Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > Careers - Employment
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-17-2020, 03:54 PM
DoctorNo's Avatar
DoctorNo DoctorNo is online now
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Denver, CO
College: Western Washington, Colorado-Boulder
Posts: 13,726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hello, My Baby View Post
It leaves the person in a state of not really knowing where they stand for an indefinite period of time. This can really take a toll on someone's psyche. Just be up-front, at minimum say they're not under consideration.
Right, but calling it passive-aggressive implies intent (Westley's reasoning, which you cropped out of your response, seems a more likely motive to me).
__________________
The opinions of Doctor No do not necessarily represent the opinions of mathematicians or consulting actuaries. Facts cited by Doctor No are not necessarily facts. Find me on Twitter: @NorrisDoug. If you send me a LinkedIn invitation, please let me know who you are (unless it's obvious how I know you).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-17-2020, 03:59 PM
Westley Westley is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 29,935
Default

Yeah, we're not really disagreeing over what's happening, just over what PA means. Your response, toll on your psyche, etc is really not relevant to whether or not it's PA, IMO.

If the HR person is trying to avoid giving an answer because they don't want confrontation... PA IMO. If they just come in to work each day and say "OK, what's the next role I have to fill, don't have time to send emails to people we're not currently pursuing", not PA IMO. Rude either way.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-17-2020, 03:59 PM
Whoaminoneofyourbusiness's Avatar
Whoaminoneofyourbusiness Whoaminoneofyourbusiness is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Grand Tournament
Studying for DP
Posts: 937
Default

It's frustrating when this happens - in my EL search I encountered this a lot and would wait 90 days after a final stage interview without getting a "sorry, we're moving forward with someone else." This is mostly a function of there being way more EL candidates than positions.

..now that I'm past the "get the EL job" step I know who to steer clear of. You don't want to work for companies where ghosting is acceptable in their culture and I won't try to get a position at those places again even if I'm in more demand with cred, experience, etc..

I haven't tried hopping to a role that requires cred yet but I imagine ghosting happens way less then unless there's a reputation issue or something
__________________
Spoiler:
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-17-2020, 04:03 PM
Woodrow's Avatar
Woodrow Woodrow is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 7,461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hello, My Baby View Post
Has ghosting become the new normal during the job search?
I don't think it's new. I've looked for jobs on and off for the past 20 years and have had ghosting at points since the beginning.

I've also been on the employer's side. The reasoning is usually that the candidate is our second choice, so we don't want to tell them "no" until we figure out what's going on, so we delay...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-17-2020, 04:06 PM
ElDucky's Avatar
ElDucky ElDucky is offline
Free Mason
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In a van, down by the river
Studying for Let me worry about blank
Favorite beer: Trappistes Rochefort 8
Posts: 44,062
Default

Didn't know this before. If your user name is long, it shrinks the main text box. That's annoying.
__________________
I live near the cows.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-17-2020, 04:14 PM
Arthur Itas's Avatar
Arthur Itas Arthur Itas is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Atlanta
Studying for Prostate exam
College: Hard Knocks
Posts: 21,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow View Post
I don't think it's new. I've looked for jobs on and off for the past 20 years and have had ghosting at points since the beginning.

I've also been on the employer's side. The reasoning is usually that the candidate is our second choice, so we don't want to tell them "no" until we figure out what's going on, so we delay...
This. Might have seen a decent candidate but are still looking hoping for a better fit.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-18-2020, 04:00 PM
Maximally Qualified's Avatar
Maximally Qualified Maximally Qualified is offline
Member
CAS AAA
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Studying for years
Posts: 513
Default

This was the way 12 years ago as well. Some situations were outrageous. Extremely unprofessional practice.
__________________
Taylor originally called his product "Taylor's Prepared Ham", but was forced to change the name after it failed to meet the new legal definition of "ham" established by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-19-2020, 07:19 AM
Kalium Kalium is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow View Post
... I've also been on the employer's side. The reasoning is usually that the candidate is our second choice, so we don't want to tell them "no" until we figure out what's going on, so we delay...
Agree. When I was involved in recruiting we might have ranked three or four interviewees, and made an offer to the first. But candidates are interviewing at multiple places, and often have their own preference order of employers. So they stall / don't respond for a few weeks.

Depending on how urgently we needed to fill the position (e.g. current vacancy vs. next year's EL graduate recruit) we might be prepared to wait. It doesn't look good to say to a candidate "you're the second/third choice, and we waiting to hear from the others". And then the same thing can sometimes happen if we have to offer it to the second candidate etc.

So we might not reject any interviewees until we have definitely filled the postion. But agree it is rude not to eventually respond to everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-20-2020, 10:38 AM
DataDan's Avatar
DataDan DataDan is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: East Coast US
Posts: 3,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow View Post
I don't think it's new. I've looked for jobs on and off for the past 20 years and have had ghosting at points since the beginning.

I've also been on the employer's side. The reasoning is usually that the candidate is our second choice, so we don't want to tell them "no" until we figure out what's going on, so we delay...
I can see this. after you go through the whole hiring process for the candidate you actually hire it would be easy to forget the rest of the pack. Could be months between the interview process and actually getting some one in the door. And your #1 could drop out at any time if they get a good counter offer from their old employer.

Agree with others that its still lazy/sloppy HR practice. I have had on sites that resulted in no response. Annoying when it happens, but when interviewing you should always just move onto the next opportunity. Dont just interview and then wait by the phone for a response.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-20-2020, 03:39 PM
hrm57 hrm57 is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 113
Default

I had a phone interview where the interviewer called me 20 minutes late, opened with “Why should we hire you?”, and then ended the conversation after 4 minutes, saying that they had to interview someone else and would call me back to finish later that day, which never happened.

It’s not complete ghosting, but still quite rude IMO.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ghosting

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.25213 seconds with 11 queries