It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…
1. Endless interviews with no hiring decision
Twice now, at different companies, for different roles, I have gone through five rounds of interviews. This includes panels, work assessments, presentations, in-office visits, the whole works. Then, after hours of work and weeks of process, the company calls back and says, “We’re still very interested in your candidacy, but we’re not ready to make a decision yet. We’ll get back to you in a few months.”
I understand that companies advertise for jobs and circumstances change. I have been a hiring manager before — I know how much nonsense goes on behind the scenes! But is this a new trend? Are they just trying to let me down easy with a lie? If you’re not ready to make an offer to anyone, why did I (and other candidates) have to take a day off work for round five of your insanely long process? These are mid-level, 5-7 years of experience roles, not the CEO. Is this common, or am I just unlucky?
They’re not trying to let you down easy. Employers are very, very used to rejecting people for jobs and they don’t come up with elaborate explanations like this that just kick the can down the road; if they want to reject you, they’ll just reject you (or a lot of them will just ghost you).
More likely, they’re (a) not convinced enough that any of their candidates are quite right for the job (in which case they’re not great at hiring because a five-round interview process should be thorough enough that they have the info they need to decide either way and if they don’t, they need to figure out what was missing and address that), (b) sorting out internal stuff that’s preventing them from making a decision (for example, a budgeting issue, or a team member might be leaving and they might combine the roles, or there’s a new project coming up that could change what they need in the new hire, or on and on), or (c) just being flaky — they’re not ready to commit, but were willing to use an extraordinary amount of your time anyway.
Related:
can I set a limit on how many interviews I’ll do with a company?
2. Can a manager do anything when an employee is triggering a coworker’s pet peeves?
One of my friends manages an employee named Lisa. Lisa used to work at my company, and I sat in an exit interview for one of her coworkers. The coworker, when asked why they were leaving, cited the usual reasons about wanting to grow professionally, but also mentioned that Lisa was severely impacting their quality of life at work. I asked if this was due to bullying, harassment, etc. but they said Lisa ticked off a lot of their pet peeves checklist and it was difficult working with her in close proximity every day.
Fast forward to today, Lisa has moved to my friend’s team at a different company. My friend mentioned that one of his direct reports, Mandy (who directly works with Lisa as a team of two), has been exhibiting some signs of burnout and when he spoke with her, she more or less implied that she didn’t enjoy having to work with Lisa. Unfortunately, both Mandy and Lisa have in-person roles and need to sit near each other due to the collaborative nature of their roles. My friend does notice that Mandy isn’t as warm with Lisa as she is with others, but never to a degree that could be counted as uncivil or getting in the way of work being done.
For now, my friend is leaving things as is because there’s no impact to the job and there aren’t actionable solutions, other than to monitor Mandy for continued burnout. Is this one of those scenarios where you just have to let the situation play out or is there more my friend could do for Mandy, who he considers a high performer that he would like to keep on the team?
It depends on what the issues are with Lisa! They might be things that your friend could and should address. For example, if she never stops talking, or if she asks intrusive questions, or if she’s unrelentingly negative, those are things your friend should talk to Lisa about.
If it’s truly just a personality conflict and Lisa isn’t doing anything that a manager could reasonably ask her to change, that would be different — but she should start by talking to Mandy and finding out more about what she’s finding challenging. And if it really is “she’s not doing anything wrong, just gets under my skin,” then they can still brainstorm solutions. Would seating them further apart help enough that it would be worth a minor efficiency hit? Is there one project that making Mandy especially antsy that her manager could rejigger somehow? Does Mandy need to be told it’s okay to wear headphones or set boundaries on topics with her? And so on, depending on what the issue is.
3. Our job descriptions are changing and I’m being bumped down a level — unless I get a master’s
I have been with my company for eight years. After having four different managers due to constant internal shifts, I finally got promoted for the first time in mid-2025. It took a lot of advocating on my own behalf, but it was deserved. My reviews have always been very good, I’m a committed employee, and I was doing the work of the level above without the title/pay.
Recently, our management decided to post an open position that is in my same career path. There is a level I, level II, and level III. My promotion was to that last level III.
Well, in revisiting the path for the first time in years, they have added an education requirement to the career path that was never in place previously. Not only does this impact me, but it also impacts the two other level IIIs with 15+ and 30+ years of service.
For reasons I can only speculate, none of us will be grandfathered in. We have been given a fairly tight timeline to achieve this educational component (a masters certification or degree) and will be demoted if we don’t start that timeline soon. Neither our experience nor our years of great reviews have any impact on our ability to stay level IIIs. The change won’t mean an immediate pay decrease since we have pay grades that overlap, but it will slow my salary progression quite a bit.
This has been devastating to me. I not only fought a hard battle to get this promotion, but this comes at a terrible time for me to go back to school. I have three kids under four and was only a month back from maternity leave when this was announced. Combine that with duties to my aging parents, a significant commute and typical life responsibilities, and I am weighing my options, including just taking the demotion.
Is it typical for companies to refuse to grandfather in proven employees in when job descriptions change, and to require employees to have education their own supervisors are not required to have? (If it helps, this is in an arts field, not a scientific field. I could see a hospital CEO not having to be a surgeon, for example.) And is it typical for the timeline to be less than two years for something like this?
Unfortunately, just moving to a new job or a new position within the company isn’t super realistic. There are location factors, industry factors, and benefits at play that are golden handcuffs.
It’s not unheard for companies not to exempt long-time employees when job descriptions change like this, although it’s generally recognized as a demoralizing thing to do to people unless it’s accompanied by a very clear explanation of why the change is necessary (like that the field has changed significantly in the last decade and doing the work at a high level now requires different skills or education than it used to). The fact that your managers aren’t required to have the additional education isn’t necessarily weird or wrong; there are jobs where that’s common and makes sense based on the specific responsibilities of each. But two years to get a masters — in a program you’d still need time to apply for and be accepted into, and when most people have various commitments outside of work to plan around — is an extremely tight timeline and makes me think they don’t expect most of you to do it in that timeline and are just fine with bumping you down to level II instead (but are presenting the option so that it seems fairer).
All that aside, the question becomes how you want to handle it. Are the golden handcuffs still golden enough that this job remains the best option? It may be! But you should run those calculations again with these changes and make sure that’s still the case.
4. Am I being ridiculous about my company’s cell phone reimbursement plan?
I work for a large company where many roles require us to be off-site for one reason or another, often for just a portion of our day. Before I started, some people had company phones, but that was phased out and it is now explicit policy that if people need cell phones in the field, they need to use their personal phones. However, due to the kind of work we do, a couple of years ago our IT team instituted a policy that we can’t use our personal phones to access work accounts unless we install a specific anti-virus software. The problem is, now the company is declining to reimburse us for the full rate of the anti-virus software, instead reimbursing only the promotional rate for first year subscriptions. It’s a moderately small difference (about $12 per year) but I am frustrated that they’re requiring a tool they won’t fully pay for, and even more frustrated that they asked people to renew this year saying that we’d get reimbursed for the plan, and now saying they only cover a partial cost.
The catch to all of this is, phones are not technically required for our work, and we do have the option to opt out. (I don’t know how many people do, but it is always presented as an option.) I mostly use it for checking email on the go, or if I’m at an event where I can’t easily use my computer. I also feel a little silly making a stink over $12 when I’m making six figures, so I’m trying to figure out how to proceed. I could just keep eating the cost difference, since it makes my life easier to sometimes have access to my email / calendar on my phone. I could refuse to renew next year (or even explore cancelling my plan part way through the year to get back $12), in which case I’d probably have to let my boss know I will be somewhat less available when I am at off-site events. Or I could try to organize with my colleagues to raise an objection to this, but I have no idea if anyone cares.
Is it going to reflect poorly on me to do the second or third option? Am I blowing this out of proportion?
No, if they require you to use a specific anti-virus software, they should reimburse you for the full cost every year. They’re benefitting from you being reachable on your personal device (which they are not paying for) while you’re in the field, and the least they can do is to cover the full cost of the software they’re making you use.
You’re on solid ground in pointing that out, but if it makes you more comfortable you could present it as sticking up for more junior staff who may not find it as easy to eat the cost. Personally, I’d just say to your boss, “Hey, is the intent really not to fully cover the cost of this mandated software, when the company benefits from us agreeing to be reachable on our personal phones when we’re off-site? Because that seems really wrong, and particularly unfair to staff who are lower paid.”
But also, I wonder if this is just an oversight somewhere — like if the reimbursement rate got entered as that first year cost and no one has gone in and adjusted it to reflect that the cost does increase after that.
5. When during a hiring process do I bring up my spouse’s medical appointments?
I’ve begun a job search and am unsure how to navigate one aspect of it. My husband has ongoing medical appointments that he is not allowed to drive himself to; for various reasons, I’m the only good option available as a driver. The appointments are during the workday.
They are generally monthly, although they can vary, and he has some say in when they happen. I’m just the driver; I’m not needed at the appointment itself and I work from a laptop while he’s there (either in the waiting room or a nearby coffee shop). If I’m driving from our home, it’s about 15 minutes each way so the interruption to my workday is pretty minor. I work through lunch those days, so no productivity time is lost and I don’t use PTO. We’ve been doing this for over a year and a half and it hasn’t been an issue for my work whatsoever.
These appointments greatly increase his quality of life and will likely continue in perpetuity. Not being able to support them would be a dealbreaker for me in staying at a job. Do I bring this up during a job interview or wait until I’ve accepted a job? Do I get a feel for how I think the organization would treat this and wait until I’ve started to bring this up? I wouldn’t mind using PTO if need be, I just want to ensure that I’ll be able to continue driving him. If these were my appointments I would feel more comfortable navigating this, but I’m unsure how to when they are not for me. It’s made me unsure if I should even look for a new job or just stay where I’m at.
Wait until you have an offer and bring it up then as part of your negotiations: “I have a family member with medical appointments that I need to drive him to, roughly monthly. I can work from a laptop while he is there, so the interruption to my work is about 15 minutes there and back about once a month, although it can vary. I’d like to ensure that I could continue doing that or, if not, that I could use PTO to cover the time away.”
This is a small request, especially for a job that allows any work-from-home, but it makes sense to find out ahead of time if it’s likely to be an issue.
The post endless interviews with no hiring decision, employee is triggering a coworker’s pet peeves, and more appeared first on Ask a Manager.
ALT
