Anyone been in a situation where you didn't get the job, but nobody was hired?

Andypandyboy

Probably because sometimes it is like looking at houses....you start out with a set of criteria and by the end you come to realise that, actually, another criteria appears to be surfacing as a front runner which was previously down the pecking order.

Recruiting is fluid, sometimes the rght person applies first time round, sometimes they don't (for a host of personal and professional reasons).

It is a pain to have to repeat the process, but it is preferable to sticking a square peg in a round hole and then dealing with the consequences of that for years.

[Deleted User]

Depends, I guess if you are chasing the wrong job or the recruiter has the client requirements wrong. Did you not see that bbc2 programme who's the boss? Esp episode no 3 at the brewery Feb-March time this year I found that really fascinating.

Weirder things have happened - more a tip I suppose, I know someone who felt they bummed their interview, (unknown to them they were one of a few top candidates and what do you do when only 1 vacancy is available..) but sent a positive please consider me in the future reply to the unsuccessful email, when a position came up some 7 months later, wow, guess who got called up, saved the company a few bob in readvertising alright! Employers can make mistakes too.

I'm not sure I agree with best of bad bunch in context as I'd hope an Employer was serious on who they chose to interview in first place, but I firmly suppose it goes on and can recall the horror of someone applying for a Telephone Agent role, to hear the phones ring then say do the phones ring that much! (ah that still cracks me up!) could only be our place!! Ok it's only slightly more funny when recently I started asking myself what really is admin nowadays.

prowla

We had two vacancies at my work a while ago and neither were filled; a combination of the difficulties of finding a suitably qualified person and the company's employment process.

sangie595

mattcanary wrote: »

It is easy for a company to say they can't find capable staff, when it would perhaps sometimes be better to look at why already capable candidates don't apply for the job, or why the company doesn;t seem to consider that an imperfect candidate (but one with potential) cannot develop with the company.

Anyway, my main point is why would there be a dramatic change in the type of person that applies for the job the second time it is advertised?
Otherwise isn;t it a case of - why should you expect to get a different result if you do the same thing constantly?

I have already pointed out that we decided not to do the same thing, so we expected a different result and that is what we got. So why ask the same question again? Were you expecting a different result??? Isn't that doing what you are complaining about companies doing?


When a member goes into a disciplinary, the result of which could be dismissal, they don't appreciate us saying that we are really sorry for the second class representation, but this was the best we could recruit! If someone needs training then there are training vacancies they can apply for. There are other opportunities to learn the skills required as lay reps. But officials need the skills to do the job that we are recruiting for. I don't see this being any different from any other industry. Do you really think it is better to recruit someone you have no confidence in on the basis that it'll be o.k. since you can dismiss them anytime in the first two years when they screw up?

theoretica

Readvertising makes most sense with the jobs which only get a few applicants - if an employer has 200 applicants for a job and doesn't like any of them, chances are the problem is with the employer. If they have only 5 realistic applications then readvertising to get other applicants who have only just started job hunting may pay off. Readvertising may also get people who thought first time round that they didn't have a chance (not enough experience for instance) but decide to give it a go the second time and the employer decides they are worth training up.

shortcrust

I recently got a new job that was unfilled at the first attempt. They didn't get any suitable candidates so rejigged the essential criteria. I couldn't apply the first time due to the grade and required experience.

NewShadow

shortcrust wrote: »

I recently got a new job that was unfilled at the first attempt. They didn't get any suitable candidates so rejigged the essential criteria. I couldn't apply the first time due to the grade and required experience.

Congratulations
:T

DKLS

Seen it a few times, where I have carried out a recruitment process not found the right candidate, and the MD has uttered that lovely word Reorganisation, which has resulted in either that head count being lost or the job requirements changing so much I had to recast the net.

ElefantEd

mattcanary wrote: »

Why would you think you will get any " better" candidates if you advertise again?
Unless you advertise in a different way or in different places than the first time.

Yes, that's exactly what we did.

Also of course, there might be new people who happen to start looking for a job in between the two attempts.

Better to wait a few weeks and get a better candidate than go for one that you know isn't suitable.