Why did I have an interview for a job that I was never going to get?
About a month ago, I applied for a role at a company which I am not currently close to. I made it very clear and told them multiple times over the hiring process that I would be relocating if successful as it is far too far to travel daily. I had to go to the company twice, once for an assessment and then for an interview. Yesterday, about two weeks after my interview, I got an email saying that I wasn't successful because they wanted someone already based there instead of someone looking to relocate. Why did I have an assessment and an interview there if they wanted someone already based there? Not only was it a waste of my time, it also costed me a lot in petrol money as I had to drive for hours to get there (twice). It also costed me chances for other job applications as I prioritized preparing for this interview over applying for other jobs and doing tasks and assessments for other applications.
Original post by RossM7
About a month ago, I applied for a role at a company which I am not currently close to. I made it very clear and told them multiple times over the hiring process that I would be relocating if successful as it is far too far to travel daily. I had to go to the company twice, once for an assessment and then for an interview. Yesterday, about two weeks after my interview, I got an email saying that I wasn't successful because they wanted someone already based there instead of someone looking to relocate. Why did I have an assessment and an interview there if they wanted someone already based there? Not only was it a waste of my time, it also costed me a lot in petrol money as I had to drive for hours to get there (twice). It also costed me chances for other job applications as I prioritized preparing for this interview over applying for other jobs and doing tasks and assessments for other applications.
I can think of two possible reasons:
1. You weren't as good as other candidates but they thought that saying is was just down to an issue with location would be kinder. (They'd be wrong; telling candidates the truth is always preferable.)
2. If you'd been head-and-shoulders above the other candidates they'd have offered you the role, and accepted the potential delay whilst you located. But as your were simply in a par with other candidates (or even slightly better) they figured it 'safer' to pick someone who didn't need to relocate.
I know it sucks not to have got it, but you've chosen to apply somewhere a substantial distance away so there was always going to be some time & expense sunk here.
I suspect in terms of location that is something they would likely take into account after the initial interview process, they might not have known for a fact someone suitable would be already within commuting range, rather than the huge 'maybe' of someone saying they will move first.
I suspect in terms of location that is something they would likely take into account after the initial interview process, they might not have known for a fact someone suitable would be already within commuting range, rather than the huge 'maybe' of someone saying they will move first.
Original post by DataVenia
I can think of two possible reasons:
1. You weren't as good as other candidates but they thought that saying is was just down to an issue with location would be kinder. (They'd be wrong; telling candidates the truth is always preferable.)
2. If you'd been head-and-shoulders above the other candidates they'd have offered you the role, and accepted the potential delay whilst you located. But as your were simply in a par with other candidates (or even slightly better) they figured it 'safer' to pick someone who didn't need to relocate.
1. You weren't as good as other candidates but they thought that saying is was just down to an issue with location would be kinder. (They'd be wrong; telling candidates the truth is always preferable.)
2. If you'd been head-and-shoulders above the other candidates they'd have offered you the role, and accepted the potential delay whilst you located. But as your were simply in a par with other candidates (or even slightly better) they figured it 'safer' to pick someone who didn't need to relocate.
I agree with DataVenia. One more point to bear in mind with employers (and this might depend on who was involved in the selecting of applicants to invite and how large the company is): the people invited to interview may contain, for instance, 7 likely candidates one one 'risky' candidate, for instance someone living far away who says they will relocate or someone who might not have all the qualifications but has something else to offer. Employers can be risk adverse, because recruitment is expensive and time consuming. Sadly, many places do not see things from the candidate's perspective, the fact that you have worked really hard to prepare and spent your time and money in the process.
Tbh I don't think the cost of petrol, the time it took and you passing by other opportunities is particularly relevant. You chose to apply to this company and you knew it wasn't a guarantee you'd get an offer so you elected to make those sacrifices and it just seems a little immature to moan about it now when you've been rejected. True, it's crappy of them to have told you the reason was due to your current residence despite you making it clear, but as others have said, sometimes employers make up excuses to avoid telling the truth or giving a thorough explanation. And it's not just employers who do this, I once went to see a houseshare and was later rejected because they were apparently looking for someone long term, even though at no point did I say or even imply I was looking for a short term stay, it was in fact the opposite, I wanted somewhere I could live for years. And I just had to deal with that blatant dishonesty and many of us have to in both employment and other spheres. I think you just need to consider your options better and in the future not apply for somewhere if you're going to resent the petrol prices and other things if you're unsuccessful.
Original post by DataVenia
I can think of two possible reasons:
1. You weren't as good as other candidates but they thought that saying is was just down to an issue with location would be kinder. (They'd be wrong; telling candidates the truth is always preferable.)
2. If you'd been head-and-shoulders above the other candidates they'd have offered you the role, and accepted the potential delay whilst you located. But as your were simply in a par with other candidates (or even slightly better) they figured it 'safer' to pick someone who didn't need to relocate.
1. You weren't as good as other candidates but they thought that saying is was just down to an issue with location would be kinder. (They'd be wrong; telling candidates the truth is always preferable.)
2. If you'd been head-and-shoulders above the other candidates they'd have offered you the role, and accepted the potential delay whilst you located. But as your were simply in a par with other candidates (or even slightly better) they figured it 'safer' to pick someone who didn't need to relocate.
I agree
Didn’t you ask about claiming travel expenses for the interview? If they were paying for it they might have made it clearer earlier that they didn’t want anyone not local selected.
Did the company have a generous relocation package? Were you intending to claim on it? Those costs often come out of departmental budgets and not a central pot.
Did the company have a generous relocation package? Were you intending to claim on it? Those costs often come out of departmental budgets and not a central pot.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Working for PGL?
- Mcdonald’s group interview
- Job interview
- Why is my tesco application unsuccessful
- My work won’t give me a day off work for my university interview
- Have you ever declined an interview because there may be too many stages in the
- Explore Learning video interview
- How screwed am I? Shall I bother with employment or Start my own business
- Applying for a placement
- Medicine reject after gap year.
- Can someone please explain like I'm an idiot how to get a first job
- EO - Home Office. Ref: 169385
- Unemployable graduate
- Job follow up? URGENT
- Feel hopeless, don't know where my life is headed tbh
- The Tesco thread.
- EY 2022 Graduate Scheme
- Wooord...!
- Home Office, Customer Services Group: EO
- I can't find any job with a good degree from a good uni
Latest
Trending
Last reply 22 hours ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 1 week ago
So I made the worst decision of my life. I chose Biochemistry as my degree.Last reply 1 week ago
Issues with jobs because I cannot driveTrending
Last reply 22 hours ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 1 week ago
So I made the worst decision of my life. I chose Biochemistry as my degree.Last reply 1 week ago
Issues with jobs because I cannot drive
