Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree, I had a recruiter from a company I interviewed with who contacted me after my interviews saying they only had one more reference to check and then a circle back to the hiring manager. After not hearing from them for two months, I received an email saying they were holding off on the position until the new year.
I feel I got some good signs with this one, but you never know until you get the offer.
It sounds like they have somewhat of a committee approach to hiring and this way if everyone is happy that's the one the offer is made to. If the hiring manager isn't crazy about the candidate then the committee likely rejects that candidate from further consideration, because after all, the hiring manager is going to be supervising this new hire.
I'd say the OP did an excellent job here![/quote]
I got pretty good feedback from the rest of the team. My friends wife has a good friend who works there that happened to be one of the people I interviewed with. During the panel interview she said he emailed her a good reference for me.
One of the analyst I interviewed with kept saying he was going to be training me and was pointing out where I would probably sit. I was thinking he might just be getting ahead of himself.
One of the analyst I interviewed with kept saying he was going to be training me and was pointing out where I would probably sit. I was thinking he might just be getting ahead of himself.
Yeah, I wouldn't put too much stock in that. It's very difficult to remain in a neutral third person when interviewing to avoid giving this "false hope" indicator and it's likely that this person who would be a peer is not very experienced in doing so.
So, it's not a positive, but not a negative - I'd put much more credence in the other positive signs you saw.
I'm in Engineering, and that's pretty normal. One phone interview with the HR guy, then the hiring guy, and then sit down for 4-6 hours with a bunch of people in person. At that point it is technical, but honestly mostly personality and fit.
I agree, its now the waiting game. The one thing they didn't mention was a time frame for the final decision.
Ugh. That's the worst.
For future reference (although hopefully it's not needed on this round), timeframe is a totally acceptable question to ask when you get to the portion of the interview when the interviewer asks "are there any questions you have about the position".
IIRC, Silicon Valley and its neighborhood companies still do this, like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. However, they will give you a break for lunch, and perhaps another shorter break. I hear with Microsoft, if you're doing poorly, they won't bother finishing till the end. They'll just excuse you early.
Ugh, I once had an interview that lasted about 7 hours. I was flown in for the interview, and it was a director position at a national non-profit, but it was so inefficient. I met with 7 people, 1-2 at a time, and I found myself repeating answers to the same questions over and over. I met with the hiring manager last, and I was exhausted by that point and a bit irritaated that I didn't get to meet with her first, when I was fresh. I got the job (though I didn't stay in it for long).
Since HR already contacted you, you have the perfect opportunity to respond to thank them and inquire about the next steps. Good luck!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.