Testing the Waters

An acquaintance of mine happens to have an upcoming interview with the same firm I'm interviewing with on Friday.  We're both in the same line of work, but neither of us is too worried that we'll be competing against each other.

That's because neither of us expects this firm to be hiring at all any time soon.

If that sounds strange, think again. As I pointed out last month in my warning about "zombies" ("Beware the Undead Job Description" - July 28) it is increasingly common for companies to interview candidates even if they have no position available to offer them.  The candidate comes in expecting to have a shot at an actual job, maybe gets called back once or twice more, and then gets told that while his/her qualifications are "outstanding," the firm "just doesn't have a match at this time."  What gives?

Well, for starters, most companies - particularly the larger ones - tie their hiring plans to their projected growth.  This is another way of saying that if you think you'll have more work next quarter, you want to make sure you're doing your best to hire today.  From the DC job market perspective, this means if you're expecting to land several million dollars in federal contracting work, you need to make sure you're staffed and ready to go.  That means hiring now vs. later so you're not scrambling to meet deadlines once deliverables start coming due.

But what if you're not sure about next quarter?  That's the multi-million dollar question.  If companies are unsure what their needs will be, they may still interview to "test the waters" and see what kind of talent is available, but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily looking to hire right away or even that they will be hiring at all.  They just want to know what's out there right now so if they need to grab someone quickly, they have a talent pool to select from. 

On some level, this makes professional sense; but on another, it's terribly misleading to the poor candidate who probably gets his/her hopes up about an impending offer - especially if they've been out of work for a number of months and find themselves quickly moving through the interview process - only to be let down at the end.  If companies were more honest about this approach, it might help clear up any potentially damaging misconceptions.  On the other hand, candidates might just as well feel justified in refusing any interviews that aren't tied to actual positions companies look to fill since this means time taken away from preparing for and pursuing actual openings elsewhere. 

Bottom line: It would be nice if companies that plan to interview could at least inform candidates up front if they are being considered for actual positions or merely being screened for possible "fits" in the event openings occur down the line.  If nothing else, it would certainly be a refreshing sense of honesty and perhaps even improve the quality of any discussions that take place.