Baited and switched during interview: WTF?

[KilgoreTrout]

Recruiter set me up for an interview for a Director level position. I've been in middle management for several years and this job looked like an interesting step up. I have a grad degree and 12 years in this line of work, the last 5 in middle management. The technology was a slam dunk fit - i've worked with these products before and know the engineering and theory behind them. So I was pumped.

Until I arrived on site and saw the printed schedule for my interview cycle in the HR woman's office. I mentioned, "I was under the impression that I was interviewing for a Director's position." She says, "Well, after reviewing your qualifications we thought you'd be a better fit for a manager's role."

I asked why they didn't consult me about this BEFORE I took the day off for this interview. I told her that I'm not interested in a lateral move, and that I was clear with the recruiter about this. I know the recruiter well (she placed me in my current job) and I'm sure she wasn't aware of this bait& switch.

I walked out. Didn't even thank them for their time. They didn't show me professional courtesy, so why should I waste my time with them?

Good play or not?

[XXXNoahXXX]

Definitely. Not a company you ever want to do business with again, unless its THEM that comes crawling.

[cbloom]

This is a lame move but it is also super standard. It happened to me countless times. Not something I would burn bridges over, be professional, say you're not interested and then leave.

Also, I wouldn't give the recruiter so much credit. I have yet to meet one that isn't scum who just wants their commission as fast as possible.

[Peter Harris]

i would have gone into the interview and explain why i'm a better fit for a directorial position. Why not try and win them over rather than burn a bridge?

[otnemem]

[ QUOTE ]
Until I arrived on site and saw the printed schedule for my interview cycle in the HR woman's office.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does this mean?

[XXXNoahXXX]

Yeah as far as recruiters go, if you were in their position who would you have more loyalty to

Employee- Hunting around for a job, might only need your services once no matter how good you are, at most will use you every few years.

Employer- Might be hiring for dozens of positions in that time and the more quality people you get them, by whatever tactics, the happier they will be to listen to your input and meet your people in the future.

[Dids]

I'm sure as hell not working for a place that pulls this. I would likely walk out as well.

[Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
i would have gone into the interview and explain why i'm a better fit for a directorial position. Why not try and win them over rather than burn a bridge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because who wants to work for a place that is so unprofessional as to not make a simple phone call? [censored] HR practices = run for the hills.

[KilgoreTrout]

It said "Kilgore Trout candidate for RA Manager."

This firm is quite a bit smaller than my current firm. Current firm: 32000 employees
Interview firm: 1200 employees

I have 11 direct reports here. I would have 3 at the new place. I called a person I know at the interview firm. She said there is currently a VP and the 3 junior staffers - neither the manager position nor the director position is filled, and it's clear that only one or the other would be required for this small group. It's apparent that they simply didn't want to compensate a director-level but wanted to attract that level of talent. Plenty of other firms in my area. These guys are off the radar.

[JereLock]

[ QUOTE ]

It said "Kilgore Trout candidate for RA Manager."

[/ QUOTE ]

You go by kilgore trout in rl?


[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]