[pfraze]

If you went through multiple rounds it likely means they were seriously considering you but ultimately they didn’t get to a yes. If it’s any comfort that means you did pretty well.

The short stints on a resume is likely not the only reason you didn’t get to 100%, but unfortunately you should know that it’s seen as a pretty bad signal. The general expectation is 2 years minimum at a gig. If you have multiple short non-contract jobs it raises the concern that a candidate doesn’t commit to their jobs, or that they don’t do well at their jobs and are getting let go.

[999900000999]

Okay, but if my resume is a concern let's talk about in the first interview. I can't exactly rest and vest for 2 years when the company is running out of money. I had the bad luck of this happening 3 times in a row.

Company A got their funding pulled and shut down. Company B, where I was actually at for about a year and a half, switched owners and shutdown my entire office. Company C merged into it's main competitor and effectively fired most of us.

I will admit I was at one fantastic job and after around 3 years I probably could of stayed indefinitely. But back then I didn't recognize the value of a solid job. If you land somewhere and you're well liked by people, and able to do quality work, you really should just stay there instead of chasing slightly more money.

[Pet_Ant]

After my dates of employment I will parethetically add (bankrupt) or (shutdown) to indicate that it wasn't related to me personally. My best job was 18 months.

[keepamovin]

It probably doesn't work like that tho - they don't know how much of a concern it is. And maybe CEO doesn't see resume until later in process, raises an objection.

That said, the general lack of emapthy from recruiting towards time invested and rejections is astonishing and seemingly cruel or emotionally negligent.

US corps are constrained I think by what they can reveal about denial reasons because they don't want to get sued for discrimination.

That said, it can often feel like, you were kept in the pool as an alt/negotiating foil if they didn't get their first pick, or needed to say "we have another candidate willing to take $YOUR_ASK-$BIG_DELTA.

I think we should approach the hiring gauntlet not as "workshop to see what it's like to work with these folks" but as "battle where we can divine the worst about the people we might choose to work with", but still remain sunny and positive while cannily noting any weirdness.

Hope that helps! :)

[woooooo]

If they heard from the CEO specifically, it was probably based on the CEO vibe checking the resume as a last step after passing the entire interview process. The CEO may have spent 15 minutes on it.

[999900000999]

It was actually a round with the CEO.

I don't feel disrespected or anything, just feels weird to spend that much time interviewing someone.

[warunsl]

> If you went through multiple rounds it likely means they were seriously considering you but ultimately they didn’t get to a yes.

Sure, but one would think then the rejection email would have specifics around the interview and where the candidate did not perform well. Not nit picking on the job hops. If job hops were a deal breaker then why waste the candidate's time putting them through full rounds of interviews?

[swyx]

if you were an experienced/mature tech employee you should probably know that there are real HR reasons why companies are strongly advised not to give too much information in a rejection email. there is only ever downside. your reaction here is a potential red flag.

i'm sympathetic to you, it sucks, why cant we all be nice to each other, and my answer to that all is lawyers.

[HalcyonicStorm]

It could also be that they might be sued for stating the real reason so they went with something that would be dismissed if it went to court.

[jagged-chisel]

> … specifics around the interview and where the candidate did not perform well …

Takes time away from the day job and other candidates.

[lispisok]

Excessive amounts of interviews is more likely they were not enthusiastic about him but didnt have anybody else better and were stringing him along until they found somebody else.

[AceJohnny2]

I don't buy it. Seems like a waste of everyone's time. Even if you don't respect the candidate's time, it's still a waste of the employee's time, which is valuable to the company.

[arwhatever]

I don’t disagree, nor do I have any solution but man, 1-2 years is a LONG time when you start a new gig and can tell within 1-2 weeks that it’s not a good fit.