interviewers who suck: our next installment

I know you guys like interview horror stories -- because you're sadists? -- so here's a great one for you. A reader writes:

I interviewed with a company this morning for an entry-level position. HR called me yesterday to schedule an interview with me for 10 am today. I arrived at the interview approximately 3 minutes early and there were 2 women waiting to go in for their interviews. The interviewer finally took one of the people waiting for an interview in at about 10:05. I found out that she was scheduled for an interview at 9 am and the guy doing the interview didn't arrive until after 9:30.

The first lady came out from her interview and the second one went in. While I was waiting for my interview, one of the field agents came into the waiting area and was waiting to talk to his manager, the interviewer. The manager and the field agent had a 10:30 conference call with their corporate office and it was currently 10:25. 

While we were waiting for the manager to come out of the interview I was talking to the field agent about what type of work I could expect, how he liked his job and stuff along those lines. The field agent then asked me if the manager was interviewing a man or a woman, so I told him that he was interviewing a woman. The field agent told me that they haven't hired any women yet because they interview well but can't perform like the guys can out in the field. I should have stood up and walked out at this point. 

It is now 10:45 and I am getting ready to go in for my 10:00 interview, I will admit that at this point I have really negative thoughts about this job/company going through my head. Before I sat down the guy told me that the interview had to be short since he was already late for an important conference call. The total time of the interview was maybe 5 minutes. The second question of the interview was, when are you available to start? I gave him a start date about 2 weeks out. I thought 2 weeks was standard for a notice that you are leaving so I assumed most companies would be okay with hiring you and needing to wait 2 weeks. To the interviewer, 2 weeks was too long of a time frame and he informed me that I was just "wasting his time" being at this interview so far in advance. He then told me to call him at a time when I can start sooner to see what he has for available positions and we can do the interview process again.

This was by far the worse overall experience I have ever had interviewing for a position. Looking back, I should have just walked out. I have already turned down 2 similar jobs in the past year and am certain that if offered this one I would not have taken it. And in case you are curious, I will not be calling him back in 2 weeks to schedule another interview.

There's so much to choose from here, but I think my favorite part is that he told you that you were "wasting his time," after he'd just warehoused you in his waiting area for 45 minutes.

To make this somewhat educational instead of purely voyeuristic, here are links to posts about danger signs when you're interviewing for a job and more danger signs.

employer left me a message -- but wouldn't respond when I tried to get back to them

A reader writes:

Recently I faxed my resume and cover letter to a company that had a job posting on Career Builders. About a week later I received a call from a lady in HR asking that I return her call. I got home about an hour and half later and returned the call and received her voicemail. I left a brief, polite message. 

Two days passed and the lady did not return my call. I called back on the third day and left another message stating who I was and that I had returned her call three days ago and asked that she call me back and said that I hoped to hear from her soon because I was eager for a chance to talk to her about the position available. Another week passed with no call from her. I emailed my cover letter and resume to her again with a brief message that I was interested in knowing if the position was still available. I never received word from her. 

What was the reason she called in the first place and is this just a missed opportunity because I missed her first call by an hour and a half?

Unfortunately, she has probably moved on and you should too. 

Here's what likely happened: She's looking for, say, four people to interview in-person. She's going to phone-screen promising-looking candidates until she finds those four. When she gets to four, she's done with the phone screens. And she found four before you called her back. (I don't like this method because it means the strongest candidates may never get identified, but it's not uncommon.)

There are other possible explanations too, although I think the one above is the most likely: After calling you, she found a stronger candidate who bumped you out of the running. Or she found out that the hiring manager has settled on a candidate. Or changed the job description. Or canceled the job altogether.

Now, in any of those cases, she should have gotten back to you to tell you, so that you weren't left hanging -- no matter what, but especially after seeing you follow up more than once. Not doing so is rude and inconsiderate. It's also sadly typical of the increasing number of employers who feel no obligation to treat candidates with politeness once they decide they have no further use for them.

Now, what could you have done differently? Short of never being away from your phone and always being prepared to talk -- which is unrealistic and no way to live your life -- nothing. It's something you've got to chalk up to an irritating reality of job hunting. And you're entitled to feel frustrated.

a tale of bad interviewer behavior, this time with reference abuse

A reader writes:

After a 45-minute phone interview with a small non-profit in another state, I was invited to interview in-person. The interviewer contacted me two days prior to the interview to request that I provide the following to her, in less than 24 hours:
- Phone numbers for four references, who were then subjected to their own 45-minute interview prior to my in-person interview. (Two of them have since indicated they cannot be a reference for me again as they were offended and put off - I would have warned them but I had no idea that would happen!)
- A complete executive level communications plan. (I provided 10 pages).
- Two writing samples on a topic of the interviewer's choice, written in two different styles.

To comply with these demands, I had to rearrange my work schedule, already crammed by the planned out-of-town interview. I lost business, and a lot of sleep.

When I reached the interview, they informed me that I would be in back-to-back 35-minute interviews with SIX people, one of whom was the prior holder of the position. Then I would lead a strategy session. After all that, they told me they'd let me know in two weeks.

After three weeks, they told me the position was no longer available. I found out they kept the prior person, who was, unsurprisingly, a rather unpleasant interview who spent the group session literally making unpleasant faces in response to my answers, although I tried to be as tactful as possible.

I guess all you can do is laugh, but I have two questions:

1) Do you think this was some sort of shock-and-awe interview system, that I failed?
2) Is there a way to reassure my references this won't happen again? Or should I just try to develop new ones? I really feel awful!

For that matter, if I can throw in a third question, should someone request my references prior to the interview again, is there a way I can tactfully find out whether they're planning to ambush them prior to even meeting me?

Wow.

No, I don't think it was an intentional shock-and-awe approach. I think it was just bad hiring.  Where to begin...

Warning sign number one was when they gave you less than 24 hours to provide fairly involved work, without any notice or any consideration that you might have other commitments for that time. That screams "we're self-centered and think we hold all the cards, so prepare yourself for further inconsideration from us."

And of course treating candidates poorly indicates an employer isn't particularly strategic about hiring, which was further backed up when they did lengthy reference checks before they even interviewed you. It's silly to do that before an interview -- a smart employer waits until they know they're strongly interested in a candidate before investing that sort of time. Plus, once they know the candidate better, they may find there are specific things they want to ask her references about. Talking to references before an interview denies them that opportunity (not to mention potentially wastes the references' time).

I suggest contacting your references and apologizing profusely. Tell them you had no idea this was going to happen, that your experience with the company after that indicated that they weren't the sort of company you'd want to work for anyway, and that you're terribly sorry that the company was so inconsiderate of their time. Ask them to please forgive what happened.  And they should -- this is obviously not your fault. The two references who have said they won't speak on your behalf again -- what's up with them? This is obviously the employer's fault, not yours, and it's not as if there's something about you that's likely to provoke this sort of thing again in the future. Apologize profusely and ask if they'll reconsider; if they won't, they weren't great references to start with anyway. Great references are your champions and want to help you.

And yes, in the future it's absolutely okay to request that your references not be contacted until the employer is seriously interested in making you an offer. It's reasonable to want to protect your references from fatigue.

HR missed our scheduled phone interview and didn't respond to follow-up

A reader writes:

About two weeks ago, I received an email to schedule a phone interview with a large firm on the West Coast (they also have a branch on the East Coast, where I am located). This interview was supposed to happen a week ago on Friday. When our scheduled time arrived, I waited patiently for a call. I continued waiting patiently for ten minutes, after which I called to leave a voicemail. I had no response at all that day, so I sent off an email late Monday asking to reschedule. The HR contact had an autoreply saying that the person was away and that should there be an urgent message, to call him on his cell phone (number included).

Is this type of behavior normal? Should I expect any kind of closure from this quasi-interview?

Judging from my mail, it's more normal than it should be. It's obviously incredibly rude and inconsiderate, and it indicates that the employer is disorganized too.

You did the right thing by calling when they didn't call at the scheduled time, and then by following up in email. I would follow up a couple of more times reiterating your interest in rescheduling. However, brace yourself from not hearing back from them, as may happen if they are rude, which we already know they are, and have spoken with enough other candidates that they're now done with phone interviews. And for that matter, be braced for them calling you again two weeks later after you've already written them off. Because what you know about these people for sure is that they are going to be sloppy and unprofessional in the way they handle the hiring process.

Now, does that indicate that you shouldn't pursue a job with them if they do get back in touch? I'd love to say yes, but the reality is that job-seekers don't always have that luxury. It's also true that it's possible that this one person's incompetence isn't representative of the rest of the company. I wrote a couple of months ago about some options for handling this; you can read it here. Good luck!

company made me a tentative offer, then hired someone else

A reader writes:

I have a question about what I should do after, I feel, I have been lied to in my job search.

I applied for and was interviewed at a local university. During the interview I was unable to meet with the head of the department because she was recovering from a surgery. The next day they set up a telephone interview for me to have with her because she was unable to meet in person. At the end of the phone interview, she said: "We are very impressed with you, I would like to tentatively offer you the position providing your references check out" (well that is pretty much what she said). Then she continued to say she would call my first two references that were not my current supervisor, work with the university to put together a job offer, then she would send me the offer, if I accepted she would call my current supervisor and if everything checked out, I would be hired. I was really excited!

I provided her with all my references knowing they would check out. Two days later, a Friday, she emailed me to say she had not gotten a chance to call my references, but would call early next week. Two and a half weeks went by, one of them was during a huge snow storm, and I decided to follow up to see if she was able to contact my references, etc. I know these things take time.

She answered that they had decided to hire someone else who had a different skill set then me. I was angry, I replied and told her I was under the impression I had the position contingent on my references; I asked if she had contacted them and if it was something they said. She replied and said it was not that at all, they were still interviewing when she had talked to me and thought the person they hired was a better fit. She then said everyone really liked me and I should continue to apply to jobs in their department.

I have not followed up yet. I know I should not think I have the job until I have an offer and was prepared for some possibilities, but not that they were interviewing other people still! Should I follow up with her? Is this normal, should I get used to it and I actually have no reason to be angry?

Ugh. It's true that you shouldn't count an offer until you have it writing.

She was sloppy in how she handled this though. She was sloppy in her language when she let you think the job was yours, pending a reference check, and I can't believe that she didn't apologize profusely to you when she then had to deliver a different message later on. Your account here makes it sound like she was weirdly cavalier, like she thought it was no different from any regular job rejection. I really, really don't like that.

(Plus, what's up with her not even bothering to tell you until you called her to check in? I am not a fan of this woman.)

In response to your question of whether you should be angry, I'd say that you don't get anywhere by being angry in a job search. Take in all the information you're receiving about an employer treats people, but don't get angry. Use that information to make good decisions for yourself. Maybe in this case you decide that this woman is flighty and you wouldn't want to work for her. Or maybe you decide this was bad luck, or even a miscommunication, and that you're open to future jobs with them.

And always, always assume you don't have an offer until you're reading it in writing.

HR rejected me, but interviewer said I'm still in play

A reader writes:

I interviewed with a company about a month ago, and I'm not sure what the deal is with these people.

I had an in-house interview on February 5th, and they initially told me it'd be a week or two before they made a decision. Everything seemed to have gone well and I felt like I had a good rapport with everyone. Two weeks later, I get a phone call from their HR rep and she tells me that they're still considering me but that it will take another week or two. That was a Friday.

The subsequent Monday, I get a form letter rejection. I sent a nice email to everyone I spoke with thanking them for their time and asking if they had any advice. One of my interviewers responded right away saying there was some glitch in the automated system and I'm still being considered. About an hour later, I got a call from their HR rep and she said that they filled the position I interviewed for and that it was a really close call. However, the team wants me to apply for a job that will be open early this week.

I know it's still "early this week" but I haven't heard from anyone, and I'm starting to get a little paranoid here that I'm just being jerked around. This company isn't known for swift hiring. In fact, one of my friends who works there in another division said it took him 8 months to go from "interview" to "hired."

My question is how much should I be calling/emailing these people? I don't want to be a pest, but I want to stay on their radar. Everything else about the position and the company is awesome--it's this stage of the interview process that is driving me nuts.

Okay, this is a good illustration of a principle that I wish more people would follow: If something is weird or contradictory, speak up. Speak up nicely, but say something.

You're getting rejected (twice!) by an HR rep while the interviewer is telling you that you're still in the running. We need to find out what's up, because they don't seem to be on the same page.

Why not say to the interviewer, "Thanks so much for telling me I'm still in the running - I'm really glad to hear it. But about an hour after you told me that, I got a second contact from HR, reiterating that I'm not being considered for that position any longer (and that it's been filled). I don't mean to cause confusion, but I'm not entirely sure where things stand."

Now, it's entirely possible that the HR rep is right, and word just hasn't made its way to the interviewer yet. But it's also perfectly feasible that the HR rep is an incompetent. Don't assume either way -- just politely point out the discrepancy and wait for them to resolve it and give you a clearer answer.

So, to your question: How much can you follow up? Well, first you want to wait for the timeline they gave you to play out. They said you'd hear from them "early this week," and it's Monday. I'd give them at least until Wednesday, and follow up on Thursday if you haven't heard anything. As a general rule, don't follow up before the timeline has expired.

Also, on the subject of whether or not they're jerking you around: I propose that it doesn't matter. You should continue an active job search, regardless, and don't count on anything from these people until you have a firm offer in hand. (That's always true, but it's especially true when you feel like you're not getting clear and reliable signals.)

By the way, eight months to hire? I'm skeptical about this place. In general, you want to work somewhere that can make decisions.

and we're going to strip-search you before the job interview

A reader writes:

After filling out an online application, I received an email from the (large and well-known) employer asking that I return to their career website to provide my date of birth, social security number, and driver's license number. They added that they will only use the information to begin a background check if I were to receive and accept a job offer from them.

Is it weird for a company to ask me for this information and consent (permission to do background check) before even a phone interview or any preliminary step like that? Maybe I am paranoid or maybe it's just that I've never had any organization ask for this immediately upon applying before, but it kinda seems like doing things out of order to me -- like if they wanted to do a credit check on me when I'm one of five final candidates, fine -- but just for applying?

It's not unheard of -- I've occasionally had other readers tell me it's happened to them too -- but I think it's rude and in poor form to ask for it at this stage, and also unnecessary.

It illustrates yet again the frustrating power dynamics that job seekers face in an economy like this. Because really, why should you subject yourself to unnecessary and invasive practices like this? But when you are out of work and looking for a job, need often trumps principle, and understandably so. We should all care, though, that some companies ask people to choose between being considered for a job or standing up for privacy and common sense.

I do think you could simply say you don't provide information like that at this stage, because of concerns about identity theft and the practically universal advice not to release such information until an employment relationship has been created or is imminent. But you have no way of knowing whether the person who would receive that note from you is (a) logical and reasonable or (b) a bureaucrat who cares about procedure above all else.

Which leaves you back where you started, having to decide whether you're willing to subject yourself to unreasonable and unsettling demands in order to be considered for a job there. All before you're even interviewed.

This kind of thing is terrible for employees, and -- assuming you agree that it's in employers' best interest to treat good people well, because even if they don't have many options in today's economy, they will some day -- it's not good for employers either.

when a recruiter asks for your height, weight, age, and marital status

A reader writes:

I sent a resume to a recruiter and he then sent me a survey to complete. The survey was laden with questions that are illegal to ask in the employment process. Yet several friends of mine said this is how employers are bypassing EEO requirements. They simply use an outside firm and say, "We want an unmarried male under the age of 30 with the appropriate height and weight." They can't advertise this but they can certainly tell the recruiting firm they want this profile in a candidate. As an older career changer on the stocky side, I tend to rather sensitive about questions about my marital status, height and weight.

I stated this in my response to this particular recruiter and I was amazed by his email to me, which follows:

Thanks for responding - in reference to your comments - we don't discriminate for any reason - it is illegal to not hire someone because of their answers to those questions...frankly, we don't care..it is just information that many times we are asked by clients - it may open a door, not close one. We are not the enemy, we are your best ally - we try to get you in the door.

I'm amazed that people fill that information out in every other walk of life..i.e...life insurance forms, license forms, census.. etc.. and they never complain.

This reader forwarded me the questionnaire he was asked to fill out. Here are the questions it contains, in its entirety:

1) Current or most recent base salary? Bonus earned? Auto program?
2) Do you own your home? Are you open to relocation? Any location preferences?
3) Are you married? Children?
4) What is your birth date? Health? Height? Weight?
5) Why are you looking for a new opportunity?
6) If separated from company – separation date?
7) Any special parameters you want us to keep in mind for your search?
8) Any other information you feel we should know that is not on your resume?

As I've said before, the act of asking about things like marriage, children, and age isn't illegal, but considering the answers in an employment decision is. So it's just stupid to ask them, and anyone who's done hiring and ever talked to a lawyer doesn't use them. (In the U.S., that is. I know they're not uncommon elsewhere.)

This questionnaire is amazing. Who is this recruiter? (Also, how stupid is he? If he really wanted to know this stuff, he could figure most of it out in person through casual conversation.)

I especially love his last paragraph, defending himself. You fill out this information on insurance forms (where it's, uh, relevant), so why not turn it all over to him too? And why not throw in a naked photo while you're at it?

Anyone want to take a whack at this guy? Or defend him?

the weirdest interview question ever?

This amazing story comes from one of the commenters on my U.S. News & World report post earlier this week about how to handle inappropriate interview questions.

Linda R. wrote:

When I was just out of college (ahem...the early 80's, a less enlightened age), a friend went on an interview for an administrative position. She felt the interview was going very well. Then, the interviewer asked, "Can I look in your purse?"

In response to her shocked expression, he explained that he finds that to be the best indicator of how organized a woman is. She lost her composure for a minute, she was taken so by surprise, but wound up handing it over. He fingered through it, muttered something, thanked her and handed it back. She didn't wind up getting the job -- not due to a messy purse she was sure, since she had just cleaned it out. Nothing I've ever heard since then has struck me as a weirder question than that one.

Several reactions:

1. This would really annoy me. To the point that I might not take a job working for him.

2. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy for their purse contents.

3. Most importantly, I wonder what he asks men.

employer "appalled" by candidate's questions to HR

A reader writes:

I've been working in a freelance position that is project based for a few months with a medium sized company. They have been working towards hiring me on more permanent part-time basis. The position would include working on an event basis but also office hours, and include similar but not exactly the same work as I am doing now by completing projects for all of the various departments.

My boss said once I had "applied" and references were checked, we could go over any details and negotiate salary. "Applying" was primarily providing references and contact information online - no resume, no cover letter. I received an offer letter with a lower salary than I am willing to take and no details about the position.

This offer was sent from an HR representative, and I sent an e-mail back asking about negotiating salary, receiving a job description, an outline of any benefits, the parking situation, and mentioned I would discuss a schedule with my boss. I tried to write the letter similar to examples I found online, as a proposal and to be further discussed.

The HR representative then forwarded my letter to my boss and one of the directors of the company. I was told by my boss that the director does not want to hire me as they "were appalled that I would email the HR person rather than talk to my boss directly" and I was "too demanding."

They were terribly surprised when I said with all other previous jobs I've been offered, I have been asked to send these requests directly to HR. In fact, on the online form sent to "accept" the job said to email the HR person with any questions. After sending the email to HR (in which I also asked if any of my questions should instead be directed to my boss), I even emailed my boss telling him I had sent an e-mail to HR with these questions.

Is it bad form on the part of the company to get angry and suggest not hiring me over asking to negotiate salary, obtaining a written job description and a more detailed schedule?

They are still willing to offer me the job, but when we sat down to talk about a schedule and job description, I was given general "ideas" of what they thought I would be doing and the hours. Essentially "playing it by ear" once I start.

It's a new position that only one person before me has held (for a month) - so I understand they don't know exactly what will happen. The company and position title would look impressive on my resume, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to live up to expectations that no one seems to agree on or is willing to put in writing. Is this a red flag? How would you turn down a job offer on something like this?

Um, wow. I don't know how badly you need to accept a job right now, but unless you're desperate, I'd probably run in the other direction.

They were "appalled" that you asked perfectly reasonable questions to someone who it was perfectly reasonable to ask them to? Even if there were something unusual about you directing those questions to HR -- which there isn't -- their aggressive attack in response is really weird and inappropriate.

And you're "too demanding"? What are these people going to say when you ask for time off or a raise or a new computer?

These are not good signs.

I'm not as bothered by the fact that the job is still something of a work in progress, but you'd want to make sure you were reasonably aligned on how your success would be judged and what their overall goals for the position will look like. Yes, they're playing it by ear a bit, but they still must know what they'd be happy with at the end of a year and what they wouldn't be. And if they don't know, now is a good time for them to figure it out with you.

I think I would say to these people something like this: "I'm really interested in this job, but there's something that I'm unsure about. I was surprised by the reaction when I emailed my questions to HR. I thought my email was pretty reasonable, and I'm trying to understand why you were appalled and found it inappropriately demanding. I'm a big believer that cultural alignment is important and can predict a lot about a candidate's chances of success once on the job, so I'm hoping you can tell me a bit more about why the company reacted the way it did so we can figure out if I'm the right fit for you or not."

And then really listen to the answer. If you're not comfortable with the response, you should have no qualms about telling them that you're turning down the offer because of that.

You suck, interviewer!

I'm on a bit of a rampage about interviewers who don't bother to send candidates notices of rejection after a candidate has taken the time to interview with them.

You put hours into preparing for the interview. Maybe you buy a new suit. Maybe you drive several hours to get there, spending gas money you don't really have or taking a vacation day to do it. Then you sweat it out through the interview itself. They tell you that they'll notify you of their decision in a week. And then ... nothing. It's like you don't exist to them.

This behavior is inexcusable -- it's callous and dismissive and lacks any appreciation for the fact that the candidate is anxiously waiting to hear an answer -- any answer -- and keeps waiting and waiting, long after a decision has been made. It's just not that hard to send a quick email, even a form letter, letting the candidate know she's no longer under consideration.

Employers owe interviewees a response, period.

This particularly pisses me off because sane job seekers aren't going to call employers like this on their rude behavior, lest they burn their bridges with the organization. So employers get to act like this with impunity, and the rare person who does complain about it is generally dismissed as naive or crazy, simply because no one else does it.

I'm seriously thinking of offering a service on this site that job seekers could use to generate an anonymous letter to the employer, telling them how rude they are. It would be a public service: the Ask a Manager You-Suck-As-An-Interviewer Automatic Letter Generator ® .

bad interviewer behavior: a forcible, sweaty hike

I always enjoy nightmare interview stories, so here's one for you.

A friend of mine recently went for a job interview that consisted of two parts -- first an interview with an HR rep, followed immediately by an interview with the hiring manager. At the end of the HR portion, the HR rep told her that the next meeting was in a different building, but that "it will be faster for you to walk there than to drive."

My friend believed her because ... why wouldn't you?

Her walk to the second building ended up being close to three quarters of a mile. She was in heels and a suit. It was a horrible east coast summer afternoon, meaning hot and humid. When she arrived at the second building for part two of her interview, she was, by her own description, covered in sweat and reeking quite foully.

She was then immediately sent into a small, hot, and apparently not air conditioned office to finish the interview ... which she did, drenched in sweat and smelling what can only be described as terribly offensive.

She is quite understandably baffled and annoyed.

She also notes that it would have been faster to drive, parking wasn't an issue, etc., so why the HR rep inflicted this on her is rather inscrutable. This was not a job that requires the ability to withstand unpleasant physical conditions, nor does it involve any sort of boot camp, so WTF?

So, a public service announcement: When you are interviewing someone, in general it's both useful and nice to try to put them at ease, so that they have a decent experience and so you can get a better sense of what they're like day-to-day. It's also to everyone's benefit not to direct candidates to do things that will cause a normal person to reek. And if you do somehow inadvertently push them into a forced march or a sweat lodge, you should apologize profusely and offer extended bathroom time for repairs.

What is wrong with people?

stupid interview questions (and win a free office chair!)

If you could be a tree, what tree would you be?

What type of animal are you most like?

What would I find in your refrigerator right now?

Who the hell is asking these sorts of interview questions? Apparently someone is, because complaints about them abound. But they're lame, and more than being lame, they're useless. People who defend them say that they're supposed to show how creative the candidate is, or how able to think on her feet. I say there there are plenty of other ways to determine that, while still being actually related to the job.

Recently, a friend and I were debating how we'd respond if we were asked any of these in an interview. Our conclusion: not in a way the interviewer would like.

Have you ever been asked these sorts of questions? How did you answer? How would you answer if someone were so lame as to pull this on you?

Leave your answer in the comments section. The best answer will win a free office chair for your home office or any other office furniture of your choice, generously donated by CSN Office Furniture. The winner can pick any item from their site, with a retail value of up to $125.

interviewer wants reference from current employer

A reader writes:

I am in the midst of applying for a new job. I have interviewed three times with a prospective employer and have been told that I am one of the final candidates for the position.

The HR rep contacted me and asked if they can contact my current manager/supervisor for a reference. I explained that I would prefer they not contact my manager, since it may jeopardize my standing with my current employer. They keep insisting that they speak with my current manager, but I am afraid that if they do, my current employer may let me go in layoffs or attempt to force me out of the job somehow (i.e., re-assign, transfer, etc).

Am I obligated to provide the reference to the prospective employer? I feel that their insistence is unprofessional and inappropriate. What if they contact my employer and end up not offering me the job? Or what if I don't accept the job offer? What is the best way to handle this without losing either job?

You certainly aren't obligated to provide your current employer as a reference. However, if the company you're interviewing with is insisting on it, be aware that refusing may take you out of consideration as a result.

However, this is pretty unusual. Most companies understand why candidates don't want their current employer contacted, and it's odd that this one is insisting. Usually, the current employer is either skipped or is contacted only after they've decided to make an offer -- which they make contingent on a good reference from your current employer.

In the rare instance where a company absolutely insists on contacting your current boss before making an offer, these are your options:

1. Take the risk and allow it. Warn your boss ahead of time. Some people in this situation tell their boss they're applying for a part-time or volunteer position, although I think that's risky.

2. If you've had a previous boss at your current job who has now moved on, ask the company if they'd contact her instead.

3. Hold firm with this company. Tell them you are not able to jeopardize your current employment without a firm offer in hand from them, but that you'd be happy to supply many other references and to allow them to contact your current company once you have an offer (which can be contingent on that reference check, assuming you know the reference will be fine). You might even throw in a mention that it's highly unusual for a company to insist on contacting a candidate's current employer at this stage; maybe you're dealing with someone clueless. You can also throw in, "In this economy, it's not a risk I can take." If they don't understand that, consider that a pretty substantial red flag about this new company.

Personally, I'd do #3. What do others think?

the sound of silence: companies that don't send rejections

One of the biggest complaints I hear from job seekers who write to me is about companies that don't respond to job applicants: no rejection, nothing.

There's a real divide on the issue. Job seekers think it's incredibly rude, while many companies feel perfectly justified in not putting resources into dealing with candidates they're no longer interested in hiring.

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I give my own take on this issue. Please head over there to read it and leave your own thoughts.

interviewers who don't interview

A reader writes:

I recently interviewed for a position that I think I'm under-qualified for. The position is to be a dean of department at a university which requires 7+ years experience in a similar post and a great deal of knowledge about financial markets. I graduated from the top ivy league school in the country and have a Ph.D. in educational administration with varied and limited actual work experience in finance. ( I don't think graduating from a top ivy is a big deal, by the way).

Anyway, during my interview for the position, the vice president of the university couldn't stop talking about the fact that I graduated from this top school. She didn't ask me any questions about my qualifications at all. She was more interested in "selling" the position to me and asking me about my recent vacation in Turkey. The interview lasted two hours and we spent 1 hour and 30 minutes talking about Turkey. At the end of the interview, she said she definitely wanted me to come back next week to meet with the rest of her staff. She also mentioned that I was first person she interviewed for the job and that she has 60 resumes waiting on her desk to be reviewed. She is also interviewing for 7 other available positions at the same time.

After the interview I went home, did some top-notch painstaking research on some issues related to the needs of the university, and sent her a thank-you letter that included my research findings. The research I presented in the thank-you letter was powerful. I felt that I needed to express that I did have knowledge about the job and would be able to contribute in a meaningful way because I did not get the chance to talk about it during the actual interview. I also wanted to take away any doubts she might have about my abilities just in case she actually gave my resume a second look and realized I have no direct experience.

Anyway, the interview was Friday afternoon and it's now Tuesday afternoon and I have not heard from her. What do you think of her interviewing technique? Do you think that she is still interested ? Is it too soon to follow up? Was presenting the research a good strategy? What's the likelihood that I stand a good chance getting this job?

Well, first, the fact that it's been two business days and you haven't heard from her means nothing. Get in touch with her at the end of the week if you still haven't heard anything.

Regarding her interview technique, there are two possibilities:

1. She is a terrible interviewer who doesn't realize or care that she's supposed to be asking probing questions about your experience.
2. She recognized that you were under-qualified for the position and didn't consider you a viable candidate because of it, and so she filled the time by talking about things that interested her instead of conducting a serious, probing interview. (This scenario assumes that someone else selected the candidates for interviews.)

Either of these is reasonably likely. In this case, however, I'm strongly leaning toward #1, because she let the interview go on for two hours. When you're doing the courtesy interview (#2), you don't let it go on that long. Well, actually you might if you're inefficient and inept and don't value your time or the interviewee's. So I guess I'm back to thinking either option is reasonably likely.

Her mention that she'll want you to come back to meet with the rest of the staff could be genuine or it could have been said in the way people use "I'll call you" on dates they don't intend to call. (If it's that, I don't condone it, but plenty of interviewers say that sort of thing because they don't know a good alternative.)

So here's what we know for sure: This woman is either interested in you and a bad interviewer, or she's not interested and she's inept and inefficient. Either way, she fails interviewing.

Now, on to the more important question: Should you want this job? I'm skeptical that you should, because it does sound like you're under-qualified for it, based on their stated requirements. Be brutally honest with yourself: Are there good reasons for requiring experience in a similar post? If so, and you don't have that experience, are you sure this is a good fit for you? Remember, the goal isn't just to get the job, but to get a job that you'll excel in. Is this that job?

If you do advance in the hiring process, use your next conversations with them to get a really good idea of what the job entails and how your success will be measured. Don't get sucked into any more 90-minute conversations about Turkey. If your interviewer isn't giving you a real interview, start asking your own questions about the position, what they're looking for, and what it takes to do well in it.

If they're inept at hiring and are truly willing to hire someone without the experience they say they're looking for without doing a serious interview, you'll need to do their job for them and figure out for yourself if they should hire you. What you don't want is to find yourself in a job that you struggle with. Good luck!

abusive interviewer extends job offer

This letter from a reader is long but worth it:

My career experience has mostly been in the military, but I have recently completed a college degree in physics with a minor in education after stopping work to stay at home with my daughter. Currently, I am working as a high school science teacher, but I’m not happy with this career. Over the past 6 months, I have been sending out my resume to companies that are hiring entry level engineers.

I’ve been looking to make sense of what happened during a recent interview that resulted in a job offer. I submitted my resume and went through a large company’s application process to end up with an in-person interview, which was great. After the 10 minute interview with the HR director, who told me that I would interview with two supervisors in the department who were looking to fill four different jobs at varying levels, I was picked up by one of the department supervisors I was to interview with (I’ll call him Joe), and we went for a 50 minute tour of the workplace. During the tour, Joe was asking interview questions, and he seemed like a knowledgeable and reasonable person to work for. I really liked Joe. We discussed the positions he had to offer and how those positions related to my experiences and education. Although Joe’s job openings were entry level engineering and below, I was still interested in accepting one of those positions if they were offered. After all, I am looking to change careers, and I’m expecting to pay my dues to make this happen.

Next, Joe told me that we would meet with the supervisor (we’ll call him Jerry), who had a higher level engineering position open. After arriving at Jerry’s office, Jerry began to interview me. During the interview, Jerry asked me what sort of job I am looking for. Upon hearing my answer, he told me that his job opening is not for me. Jerry went further by stating that he really didn’t understand why I had applied for a position in that department because none of their work had anything to do with my background or education. At first, I thought Jerry was just asking the question to see if I could relate their work to my experience and education, which is quite straightforward. I have no problem relating my experience and physics education to the type of engineering practiced in that department, so I politely told Jerry how I felt my experience and background fit with that department’s mission and work. Upon hearing this, Jerry told me that he took a physics class once and failed, so he didn’t see how physics had anything to do with engineering. I explained where I felt physics and engineering meet and how an education and laboratory research experience in physics has helped develop my critical thinking and problem solving skills regardless of the problem set before me. Jerry continued with his mantra that physics has nothing to do with engineering and this is not the job for me.

As Jerry wrapped up his end of the interview, he commented about my current job as a teacher. He told me that his wife is a teacher, and only lazy people teach. I had to work hard to keep my jaw from hitting the floor on that comment. Jerry said that his wife only teaches because she has the summer off, and that certainly would not happen in this company. I told Jerry that I am well aware that the rest of the work force does not have the summer off or even more than one week of vacation for most people. Again, Jerry simply responded by telling me that the job is not for me.

The interview ended with Jerry asking me if I would rather work for him or Joe. There was no way I was touching that one with a ten foot pole, but I did have to say something. If I told Jerry that I would rather stick with a job I can’t stand than work for him, then I would have disqualified myself from all four job openings. Jerry, Joe, and the employees they supervise work on the same floor of the same small building, so I would have to see Jerry and work around him daily. I concluded by stating that I felt that I could work with either of them because I enjoy working with and get along with others. When problem solving, another person’s perspective can stimulate new and interesting solutions. I really expected Jerry to tell me that the job is not for me one more time just to jam his point across.

One month later, I received a call from HR offering me an engineering position for quite a bit more money than I expected. This was two weeks after Jerry had claimed he wanted his new employee to start. Not even thinking about the possibility that I was being offered the job with Jerry, I verbally accepted the job offer. I was told that I still had to electronically sign the contract after reviewing the terms of employment. While sitting at the computer reading through the contract, it occurred to me that I might actually end up working for Jerry. I called HR back to inquire as to who was to be my supervisor. To my dread, she said Jerry. I confessed to the HR rep that, although I was grateful and excited about the job offer, I did not understand why Jerry wanted to hire me because he told me that this job was not for me. Sally, the HR rep, proceeded to tell me how I qualified for the job because of my physics degree and that Joe thought my military electronics experience made me a perfect candidate for the job. She said nothing about why Jerry wanted to hire me. I questioned her about what Jerry thought because he really seemed to discourage me from proceeding through the employment screening process. She told me that she would ask Jerry and get back to me, but she did not. I even told her that I was on a time budget because the school was gearing up to present us with the next year’s teaching contracts. I really didn’t want to put my principal in the position of signing my contract and breaking it soon after. I like my current supervisor. I just don’t like my current career. I waited for one week, and my teaching contract for the next year was presented to me.

Having a definite job and only having a job offer that was not even through the screening process helped me choose to sign my teaching contract and decline the engineering job offer in writing. During the week that I waited for Sally to get back with me, I emailed and called her to inquire about the answer from Jerry and reiterated that my deadline for signing my teaching contract was rapidly approaching. The day after I declined the engineering offer, Sally from HR called and stated how Joe, not Jerry my prospective supervisor, thought I was perfect for the job. Sally said nothing about Jerry.

I am completely confused about how I was offered a job with Jerry in the first place. He made a point of telling me at least a dozen times that the job was not for me. I was certain that my interview with Jerry would not result in a job offer, at least not a job offer to work for Jerry. He told me that I am lazy. At one point, Jerry even asked me if I was dumb. How did those comments from him end up as a job offer one month later?

Secondly, I am not sure if I have burned my bridge with HR in this company. Sally from HR sounded really upset when she called and left her message after I declined the position. I haven’t heard from her since. Although I would never attempt to apply for another job with the same department in that company, I am interested in applying for engineering positions in other departments in the company. I was impressed with the company overall, and my college thesis laboratory research is directly related to work this company does. Would I just end up sending my resume to a black hole and wasting my efforts?

Jerry is one or both of the following:
1. a jerk
2. someone who believes in stress interviews

I tend to believe that #2 is often a subset of #1. A "stress interview" is where the interviewer deliberately acts uninterested or even hostile in order to find out how the candidate responds to stressful situations. Whether they should be used at all is up for debate, but if they are, they should only be used where it's relevant to the job at stake -- litigator, say, or air traffic controller. I don't believe in them at all, since I think there are other ways for a good interviewer to find out how a candidate handles stress, and they don't exactly do a lot to sell good candidates on the job.

To answer your first question, about how someone so rude to you ended up making you a job offer: If it was a stress interview, you apparently passed it. If Jerry is just a jerk, he likely treats lots of people this way and his treatment of you didn't have much connection to his actual opinion of your qualifications. Or Jerry hates everyone, but Joe pushed for you to be hired.

Regarding whether you have a chance with this company in the future, I think you certainly could, but you need to explain to Sally why you turned down the offer. Tell her that you got the strong sense in the interview that you and Jerry had very different communication styles and since Jerry told you multiple times that you weren't right for the job, you didn't think an offer to work with him was the right one for you. Explain, however, that you felt you clicked with Joe, that you are impressed with the company, and that you'd love the opportunity to work with them in the future.

Thoughts from anyone else?

you are high maintenance and full of yourself

A reader writes:

I was asked what my salary range was and researched and sent an email to my prospective employer. He sent me back an email stating that it was too high, so I sent him a email back just asking him what was an acceptable range. At that point, he sent me back three paragraphs bashing me, stating that I was high maintenance and full of myself. How do I respond to that email??

By telling him that you're sorry you couldn't term to terms and wishing him the best of luck and then running far, far away, and counting your blessings that you didn't end up working for him.

Even if you were off-base in your salary range, his response was totally unacceptable. Telling you that you're high maintenance and full of yourself?! If he treats a job candidate like this, imagine how he treats employees who ask for a raise. Seriously, you do not want to work for this man.

The proper response when a candidate names a range that the employer feels is too high is: "That's higher than the range we've budgeted for this position, which is ____, and which we settled on for the following reasons. Is our range prohibitive for you?"

This guy is an ass. Good riddance to him. And if you were inclined to post the full text of his email here, I think we would all enjoy seeing it.

prospective employer called current employer

A reader writes:

I recently interviewed for a position in a company that is opening a new branch in my area in the early fall. I went through the entire interview process, a phone interview and then meetings with 2 HR reps, a branch manager and a VP. Everything went great. I was very clear in the interview process that my current employer was not aware that I was searching for a job and that if I wasn't offered a position with this new company, I was comfortable staying with my current employer because I am well thought of and can have a long term career there if I choose to stay.

In the past week, I have heard from all my references that they have spoken to the HR rep checking references and all went well. I have also heard from my current employer that someone called and said they were planning on offering me a position and needed to verify my current salary. I was speechless.

To make matters worse, this was over a week ago and I have not received a job offer from this company. I know that this perspective employer is interviewing for all positions and has a lot of time on their hands to make offers, but now my current employer is just sitting back and waiting for me to give my notice. I know that my current employer plans to counter but I don't know exactly what they said to the person on the phone. What if it caused this new company to reconsider offering me a position? Is this ethical? I have no problem with them verifying salary and employment history with my current employer but couldn't they say I was trying to buy a car or something? What do you make of this?

What I make of it is that this prospective employer committed a major violation of accepted practices and basic etiquette and common sense.

It is very, very typical for job-seekers to ask that their current employer not to be contacted for a reference, since in most cases the current employer doesn't know the employee is looking. Commonly, once you're a finalist for the position, a prospective employer who is determined to speak with your current manager before extending an offer will tell you that you're a finalist and explicitly seek your permission to do so.

You're luckier than some people, in that it doesn't sound like this is jeopardizing your current job. For many people, it could -- which is why it's not done.

I want to continue attacking them, but in the interest of being constructive: If you want to move this along, you could call the company and explain that you're now in a bit of an awkward position since they gave a heads-up to your current employer, and ask what their timeline is for moving forward.

And if you do end up working there, have a word with their HR folks at some point.

why don't companies get back to applicants?

A reader writes:

I am amazed at the number of times companies have stopped communicating during the interview process without explanation. In this era of email, I don't understand why a brief note isn't sent to let a candidate know they are no longer under consideration.

My most recent experience was with a company that flew me, at great expense, out to their HQ on the opposite coast for a round of in-person meetings with company executives after three earlier phone interviews. The hiring manager stated I was "on top of his list" and "I'll talk to you on Monday"; this was a Friday.

I immediately sent thank you notes to everyone I had met, yet received no responses. After a week I left a voice message requesting an update. After 4 more days I sent an email requesting a status update and including a proposed 30-60-90 day business plan, to which I received a brief email thank you and a promise of a call within two days. This was more than two weeks ago and I haven't heard anything.

I've heard similar stories from friends also in the market. What am I expected to do now?

It seems to be increasingly common, and you're right that it's inexcusably rude. It's just not that hard to tell candidates where their application stands, in every case but especially when someone has taken the time to come in for an interview. And to ignore you when you're explicitly asking for a status update is beyond rude.

I would try one more time, and I would be more explicit, saying something like, "Would you let me know when you expect to be making decisions? I'm extremely interested in the position, but I'm talking with other companies as well so would love to have a better sense of your timeline."

If you don't hear anything back, move on -- that's really all you can do. If they resurface in a month with an offer, you''ll have to evaluate at that point whether it's even a company you want to work for. And if they don't -- well, perhaps bullet dodged.

As for what companies are thinking when they do this, it's one of four things:

1. They are moving more slowly than expected and haven't ruled you out, but for some reason they don't think they need to get back to you until they have something definite to report. Rude, inconsiderate, and short-sighted (since candidates will have other options).
2. They have ruled you out and now don't feel like spending the time responding to you. Rude, inconsiderate, and short-sighted (since you may tell others how they treated you).
3. They are completely disorganized. Rude, inconsiderate, and a place you don't want to work.
4. There is a tiny outside chance that there's an innocent explanation, although I'm having trouble thinking of what it would be. That's why it's worth that one final try, and then write them off and focus on places that treat people politely.