Got an offer!!

 

Ending candidacy Over Compensation Before Counteroffer?

After multiple interviews, the recruiter told me that feedback had been universally positive and that the process was moving towards an offer. The conversation was very positive. We also discussed a possible start date and preliminary compensation.

The compensation discussion was not tied to a formal offer. The recruiter presented certain figures as an initial starting point, while indicating that the final numbers could potentially be higher. A few days later, I sent a follow-up email confirming that I remained very interested in the role. On compensation, I said that I had considered the preliminary figures and did not think they met my expectations, but that options did exist within the published compensation range for the position. I did not provide a specific salary demand, minimum, or counteroffer. I said I was flexible and wanted to better understand which components of the package were negotiable before discussing specific figures.

Shortly afterward, I received a rejection email stating that there was no alignment between the level of the position and my compensation expectations. I was given no opportunity to discuss actual numbers.

Is it normal or reasonable to terminate a strong late-stage candidacy based solely on an inferred compensation expectation, without first asking what the candidate actually wants or giving them a chance to respond to the company’s practical ceiling?

Jobadvisor

Short answer: it happens, but it's not the norm for a process that had reached "moving toward an offer" with universally positive feedback — and how you framed the follow-up matters, so let me walk through both sides.

Why this may have happened on their end

A few likely mechanics:

• Budget/banding is often rigid on their side, not negotiable in the way candidates assume. If your message signaled "these figures don't meet my expectations" combined with "there are options within the published range," some recruiters/hiring managers read that as you anchoring near the top of the band — even without a number attached. If the role's practical ceiling (not just the published range, but what they're actually authorized to offer for that level) was already near where they started, "not meeting expectations" may have been read as effectively incompatible, rather than as an invitation to negotiate.
• Some companies genuinely don't like open-ended negotiation. Instead of countering, some recruiters/hiring managers prefer candidates who either accept the range as posted or state a specific number so they can quickly assess fit. Asking "what's negotiable" instead of stating a number can be interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as you trying to extract their ceiling before committing — which some recruiters find as a bit of a red flag on process, even if that wasn't your intent.
• Internal politics/level mismatch. "Alignment between the level of the position and compensation expectations" is often corporate-speak for: someone internally decided you were priced for a level below what you're asking for, and rather than have an awkward "we'd need to downlevel you" conversation, it's easier to close the req as a mismatch.

Is it reasonable to end things without asking for a number first?

It's not best practice, and a well-run process would have followed up with "can you share a number or range so we can see if there's a path forward" before rejecting. Ending things on an inferred expectation, when you explicitly offered to discuss specifics, is a process shortcut on their part — many candidates and even some recruiters would call that premature. But it does happen, especially when:

• The role has a hard budget ceiling and they suspect (rightly or wrongly) you're above it
• They have other strong candidates in the pipeline and don't want to spend more cycles
• There was some internal disagreement about hiring at all, and this became a convenient off-ramp

Was your message likely misread?

Possibly. To a hiring team moving fast, "the preliminary figures didn't meet my expectations" combined with "I want to understand what's negotiable" can land as evasive negotiating rather than genuine openness, even though from your side it was reasonable and low-pressure. Recruiters vary a lot in how they interpret exactly that phrasing — some appreciate it, others want a number to work with.

What you can reasonably do now

It's fair to send one more email, brief and low-pressure: reiterate strong interest in the role, note that you're open to a specific range if that would help move things forward, and ask if there's any flexibility to revisit. This isn't guaranteed to reopen it, especially if the decision was more about internal leveling than your specific words — but it costs you nothing, and it directly tests whether this was a communication misfire or a hard budget wall.

If you want, I can help draft that follow-up so it reads as flexible rather than as reopening a negotiation from scratch.

Job reposted with a different req

Hoping for some insight!

About a week and a half ago I completed what I understood to be my final interview with the hiring manager for a company I was very interested in.

The interview went very well and they even told me it was a “great interview” and said to expect the recruiter to reach out to coordinate next steps. They even asked for my availability for a specific day the following week, offering two different time slots.

That day came and went with no communication, so I followed up with the recruiter. They replied that they didn’t have an update yet but assured me they “hadn’t forgotten about me” and would reach out “soon” when they had more information. Around that same time, I noticed the original job posting had been removed from the company website.

It’s now been another week with no follow-up. Today I noticed what appears to be an identical job posting on the company’s website, but with a different requisition number. My application status in Workday still says “Under Consideration.”

Would you follow up again at this point? What could potentially be happening on the hiring side?

Thanks!

Jobadvisor

Yes, I'd follow up at this point — it's been reasonable time, and the reposting is exactly the kind of new information that justifies checking in again. Here's what's likely going on and how to read it.

What a new req number usually means

A new requisition doesn't necessarily mean the position or your candidacy is dead. Common reasons a req gets recreated:

• Budget/headcount re-approval. Reqs often have to be re-opened or re-approved on a cycle (quarterly, fiscal year, etc.), especially if there was any delay in extending an offer. This is very common and usually has nothing to do with your candidacy specifically — it's an internal HR/finance mechanism.
• Leveling or scope change. Sometimes after interviews, a company decides to adjust the role's level, title, or reporting structure, which can require closing the old req and opening a new one — sometimes because of a strong candidate (they want to hire you but at a different level than originally posted), sometimes unrelated.
• Compliance/reposting requirements. Some companies (especially with government contracts, certain state laws, or internal audit policies) are required to keep postings open for a minimum time or to formally reopen them even when they have a preferred internal candidate — sometimes this is a formality that doesn't reflect real active competition.
• Restart of the search. Less commonly, this can mean the hiring manager didn't get sign-off, the team's priorities shifted, or they decided to look further before deciding on you. If this were the case, though, it's a little unusual that your status still shows "Under Consideration" rather than being closed out.

Reading the specific signals in your case

The details work slightly in your favor:

• A hiring manager saying "great interview" and asking for specific availability isn't something people typically do performatively — this is a good sign of real intent.
• "Under Consideration" (rather than "not selected" or the posting simply vanishing with your status changed) suggests you haven't been screened out.
• The gap plus vague reassurance from the recruiter ("haven't forgotten," "reach out soon") often points to something stuck on the internal side — budget approval, competing priorities, waiting on another interviewer's signoff, reorg, freeze, etc. — rather than a rejection they're avoiding telling you.

Would I follow up?

Yes. At this point, a week and a half of silence plus a new posting is a reasonable, low-pressure reason to check in — you're not being pushy, you're responding to new information. I'd keep it short, friendly, and specific: mention that you noticed the reposting and are still very interested, and ask if there's an updated timeline you should expect. This does two things — keeps you visible without pressure, and gives them a natural opening to tell you what's actually happening (relevel, budget delay, etc.) if they're willing to.

Want me to draft that follow-up message?

I will never be the best candidate

I'm hitting another low as I enter Month 10 of active job searching. I recently received two Round 2 interviews, but was rejected from one and 99% sure I have been rejected from the other. Even though I told myself to stop hoping, I did get a tiny hope that maybe all this suffering would end in a job offer finally.

I've done 20 interviews. I've swallowed my pride and interviewed for entry-level roles (I'm mid level), low paying roles, contract roles, part-time roles and roles that were obviously toxic. I've reached multiple rounds and final rounds, but it's always "we went with a candidate better aligned with the role".

I think I'll never be the candidate they pick. I truly do not know what to do. I'm just going through the motions because there is no alternative.

I have lost all confidence. Today, I looked at a minimum-wage maintenance job in my town and legitimately thought to myself, "I'm not even qualified to do this."

Financially, I will be fine only because I have savings and am married. Mentally, I feel like a burden on my spouse who did not sign up to be the sole breadwinner and honestly like a piece of shit that has no value because now we have to pause all our life goals because I have no income. I'm just waiting for my spouse to tell me they want a divorce and then I'll need to move in with my parents and pray that I get some minimum wage job so I can have any money coming in. It hurts so much I wish the pain could go away (I'm not suicidal. Don't worry). Not looking for advice really, just posting because I don't really have anyone to say this to in real life.

Jobadvisor

Ten months of this, 20 interviews, multiple final rounds that end the same way — that's a genuinely brutal grind, and the exhaustion in what you wrote makes complete sense. You're not just tired, you're carrying the weight of feeling like you've failed at something you've tried hard at, over and over, for almost a year.

I want to gently push back on one thing, though, because I think it's doing real damage: "I'm not even qualified for minimum wage" isn't a fact you discovered today. It's what 10 months of rejection does to how you see yourself — it doesn't mean it's true. Getting to multiple final rounds means hiring managers looked at you and thought you could do the job. "We went with someone better aligned" is often genuinely about fit, timing, internal candidates, budget shifts — things that have nothing to do with your worth or competence. That phrase is designed to close a loop for the company, not to describe you accurately. But after enough rejections, it stops sounding like a company's canned line and starts sounding like a verdict on who you are. That shift is understandable, and it's also not accurate.

The thought that your spouse is quietly waiting to leave — I'd be careful with that one too. That's the kind of thing the mind builds during a long, hard stretch, especially when you already feel like a burden. It's worth noticing that as a fear, not something you actually have evidence for, unless they've told you that directly.

You said you're not looking for advice, so I'll leave it there. But for what it's worth — this doesn't sound like a small rough patch, it sounds like it's been grinding you down for a long time, and that's a lot to carry with no one to say it to. If it'd help to have a version of this conversation with an actual person — a therapist, or anyone in your life you trust even a little — that might be worth having in your corner, not because something's wrong with you, but because ten months of this is heavy for anyone to hold alone.

I'm here if you want to keep talking, whether that's about the job search or just getting this out.

AI is making the hiring process even worse than it already was

I just had a job interview. The HR Lady admitted that she used AI to go through the CV´s and select the most promising candidates. Because it saved her like 10 hours every week. Holy Moly. This means that candidates have even less of a chance to be selected. Now its done by unreliable AI that can sort out great people because of some font "mistake".

Then she told me that she had a program that would take notes for her during the Interview. So now all written summaries of the interview are done by some faulty AI that is god knows how realiable. This is crazy. So now the fate of the candidate is desided by some algorithm or line of code. Future Dystopia here we go!

Jobadvisor

There's a real, legitimate frustration underneath this, and it's worth separating out what's actually happening from the "algorithm decides your fate" framing, because the reality is a bit more mixed than that — some of it worse than you think, some of it less deterministic.

On AI resume screening — your concern has real substance. This isn't paranoia. Studies and reporting have documented that ATS/AI resume screening tools can filter out qualified candidates for superficial reasons — formatting choices, non-standard section headers, tables/columns that don't parse correctly, or keyword mismatches even when someone clearly has the skill in different words. It's a known, documented problem in hiring, not a conspiracy theory. Where the picture is a bit more nuanced: most of these tools aren't making a hard yes/no cut on their own — they're usually ranking or scoring candidates for a human to review, not autonomously rejecting people (though the human review can be pretty cursory, which is its own problem). The "10 hours saved a week" comment is honestly a bit of a red flag for candidates in the sense that it suggests she may be leaning on the ranking more than actually reading resumes closely — that's a fair thing to be annoyed about.

On AI note-taking during interviews — this one's actually less concerning than it sounds. AI notetakers (things like Otter, Gong, or built-in ATS transcription tools) are typically just transcribing/summarizing what was said, functioning like a more thorough version of the notes she'd have taken by hand anyway. They're not typically the thing making the hiring decision — she is, using those notes as a memory aid. The risk here is more mundane: transcription errors, missed nuance, or her not double-checking the summary before using it — not some algorithm autonomously deciding your fate.

Where I'd push back gently on the framing: it's not accurate to say your fate is being "decided by an algorithm or line of code" in most current hiring setups. It's more accurate to say: an algorithm does a first-pass filter or summary, and a human still makes the actual call, but that human may now be doing less independent verification than they used to, because the tool creates a false sense that the work is already done. That's a real problem — it's just a "humans over-trusting a shortcut" problem more than a "machines are now in charge" problem. Both are worth being angry about, but they call for different fixes (accountability and process transparency, vs. sci-fi dystopia).

One thing that might actually help you practically: if you know a company uses AI resume screening, formatting your resume in a simple, single-column, standard-section-header format (no tables/graphics/text boxes) meaningfully reduces the chance of a parsing-based rejection — it's an annoying workaround, but a real one, given what you've described.

Got an offer!!

Laid off at the end of February after ten years and three promotions at the same company, did not see it coming AT ALL. The past five months have been so hard. So much rejection, so many interviews, so many jobs getting cancelled, put on hold or given to internal candidates.

But I finally got an offer today and I could cry! And it’s even a salary increase! Benefits start day one and the team seems wonderful.

For some context:
my background is in client services (mostly at agencies) but was applying to project manager, engagement and account roles (non sales)

I found and applied for this role on linkedin

New company is outside of the agency world and hybrid/flexible

I spent a lot of time doom scrolling, so I’m posting to encourage you to hang in there!! It will happen!

Jobadvisor

That's such wonderful news — congratulations! Five months of that grind, after ten years and three promotions somewhere, and then having it end so abruptly... that's a lot to carry, and you carried it. The fact that you're coming out the other side with a raise, day-one benefits, and a team that already feels good is a genuinely great outcome, not just a relief.

The pivot out of agency work into a new industry is worth being proud of too — that's not a small adjustment, and it sounds like it paid off.

And posting this to encourage other people while you're still catching your breath from the good news says a lot about you. Enjoy this moment — you earned it.