told job was given to someone more qualified then readvertised.

DKLS

ganonman wrote: »

Don't take it too personally. I got turned down for a job a couple of days ago with the reason:

They were impressed with my experience, my qualifications and believed I performed very well in the interview, but they weren't sure about whether I'd fit in their team and they didn't know why. (I don't have any personality issues, before you ask :rolleyes:)

This is the worst kind of turn down (IMO), as I'd prefer to know I'd done something wrong so I can work on it, but instead, I'm told I'm good enough but still can't have the job. Ah well...

I see this quite often, on paper a candidate has all the requisites to make a good employee, but then you meet them and you just know that they wouldn't fit in to the team, and more likely cause disruption and upset to the team, so they dont get hired.

PS Dont bother asking for interview notes, you would never get to see the real notes. (thank god )

terra_ferma

DKLS wrote: »

I see this quite often, on paper a candidate has all the requisites to make a good employee, but then you meet them and you just know that they wouldn't fit in to the team, and more likely cause disruption and upset to the team, so they dont get hired.

PS Dont bother asking for interview notes, you would never get to see the real notes. (thank god )

I'm surprised he was even told...
That would leave an employer open to all sorts of discrimination claims, maybe they thought he would have not ground for that?

Oldernotwiser

tiger wrote: »

thanks.i have applied for other jobs.only reason why i was annoyed is them saying "you did well but was given to some more qualified"

I wouldn't be annoyed, they were just being kind and trying to avoid hurting your feelings as you obviously weren't suitable.

wontfallforit

tiger wrote: »

they should have simply said you are not suitable.looking back and reflecting now on the questions they were asking it looks as though i may be overqualified.not "some one more qualified" like they claim

As far as I know, "more qualified" needn't necessarily mean academic attainment. It's more likely to be that, in addition to other skills and experiences.

If candidate A and candidate B have exactly the same academic and/or professional qualifications, one can still be deemed more qualified by performing better in the interview, or having more/better experience.

I don't know your exact situation, but being more qualified on paper doesn't necessarily mean being more qualified for the job.

Anyway, best of luck...it probably wouldn't hurt to try to get more feedback. I'm guessing the most likely situation is that for whatever reason you failed to impress in the interview (), or they offered the job to another person, who swiftly turned it down.

If they deemed you overqualified (which, granted, can be an issue), I doubt they would've gone to the effort of interviewing you in the first place.

Best of luck in your job hunt x

SandC

Try not to take it too personally. There's probably nothing wrong with you at all, just that you didn't seem quite right to them for the position. There may not even be a solid reason - I agree with the others they just gave the 'more qualified person' line as it's an easy one to give. It looks like they just want to widen their net a bit now as it seems whoever they did pick decided not to take the position anyway.

I've applied for jobs I know I could do and not even got an interview. My take on these rejections is that I was probably too good for it! Regardless of what the real reason may be it doesn't matter - I take a positive spin every time rather than dwell on negatives that may not exist.

woody01

tiger wrote: »

hii everyone,
i went for interview few days ago and got back email 3 days later thanking me for attending the interview but unfortunately i didnt get the job.
when i asked for feedback/reason why i didnt get the job, i was told the job went to some one more qualified than myself.
"fair enough " i said to my self. however today i found the same job been re-advertised again with an additional comment "previous applicant need not to apply"
any one with experience with this sort of situation.?is there anyway i can challenge them.? i meet ALL there essential requirements/qualification plus most of the desired requirements

thanks

I realise it must be hard to swallow, but can you not just accept that:
1. You were not qualified for the job
or
2. You were not of the correct personality for the job
or
3. You didn't have the skills they required
or
4. The interviewer just didn't like you

An employer can hire who they like regardless of whether you believe you were the right candidate or not.

Note:
I find it highly irritating when candidates ask for feedback as to why they were unsuccessful. Do they think there is time to waste on this?

speedbird1973

terra_ferma wrote: »

I'm surprised he was even told...
That would leave an employer open to all sorts of discrimination claims, maybe they thought he would have not ground for that?

Rubbish - it's good honest feedback! The guy asked for feedback and got it! I've terminated an interview 10 minutes in. The bottom line was the guy was a tw@t. I told him he would never fit into my team and would he like coffee while I typed up his letter, or did he want to wait for one in the post.

terra_ferma

speedbird1973 wrote: »

Rubbish - it's good honest feedback! The guy asked for feedback and got it! I've terminated an interview 10 minutes in. The bottom line was the guy was a tw@t. I told him he would never fit into my team and would he like coffee while I typed up his letter, or did he want to wait for one in the post.

It seems clear from what you say that you don't have a good grasp of employment law, or a decent HR to back you up.
It may cost you/your company dear if you reject someone covered by discrimination law and all you had to say was "we were impressed with his experience, his qualifications and believed he performed very well in the interview, but we weren't sure about whether he'd fit in their team and we didn't know why" :rotfl:
The Employment Tribunal would love that!

speedbird1973

terra_ferma wrote: »

It seems clear from what you say that you don't have a good grasp of employment law, or a decent HR to back you up.
It may cost you/your company dear if you reject someone covered by discrimination law and all you had to say was "we were impressed with his experience, his qualifications and believed he performed very well in the interview, but we weren't sure about whether he'd fit in their team and we didn't know why" :rotfl:
The Employment Tribunal would love that!

No Terra - If I said "We're not giving you a job because you're a jungle bunny" then I'd accept we'd get hauled over the coals for discrimination. And quite rightly too I hasten to add!

However "People who may not fit in" are not covered under antidiscrimation laws. Laws like this are written to make sure that people have been discriminated against in the past have a little protection. They are not there to be scared of if you have a genuine reason for not employing someone. My HR director assures me "We're not convince you'll fit into the team" is fine. I'm not critisising your HR experience Terra, but bearing in mind if I didn't want to employ someone for "bad" reasons they'd have a tough time proving in court, I white felllow, who's abled bodied but a bit of a !!!!!! would have no chance!

bendix

speedbird1973 wrote: »

Rubbish - it's good honest feedback! The guy asked for feedback and got it! I've terminated an interview 10 minutes in. The bottom line was the guy was a tw@t. I told him he would never fit into my team and would he like coffee while I typed up his letter, or did he want to wait for one in the post.

Completely agree. There is no reason why an employer has to give a reason for not hiring someone, even if they are qualified on paper. People seem to think if they meet the requirements in the job spec, they have an automatic right to the position. Not so at all.