s, you know Phil, Tony, and Mike were more interested using in the Spitting Image puppets to lampoon the Reagan Administration rather than the job market, but in many ways, their outlook seems equally reflective of the kind of sanity-challenging experience that awaits every new job seeker today. 

What often surprises me - although it's admittedly happened with such frequency that I've begun to think I shouldn't be surprised - is how many firms continue to treat candidates in the very way that, were the roles reversed, would get the candidates dropped from consideration almost instantly.  

In my most recent posting, I mentioned a firm that took me through a rapid series of interviews - both over the phone and in person - and e-mailed me the day after the last interview to ask for references before moving forward with an offer.  I eagerly provided the information and contacted my associates so they could be alerted to expect a call.  

Nothing happened.  

So, after a week, I queried the employer - you can probably guess where this is going - and the employer suddenly seemed to have a bad case of cold feet about hiring.  "When we know more, we'll let you know," was the response that I received.  

Jump forward another month.  Here's what I suddenly see in my inbox: 

From: HR DIRECTOR
To: John F
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:31 PM
Subject: Checking In

Hi John -

I hope this note finds you well!

I wanted to check in on your status with regard to your job search.  Have you found a position yet?  If not, we'd love to have you come back in and meet with [NAME] and possibly a few other folks. 

Let me know.

Thanks,
[Name withheld]
Human Resources Director
COMPANY NAME

So, let's review.  A month ago I had two face-to-face interviews after a phone screening with the founder of the company and was asked to provide references so the company could move forward with perhaps some sort of preliminary offer.  Then a week went by with no follow up or contacting of my references.  When I inquired about the status, I got a brush off ("We still haven't decided...").  I thanked her for her honesty and placed two follow-up phone calls to the senior-most folks I talked with, saying it had been a pleasure to meet with them, if things changed to please contact me, etc. 

Then, a month later, I receive another e-mail that makes it sound as though we're taking a rather large step backward in the recruiting process.  In other words, a month ago we were in the process of moving forward with preparing a possible offer, now a month later - with no communication in between whatsoever - I'm being asked if I want to come back down to talk with more people. 

Sounds great, doesn't it?  Yet I've seen this happen time and again with employers reaching out to people before they really know what kind of job they need to fill or what sort of qualifications the person they want to fill it needs to have.  The result is a disorganized process that serves neither the employer nor the candidate very effectively.  The employer gets people with all kinds of skills sets that it can't evaluate; and candidates get at best a chaotic or mixed picture in terms of the level of focus and organization at the company.  

To sum up my experience as a candidate:

1.  The company had already received a referral from a respected mutual acquaintance who had written me a phenomenal recommendation. 

2.  The owner had telephoned me for a 1-hour phone screening interview. 

3.  I had scheduled time off from another job to come down and park - at my own expense - to meet with one of the company's team managers and her staff. 

4.  I had followed that meeting with another the following week with one of the co-founders of the firm, the founder herself, and a senior partner.  

5.  Following that final meeting, the HR manager asked me for references so they could "move forward with next steps."  

Then, after this...nothing.  Then backtracking. Then repeating an offer to come back and talk some more.  

Now, how does this appear to the candidate?  Well, for starters - 

1.  If you have a strong referral from a trusted source, it's understandable that you still need to do an interview.  Following a standard screening and discussion process is perfectly reasonable.  But leaving someone  hanging for several weeks and conveying an impression of indecision ill serves you as a firm and does little to inspire confidence in your candidates that yours is a company worth joining. 

2.  The process is extremely inconsiderate of the candidate's time.  Assuming s/he has to secure time away from a part-time job or other appointment(s) to meet with you, s/he is doing a lot to show sincere interest in you and your firm.  Treating him or her shabbily does not show respect for his time, and that makes him wonder - understandably - how you will treat him as an employee if you don't respect his time as a candidate.  Think of it this way, is it unreasonable for the candidate to ask himself, "If this is how they're treating me now, how will they treat me once I'm staff?"

3.  You are not only being highly inconsiderate of the candidate's time but also of his wallet.  Asking someone to come down and meet with you in the city not only means taking time away from other prospective interviews and/or jobs, it also means the candidate has to pay money out of his own pocket to meet with you.  This includes not only gas, parking, subway fare, etc., but it can also include photocopying fees if the candidate takes the time to prepare visuals for you to highlight what work he's done in the past and would be willing to bring in terms of skills to your company.  Even just a couple of interviews can easily run $40-50 in terms of out-of-pocket expenses.  Which begs the question, if you interview someone multiple times without indicating whether you're moving toward an offer - but that you'd rather continue discussions on an ongoing (and undetermined) basis - at what point does it really cease to be cost-effective for the candidate to be talking with you if he knows it's going to cost him money with no real indication of any return on that investment?  

But let's put this another way.  Suppose we switched the tables around and our candidate was contacted by the employer for multiple interviews...but then...suddenly...stopped talking with the employer.  ("I haven't decided which way I'm leaning toward in terms of which way I want to go with my next position.  When I do, I'll be in touch.")  Even better, suppose that candidate then reaches out to the employer a month later to ask if they're still looking to hire or would like to get together to "talk" again.  Mind you, the candidate has not indicated he's interested in working for you, only that he would like to continue the discussion, follow up, maybe meet more people at the firm, etc. 

What would the company's likely reaction be?  

My guess is that it would probably something pretty close to, "This guy doesn't know what he's looking for and is wasting my time.  I have more pressing issues requiring my attention, and I'd certainly prefer to spend it talking with candidates who are serious about our firm rather than someone who can't make up his mind." 

And yet, for some inexplicable reason, this two-way nature of exchange that makes up 50% of all job interviews - remember, the candidate is evaluating you as much as you are the candidate - still seems lost on so many employers.  

And while such behavior may work in a recessionary economy where many are desperate for work, such practices run the risk of long-term harm to a company that practices them simply because they show themselves as being unworthy of candidates' time, inconsiderate of their costs, and - bluntly put - they show complete ignorance of what can happen in the era of social media when one disgruntled candidate can post his thoughts and experiences online for the world to see.  

And that will make recruiting future candidates all the more challenging.