job interview dilemma

Just interested in other people's thoughts.

I applied for a job in December and the application deadline closed at the end of December. In January I was emailed an interview invite (for this pm) which I accepted in good time. I am due to go to the interview later today, but this morning, I discovered the same/ identical job had been advertised. The contact for the new vacancy is the name of one of the interviewers I am supposed to be seeing today.

Either there are 2 vacancies.
Or there has been a mistake.
Or, they have already decided I am not the one, but are going through the interview motions for 'equal opportunity' pretences.

I have already attended a 'false' interview recently. This upcoming one involves travel and I don't want another wild goose chase.

Thanks for any thoughts.

As you've taken the time and effort to apply and have proof of an invite to an interview it might be best to go along and then politely ask if there are 2 posts on offer? If the answer is no you are within your rights to ask why the post has been re-advertised prior to your interview.

Good advice. Thanks.

On a similar note, I went to one interview I followed the Hr assistant in the room. And could see the reflection in the window the hr manager shaking their head from side to side in a negative way   . And yet they kept me going for 45x mins wasting my time, when if they didn't want to employ me they could of cut the interview down to down to 5x mins. I dare say we could get a whole thread of interviews and the problems people have had.

I went to an interview a week before the one mentioned in the above post. It seemed to go well and I was asked when I could start (not offered the job on the spot).

The interviewer said they would ring by a particular day, but then didn't, then the following week rang to tell me that I did not get the job. Get this, they said:-

1) they were in no doubt about my ability to do the job. They thought I lacked staff management experience (staff management was not mentioned in the job spec' btw), I was meant to just know it was in the job  
2) they did not like the answer to the question of which areas I need more training, as they thought other areas rather than the one I mentioned.    
3) they were not impressed by my application form because of lack of detail in the 'supporting information' section. (so why interview me then     )
4) they were short of candidates and 'felt I deserved a chance' because I am local  (patronising or what  ).


What a demoralising experience

Interviews are costly (time and money) for candidates but for the interviewers they cost nothing (unless it is a small business - then recruitment can be expensive).

For a large organisation (such as an NHS trust), there is no cost, either in time or money, to the staff performing interviews;  they can treat interviewing folk as a petty amusement / pass-time / jolly, especially staff in the non acute sectors (not dealing with in-patients or emergencies).

I suspect that could have happened here. The job was in a non acute service within the NHS. Why else would interviewers choose to interview a candidate if they were unimpressed by the application (as is claimed)

This incident has just left me feeling so demoralised that I now feel suspicious about the motives of other interviewers in case the phenomena of fake interviews for amusement, is endemic. I suspect it might be.