Why do interviewers lieI've been on 3 interviews in the last week where the interviewer says I'm a great fit, love my resume, etc. This last person I interviewed with says I'll have Susan call you when she's back in the office tomorrow to give you a time to me with the CEO. The one thing that she made a negative comment about was my salary range, it was apparently a couple thousand too high, but said not to worry about it that I would have to sell it to John the CEO. Cool, I was stoked! No call. I made a follow-up call on Friday morning around 10 a.m. but still no call back. This has now happened 3 times in the last week. I feel completely LIED to and it kind of reminds me of having a really good date but the guy never calls back. Why do they do this? I' m sorry to say this, but this thing is encountered very often. They lie not to make you feel better, but to take you out of their back, at least for the next period. Thank you for the reply. However.... When a company advertises for a person with 7-10 years experience and MUST have a 4 year degree, they call, I show up, and then when I say I require $56k/year (Please note this is a position with a large financial firm in downtown Chicago), why do they choke on $56k/year? When they were only counting on $52k/year...why is $4k more such a big deal for a company that makes hundreds of millions a quarter? Then I find out that some companies advertise this way on purpose in hopes to find someone with this expertise that will work for pennies or they settle for someone under qualified in hopes that they are trainable and then can pay them even less money. I have a recruiter friend that says she has a client looking for a payroll specialist with 3-5 years experience but it only pays $30k/year. Again, this is downtown Chicago so pay here is way higher than if you lived in a smaller town in say Kansas or something. I have a potential job that I've been waiting on because the CIO is out of town, must interview with her before we can move forward. Anyway, the VP of HR told me how much she would pay me, the benefits, and to hold off any job offers if I can. The next day I met with the CIOs 3 VPs, very intense interviewing, the next step as I said was to meet with the CIO but she seems to always be out of town. I was told to wait it out until the 26th when the CIO is back. Although, I've not really been told that I would have the opportunity to meet with the CIO, it was dependant on whether or not the VPs thought I would get along with the CIO (a woman). So...why would a large investment firm do all this interviewing and tell me to wait until the 26th if they didn't want me to interview with the CIO? "Then I find out that some companies advertise this way on purpose in hopes to find someone with this expertise that will work for pennies or they settle for someone under qualified in hopes that they are trainable and then can pay them even less money." Lori, this is becoming the norm, not the exception. A lot of us on this board are encountering this--companies want multi-talented people with years of experience who need to be able to "hit the ground running," and when they find they actually have to-gasp!--pay them a good wage, they will then fill the position with someone whom they can pay less to, but who does not have the expertise to do the job. Then you will see the same job posted over and over again, because they cannot either find someone even halfway qualified who will work for the wages they want to pay, or they hire a less-experienced person who, as it turns out, simply cannot get up to speed as quickly as necessary. It costs more money in the long run to continue to do this, but since so much corporate-think is concerned only with the short term, they do the same thing over and over again. I' ve experienced this, and am currently working for less money than I have made in the last 10 years, but it is with a non-profit, so I didn' t expect to get what I was being paid before, and the work arrangements suit my needs, so I' m OK with it. But my husband, who did finally land a great job paying quite a bit more than he was making before, ran into what you are experiencing time & time again. He would be told he was "perfect" for the job, till they found out how much money he wanted--which was, btw, right in line with what "real" jobs pay in his field, not some salary site' s statistics. But these firms would be wanting to pay someone just barely above entry-level wages. Several years ago, a company wanted him to fill, in effect, two jobs, and wanted to pay $35,000/yr--for someone with 11 years of experience in his field! They subsequently advertised the job at $28,000 a year, and for quite a long time after that, would advertise it 4, 6, 8 months later--clearly because they couldn' t find someone for that salary who could actually perform both of these functions competently! They downgrade the position salary wise, but still require the same level of expertise.... This scenario has not changed over the years, and seems to be getting worse. I guess companies think that because the job market is a "buyer' s" (i.e., the employers) market and not a seller' s market, they can get great people for lousy wages. Any advice on this one company I' m holding out for? If they wanted me to take the next step they wouldn' t make me wait ' til the 26tth if they didn' t want to see me, right? I' m going through a recruiter for this position so technically they' re handling all the communication, and they seem to be on top of it. Any advice? You' re not being lied to. Lied to means that they think you' re the candidate from hell but they tell you that you' re terrific anyway. That' s not what' s happening. They do like you, they do intend to have someone get back to you. But then someone else interviews that they like better. Or the person who was to get back to you had some other things to do first. Or the person that likes you is not the ultimate decision maker. Maybe Susan wasn' t back in the office Friday after all. Don' t take it personally. It isn' t personal at all. And give them some time to get back to you. Getting you hired is not the most important thing on their plate for the week. Yes, I' m being lied to, straight to my face. When she says Susan will call you tomorrow (that was suppose to be Wed.) and by Friday I called them. Left voice mail and still no call back. She said she definitely wants me to meet John the CEO this coming Monday because she would like someone to start on Wednesday 3/28. I truly believe she loved me, etc but wouldn' t pay me what I requested. She lied to me to leave me feeling good about the interview but once I stepped out that door I was dropped from contention. It' s a staggering fact that most potential applicants lie on their resumes, but it' s also a staggering fact that most employers lie too. What do they get out of lying to an applicant during an interview? NOTHING! Or perhaps the ability to get you out the door on good terms and never have to speak to you again. Okay! I would not call this lying as most of us define lying either, but something is terribly wrong. They are giving you a false sense of security because they may be giving in to wishful thinking. They should quit telling us how great we are and how much they want us on their staff. They should be totally honest at the beginning and not mislead us. The following is what they should say: "I am impressed by your qualifications and credentials (if they really are; no phoniness or flattery), but we are far from stopping the screening and interviewing process, so please do not get the impression that a job offer is forthcoming because it is not. I have limited say in the final decision and a few other people will be deciding who gets this job offer; it is not up to me, so please do not think it is! We will definitely be in touch with you very shortly to give you an answer one way or the other, and you have my promise that you will not be left hanging (keep your gosh darn promise please)." It would be nice if the hiring manager or the interviewer could issue a definite day when she will be calling the candidate, if not to give her their final decision, but to at least give her an update on the hiring and screening process. If it' s too much trouble to make phone calls to the people you' ve interviewed, at least send postcards. Any form of communication is better than nothing. How many times do we have say this to managers before it really sinks in and they respect our wishes? Candidates have a responsibility not to get all excited and hopeful until there' s something concrete and definite to get excited and hopeful about, but the hiring manager should curtail her enthusiasm about an "outstanding" candidate and not mislead her or offer false and premature encouragement or lead her on much the way men who are on the prowl have a tendency to mislead or encourage women on the first date ("I' ll call you," blah, blah, blah, and all that c r a p most of us suffered through during the "dating game." ). Apparently the interviewer was not able to "sell it to" John the CEO. Since this has happened three times I have to ask, could there be anything in your background that is negative? Try calling again, ask for Susan. I think interviewers that behave like this give all hiring managers a bad name, sorry this is happening to you! I don' t have anything negative in my background (thank God!), but I think my big problem is salary. When this last woman says something like "Wow, that' s kinda on the high side." then I don' t get a call back. What other feelings or thoughts am I left with? Even after that comment when she said she would have Susan call me but nothing. Just saying that was a lie. | |
|
Career Tips
|