Wondered what people's thoughts on this were……...I recently applied for a role with a firm and have been interview threes times: a) phone interview b) formal presentation and interview at the firm's office and c) formal interview at a client site.However the final interview was four weeks ago and I've had no response, I've spoke with them over the phone and been told that they would get back to me but are having problems locating the correct members of management to progress this.To me this suggests a couple of things:1) That there was no specific role and they have been just looking in case a suitable contract becomes available.2) That the HR group in question are not very pro-active.3) That they REALLY can't get hold of the necessary people.After calling the HR contact and no real progress I've considered writing a letter to the consultant who interviewed me at the third stage to highlight that I've heard nothing. Wondered if anyone had any advice.Thanks

Hi Were-Rabbit. Oh dear... My esteemed profession are letting the side down, yet again. Quite frankly, there is no excuse for this. Even if they ARE having difficulties pinning down the relevant Partners to make a call, they should still be keeping you in the loop so you are not left wondering what is happening. I would drop the relevant HR person and the consultant you met a note, being sympathetic to their situation, but outlining your frustrations and give them a specific time frame (7 days?) to make a decision one way or another. In the meantime, look elsewhere? If this is how they treat their applicants, how do you think they treat their staff?

By jove you're right.Thanks for the advice, having difficulty finding the interviewer's contact details but will persevere.This was my first set of interviews and taken a fair bit of preparation and effort to support them but I guess that's the trade off. Any suggestions for alternative PMO organisations would be appreciated - preferring to look at smaller firms though at the moment.Cheers; the Were-Rabbit.

Have you tried PA ? I’m not sure that we are recruiting before the New Year, but it may be worth applying anyway. Bonusses this year are rumoured to be at record levels. Our own recruitment process can be painfully slow too, though.

You're not kidding - PA never even bothered to get back to me, which I felt was the height of rudeness to anyone other than a joke applicant. Would stll consider working for them in the future (am now much better qualified and with more suitbale experience) but recruiters take note at how much you can damage the name of your firm, not just with those you offend but amongst those who the offended badmouth you to.

I haven't tried PA in earnest yet for two simple reasons (and you maybe able to advise me here too). I'm having one or two issues with applying:1) I have a 2ii degree and they requisit appears to be a 2i for experienced hires. Is this a hard and fast rule - my experience for the past five years is varied and progressive, but I think I am falling down at this "filter" stage.2) I am not trained in PRINCE2; however the organisation I currently work in use a morphed version of PRINCE2 that is bespoke to my industry and is made up from the same elements and functions.Any thoughts and advice are appreciated; I'll even buy you a drink (metaphorically speaking). Thanks

.....and also if they treat their staff like this, then how on earth do they service the needs of their clients? This has happened to me a few times over the years. It seems unlikely that they want to get back to you now, but I would keep trying to get an answer for about 8 weeks, rather than 4. When you say at the 'client site', do you mean at one of their client sites (some people use it to refer to an employer)? If so I would enquire politely whether this impacted on your application and factor it into your thinking. *** I entirely agree with complaints about no feedback - how difficult can it be to write a generic email paste it in with an email address + and then press send. The only thing worse than a rejection you know has been sent out before, is nothing at all. It can do serious harm to a consultancy brand for years to come. ***

Well, it's five weeks to the day come to think of it.The interview was at a client site i.e. a central government agency where said firm has a team working. I've sent the last interviewer a follow up letter on the assumption that their HR group are...."over stretched" or not very good (apologies to any HR readers, this is not a generalisation).But like you say, it seems like the approach of an organisation working to keep still rather than being progressive.

This sympathetic onlooker does not have public sector consulting experience, and can’t really help you other than to reiterate that you appear to be acting very responsibly. It either reads like a hare and tortoise story, or the nearest-interview miss that I have ever heard of. It is difficult to put aside the speed and ‘quasi’ procedure of putting you in front of such a large client so soon, before apparently agreeing the contract, which seems to be very bad practice. However this probably has little capital in terms of landing your next consulting role. EITHER: Take Recruit Gals initial advice (you might already know that she very frequently offers excellent recruitment advice?). You might consider finding an acceptable compromise (a fourth interview?? Meeting at a different client site??? Contacting and meeting with a decision maker at the firm?) OR: Wait for them to react/Let them know that you are no longer really interested. Consider other more suitable opportunities, safe in the knowledge that if you can get to stage 3 in an unfair process, then you could breeze through a fair one. Some might choose both options.What is certainly true, to my thinking, is that I would not wish to interview for the same role as you, if you choose the ‘OR’ option!

Well, this wee saga has drawn to a close.I received a note informing me that I'd been rejected this morning, but not before I'd written to them directly for an update. But also not before I'd been told on 2 prior occasions that they would like to take my application further only to renege on this, so I'm currently feeling a little aggrieved if not surprised (not sure if this is common, but from other comments it seems that that this scenario is a one off). Personally I think that they've been tendering for businsess and aligning appropriate people to support this should they be awarded any contracts - which have now not materialised so they can not make any offers to support this. From their point of view, it is probably an OK strategy to ensure that staff are utilised and there no "floating" employess - but as a candidate it's a pain.So I'm currently looking for other firms, preferably with an automotive strand to their business (my background).I've identified that PA fall in to this and that MPI cover elements of Engineering PM work - any other solutions are more than appreciated.

Altran might be another possibility? You would have to look into this in more detail, but their UK operations are not insignificant these days. MPI give well reasoned signals to the market, in general terms. If you have transferable skills in the engineering sector then you are immediately narrowing your competition. Culturally I do not personally struggle to imagine that they could run a fairly professional recruitment process. I'm sure there must be others. Good luck!

Interested to read this, working for a recruitment firm we have had dealings with consultancies where we have taken a candidate successfully through an entire process to be told there is no role until the contract has been won. It's frustrating, but happens.

You're right about it being frustrating, speaking from experience now the most significant issue was the lack of communication. If the firm had been more open about the recruitment process up front (and plans) then the candidate would put in no lesser of a performance but also be aware of any reservations up front. The outcome of this is that I now feel that the process (and my efforts) has been a waste of my time as, even if they liked my performance, there was no role to fill.

This has happened to me twice. We were left in the dark regarding the fact there was no role until the contract had been won on both occasions. Both times we lost our reputation with the candidates, as did the client. It's an awkward situation and all comes down to timing, if a contract is on the verge of signature there needs to be a team in place to begin when required however if an agency is told a role is speculative for whatever reason experience suggests this role will not be as actively resourced as the role which is live. I agree it all comes down to communication and if agencies and candidates are informed up front at the very least reputations are saved. It’s certainly worth asking the question as to the status of the role when applying.

Would agree with all this. Communication and timing matter for best practice to happen.P.S. By timing this means being as quick as possible to get the result that is best i) for clients, ii) consultants and iii), when there are not enough consultancy staff, for candidates as well. So often we read expressions like 'candidates need to be able to hit the ground running.' Fair enough but that means with feet, not fists. I don't see the point of treating candidates in a way that actually has a negative affect on the consultancy, and therefore in these situations, on longer term client servicing as well. Sure - these relationships are interdependant and it requires some basic ability to imagine consequences going forward rather than in hindsight, but it need not be as difficult as some people make it!

I'd also agree but, like you say, it shouldn't be this laboured or difficult and, personally speaking, some of this information should be made available during this process to make it carry some level of capital. This way, the candidate a) doesn't set themselves up for a fall as it were and b) add further consideration to the position. From the firm's point of view, their only risk is potentially losing candidates during the selection process but, as they stand, they stand to lose credibility amongst consultants looing for appointments.