Can I reapply after being rejected?

A reader writes:

I don't know if this is a scenario that happens very often, but I had what I believed to be a successful initial phone interview with a company in a similar field. The HR manager I interviewed with had been very enthusiastic about continuing the interview process. I felt confident that I had all the qualifications and skills needed for the job, and was waiting for news on an interview with the hiring manager, but two weeks later, I received a fairly formulaic "thanks, but no thanks" email.

I assumed they had found someone else for the position, but to my surprise a month later, the same job has been re-posted. Should I contact the HR manager again, and what should I say? I don't want to be a pest but I don't want to give up on this opportunity either. Any advice you can give me would be greatly appreciated!

I think you should give it a shot. There's no harm in contacting them and saying that you noticed the job has been reposted and that you'd like to reiterate your interest in it.

They may have reposted it because their chosen candidate didn't work out for some reason, or because they ended up dissatisfied with all of their finalists. Of course, it's also possible that they rejected you earlier for reasons that still stand -- that the match isn't right in some way. But you won't know unless you try, and in some situations they may be glad for the opportunity to consider you again (for instance, if they've reconfigured their ideas about what they're looking for, or if you were earlier a runner-up to someone else who ultimately didn't work out).

I wrote a few weeks ago about the usual futility of appealing a job rejection, but this is a bit different. You're not writing back right after your rejection and asking them to reconsider; you're saying you noticed that the job has reappeared and are wondering if circumstances might have changed.

Good luck!

can you appeal a job rejection?

Every few weeks or so, I'm contacted by a job candidate who asks me to reconsider our rejection of his or her application. This almost never works -- actually, I want to say "never" but there's one very, very limited case in which it might be okay to do.

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I write about why you generally can't appeal a job rejection, and the one time where you can. Please check it out here and leave your own thoughts in the comments over there.

invited to apply and then rejected

A reader writes:

I volunteer for a company and they asked me to apply for a post which I would not have applied for in the first place. I applied and they gave it to someone else. Why set me up for such a fall?

I can see how it would feel like that, but they weren't trying to set you up. Being invited to apply for a position is exactly what it sounds like -- being invited to apply, not being anointed. Otherwise, they'd just offer you the job.

Companies do this when they think you might be a strong candidate, so if nothing else you should at least feel flattered that they thought highly enough of you to reach out. But the process that follows -- interviews, etc. -- is there so that they can dig more deeply and see if indeed the match would be the right one. During that process, they may find out that the match isn't as strong as they had hoped, or an even stronger candidate might emerge. That's just the nature of it, and you shouldn't take it personally or feel that they slighted you.

That said, this is why when companies invite someone to apply for a job, especially a volunteer or current employee, they need to be careful to make sure that the person clearly understands the situation and knows that they'll be considering other applicants as well.

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.

not helping yourself

Seriously, it is just not a good idea to respond to a letter of rejection with comments like this:

"I cannot imagine what would have caused you not to interview me. Did you even bother to speak with my past employers about my qualifications? I find it hard to accept that you have no place for a person with my abilities and skills."

Huh. In an entire world filled with smart, well-qualified people, you can't fathom that some of them might have been a stronger match than you?

asking for feedback after you're rejected for a job

So you thought the position was a perfect fit and your interview seemed to go well, but in the end, you didn't get the job. You could speculate about why you weren't hired, but if you're really curious, why not try to actually find out by asking for some feedback from the hiring manager? Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I talk about how to do it. Check it out here.

coded HR language?

A reader writes:

I have been in the search for a job for the past 9 months. I have had interviews and I have successfully been able to get my resume in front of hiring managers. As with any job search I have also received my share of rejections. I have noticed in a number of the rejections a phrase "while your qualifications are impressive." I am wondering is this some subtle HR phrase with a message? Is it because they do the math and realize I am a mature candidate, or do they think with my background experience they cannot afford me, or am I reading too much into this?

You are reading too much into it. I say that phrase to everyone we reject, even if they're straight out of high school and have no qualifications whatsoever. It's just standard boilerplate for trying to soften the blow of a rejection.

belligerent rejected candidates, part 3

Here's a conversation I had with a rejected job applicant today. He left me a voicemail inquiring about the status of his application, and I checked and saw that we had sent him an email two weeks ago to let him know that we would not be able to consider him for a position. Feeling bad for the guy, I broke my own "no rejections by phone" rule and called him back to tell him. Here's what happened:

Me: We sent you an email on July 22 to let you know that we wouldn't be able to further consider you. I'm sorry you didn't get it! Sometimes emails inadvertently end up in a spam folder, so you might check there.

Candidate: I don't have a spam folder.

Me: Well, I'm very sorry you didn't receive it. In any case, we'd certainly welcome an application from you in the future if we have other openings you're interested in.

Candidate: But I don't have a spam folder. So where is the email?

Me: I'm not sure. I'm looking at a copy of the email right now, and it went to (redacted) email address.

Candidate: That's my email address, but I don't have it.

Me: I'm not sure what happened. I have a copy of the email here, so I know it was sent on our side. In any case, I'm sorry we weren't able to move you to an interview.

Candidate: So you're not considering me for any positions?

Me: No, I'm sorry, we're not.

Candidate: Whatever. (Hangs up.)

Lovely. So I'm thinking, well, at least our screening process works and we rejected this guy right off the bat.

Two minutes later, my phone rings again. It's him.

Me: Hello?

Candidate: Is this because I listed (name redacted) as a reference?

Me: I'm not sure what you mean.

Candidate: I listed (name redacted) as a reference and then he told me that there's bad blood between him and your organization.

Me: No, it's nothing like that. We have a very competitive hiring process and generally have many well-qualified candidates to choose from. We only interview the top few who are the best matched with the position.

Candidate: So you're really not going to interview me?

Me: No, I'm sorry.

Candidate: (Hangs up on me again.)


Seriously, what is wrong with people?

See also: Job rejections and vitriol and Job rejections and vitriol, part 2

job rejections and vitriol, part 2

About a year ago, I wrote a post about how a small fraction of job applicants respond to rejection notices with outrage, rudeness, or general vitriol, and gave a few real-life samples.

Some background: My organization emails rejection notes to all applicants we don't offer a job to. It's a friendly and polite letter, and we send it within a few days of knowing that we're not moving the applicant forward in the hiring process. Sometimes we hear back from people thanking us for the notification (which I recommend -- reflects well on them), but every once in a while a candidate sends a nasty email back, outraged that they've been rejected.

I can't figure out why job applicants are willing to burn their bridges in this way, especially since there otherwise may have been other opportunities for them with us in the future. But in any case, here are a few more real-life emails I've received in response to rejection notices.

1. I've reviewed this email. It's pretty clearly a form letter. I can appreciate that you've got a lot of applicants, and need to skim the fat, so to speak, but I require honest communication from a potential employer, not form letters.

Yeah, it is a form letter -- a friendly and polite form letter, but a form letter. When you need to communicate the same information to hundreds of people, a form letter is the most efficient way to do it. I'm not sure why that makes it less "honest."

2. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that my qualifications are lower than that of other applicants. There is an astute air of refusal that I find quite distasteful. You were probably raised on the East coast, West coast, or Midwest given your style and grammar. I am not going to blame the customs and lifestyle of the geographical region you hail from in regards to the frigid nature of your professional demeanor. But I am upset to find that I can't get a formal interview because other candidates have better qualifications than me.

Only southerners know how to deliver a rejection notice correctly. The rest of us are frigid. (Plus, my rejection letter is pretty nice, so southern rejection must include light petting or something.)

3. I beg to differ with you. You are turning down by far the most qualified person you had applying.

This is actually the most common theme when candidates react poorly to rejection -- being 100% convinced that no one is a better candidate than they are. I understand how frustrating it is to be turned down for a job you wanted, but it always baffles me that someone wouldn't take into consideration that they have limited information about the job -- and the rest of the candidate pool -- and we know it quite intimately.

4. Thank you for your rapid response to my last email. In it you state via what appears to be a form letter that you "identified other applicants whose qualifications better fit our needs." Unfortunately I don't believe this to be true. A lot of organizations would like to have someone with my considerable set of experiences and leadership and I'm secure enough in them that I won't rehash those here. I would urge you in future to be more honest with your applicants about why you would prefer not hiring them.

This is similar to #3, but with a paranoid twist: Since it can't possibly be true that other people are a better fit for the job, we must be hiding our real reason for not wanting to hire him. In fact, I'm generally happy to give feedback if an applicant requests it, but I'm not going to make it a routine part of our rejection notice -- both because of lack of time and staff to do so, and also because taking the time to give feedback frequently leads to something like this next one:

5. (received after a rejected applicant asked for feedback and I told him the position required stronger writing and, upon his request, pointed out that his application materials had contained numerous grammatical and spelling errors)
I make no claims of being the best writer in the world, but I would think it is a skill that can be taught and developed. Traits that cannot be taught are character, passion, honesty, hard work, and integrity. I thought that my original cover letter was a pretty clear indicator that I am a well- spoken, educated, and hard working young man. I thought that at the very least my experiences would have made you say "this is someone I need to speak to in person". But in this world I suppose a persons whole life, intelligence, and excitement will always be less important than "typos". I guess I should have skipped University and attended typing classes.

This one actually made me feel bad for the guy. I do like character and enthusiasm, but it's naive to think they trump attention to detail or a basic fit with the qualifications for the job. And since most employers have many well-qualified applicants who don't submit error-filled work, those things are going to move you to the bottom of the pile. Still, naive as he is, I kind of wanted to give him a cup of cocoa and help him rewrite his resume.

-------

Now that I think about it, this whole thing is yet another way in which the hiring process is like dating. Most people handle rejection well, but every now and then, you get someone who responds like an ass -- which always serves to confirm that your decision about them was the right one.

passed over for promotion

A reader writes:

A co-worker of mine was recently promoted to an open position without any other candidates, myself included, having been interviewed. When I first attempted to talk to the hiring manager about this, he accused me of "overreacting" and acting immature.

Now, my purpose is not to argue why I should have been promoted, nor am I particularly interested in running down my co-worker, both of which I would understand him calling immature. I really just want to discuss the process: the idea that the hiring manager – I quote – "didn't consider other candidates because [my co-worker] has been with the company so much longer," as well as anything I might have done wrong in my application.

To this effect, I met privately with the hiring manager (along with my direct manager – one of his assistant managers – as a witness) for almost two hours, but he spent the whole time talking about basic job seeking techniques, the importance of having good connections, etc., with a long aside about how it can be "more difficult for women in management" (I'm female, but I don't see what that has to do with this).

So my question is: how much effort do I put into making him actually listen to me when I say that it's not that I'm crushed by this or anything but that I think he's making a fundamental mistake by making hiring/promotion decisions without actually looking at the candidates...before I go to HR and say the same thing? (It is a mistake for him to pick his preferred candidate from the get-go, isn't it? Or is it not my place to say, even though it has just significantly affected me?)

Well, it's possible that the hiring manager isn't good at hiring. But it's also possible that he knew that you weren't well matched with what he was looking for (if not in skills, then in temperament or general "fit"). And he might have known your colleague was exactly what he was looking for. If either of those are the case, he acted reasonably. If so, his mistake was in not explaining this to you, rather than in making the hiring decision the way he did. (My guess is that that's because he's uncomfortable telling you why he didn't consider you a strong candidate. He's a manager and he should get over his discomfort with that sort of thing ... but the reality is that many managers never do.)

Anyway, I wouldn't recommend saying anything to him or to HR. Because of the context, you'll appear to have an agenda and your message will be lost as a result. And it sounds like you've already had multiple run-in's with the manager (your boss's boss?) on this topic -- one where he told you were being immature and then one even after that, where a witness needed to be involved. I don't think you'll get anywhere by keeping the topic going, and it's possible that refusing to drop it will hurt you.

But you have every right to explore your possibilities for promotion within the company and to look elsewhere if you don't think your needs will be met there. Good luck!

"But I'm qualified for that job - why did you reject me?"

There's an interesting discussion going on over at Evil HR Lady about whether it's okay to ask for feedback when you don't get a job, with a lot of people pointing out in the comments section that when they've agreed to give rejected candidates feedback, it inevitably ends with the candidate trying to convince them that the feedback is wrong and they should get the job. (I think it's great when candidates ask for feedback, but that's precisely the reason I'll only give it via email and not over the phone; I don't want to get trapped in that conversation.)

Anyway, it made me think about how often candidates are convinced that they are precisely right for the job and they become baffled when they don't get an offer. Sometimes they even become aggressive and hostile, but that's another post.

There are all kinds of reasons for why you might not be chosen for the job, no matter how qualified you think you are, including:

1. Your qualifications aren't as strong as you think they are. Your assessment of your skills isn't in line with the reality of the situation.

2. Your qualifications are very strong, but someone else's are stronger. (It's odd how often candidates shocked that they didn't get the job overlook this possibility, which is one of the most common.)

3. You don't have an accurate understanding of what the job is all about, and therefore your opinion of how well-matched you are is based on an erroneous foundation. This one is surprisingly common. For instance, I did a phone interview with a guy today who really did have an impressive business background and kept referencing examples from it -- but the job he's applying for wouldn't make much use of those skills. He picked out a couple of smaller aspects of the job description and focused on those, missing the larger picture (which is that the job is way more clerical than he realized).

4. You're well qualified, but you have some other characteristic that would cause you big problems here, such as an inability to listen without interrupting, or trouble answering questions clearly, or a hostility problem. I'm not going to knowingly put someone in a job that they're likely to run into problems in -- both for the manager's sake and the candidate's sake.

So don't become shocked and irate if you don't get a job you thought you were perfect for. After all, chances are good that the hiring manager knows better than you do about who will thrive in the position. That is a good thing, because you do not want a job that you will not excel in.

People do make hiring mistakes, of course, but in general, it makes sense to respect the opinion of the people who work there, who know the needs of the job intimately, and who know better than you whether or not you're likely to be a good fit for this particular position with this particular boss in this particular culture in this particular company.

None of which is to say that you shouldn't ask for feedback. Just be sure you're asking out of a sincere desire to know, not to try to argue your case.

rejecting job candidates

In a post today, Penelope Trunk talks about the advantages of rejecting bad candidates on the spot -- for instance, telling them at the end of the phone interview that they're not among the strongest candidates and you're going to be focusing on others.

I will occasionally do this, but more often than not, even if I know during the phone interview that the candidate isn't right for the position, I won't reject them then and there. Instead, they'll receive a (very nice) rejection email within a few days. My reason for this is that some candidates will try to argue with you, continue trying to sell themselves, or try to talk you into reversing your decision and, frankly, it's not up for debate (if I'm rejecting a candidate on the spot, it's because there's absolutely no doubt in my mind). This is the same reason why I never do rejections by phone.

asking for feedback after a job rejection

A reader writes:

What is the current protocol, or successful strategy, for contact after not getting a job? I have already thanked the panel for the interview. Is there any reason to ask for feedback?

I'm always impressed when a candidate asks for feedback after not getting the job -- and it there's an easily articulable reason, I will usually share it. For instance, I've told candidates who asked that we felt we needed someone with more experience in _____, or that we were looking for stronger writing skills, and so forth. But sometimes it just comes down another candidate being a better fit, and I'll say that too, although I'm sure it's not as helpful.

That said, I know that there are a lot of hiring managers who never answer this question, for fear of saying something that will open them up to a lawsuit.

But even if you encounter that, there's still no reason not to give it a shot, as long as you're not defensive about it and are prepared for an honest critique. I'd say something like, "I appreciate your time speaking with me about the position, and I hope you'll keep me in mind if something opens up in the future that you think I would be a good fit for. Is there anything you felt I could do to be a stronger candidate in the future?"

And if you get an answer, no matter what it is, remember to say thank you. I remember it when I take my time to help someone with feedback and get silence in return!

job rejections and vitriol

My organization emails rejection notes to all applicants we don't offer a job to. It's a pretty damn nice letter, and we send it within a few days of knowing that we're not moving the applicant forward in the hiring process.

Sometimes we hear back from people thanking us for the notification since apparently more and more companies aren't bothering to get back in touch with candidates, but every once in a while a candidate sends a nasty email back.

I'm not sure if these applicants are just venting or if they genuinely feel a sense of entitlement to the job, but here are three real-life emails I've received in response to rejection notices.

1. "I am a graduate of [school redacted] with an excellent academic record and a degree in political science. I have over 6 years experience working with nonprofits in a leadership role at [redacted]. I would like to know what is wrong with my qualifications and why they do not even warrant an interview to get to know me. I am sure that I will not hear a response to this, but you should know that you passed up a candidate who is qualified, with excellent references and who would work hard for this organization. I am insulted because I know that I would be a fine asset who would fit in well at your organization."

I wrote back and explained that we were fortunate enough to be faced with a large number of qualified applicants for the position, and we interviewed only those in the top tier. (What I didn't mention is that receiving an email like this one confirmed we made the correct decision.)

2. "How disappointing to realize that I spent time interviewing with you when you were more interested in another candidate."

Does anyone really not know that the hiring process is competitive and someone else might end up getting the job?

3. "I'm not going to get into it now because it won't do me any good to pester you about it, but this just sounds like some BS you tell someone because you can't interview everyone. Perhaps you could have been honest with me instead of leaving me hanging these past few weeks."

Well, it's true that we can't interview everyone. But no dishonesty involved, and it's weirdly paranoid to assume there was.

I know it sucks to not get a job that you want. But we make a good faith effort to keep candidates informed about where we are in the process and let them know if they're not in the running. I can't figure out what these people think they're accomplishing, other than burning bridges and making themselves look naive and entitled.