In the article “Was the Manager Unprofessional or was I Wrong?” the author recounts a series of perplexing interactions with a hiring manager during a job application process. Despite several missed calls and difficulty in communication, the author initially questions if they were at fault for not whitelisting the manager’s number. However, the manager’s insistence that the author interview on short notice and her assumption that the author had no other commitments raises concerns about her professionalism. Ultimately, the author decides that the company’s handling of the situation indicates a lack of respect for candidates, leading them to withdraw from the process.
Background
Introduction to the situation
In this article, we will discuss a situation involving a candidate who applied for an entry-level assistant/reception position at a large company. The candidate had a series of communication issues with the hiring manager, which ultimately led to their decision to withdraw from the hiring process. We will evaluate the actions of both the manager and the candidate, assess the manager’s behavior, and examine the candidate’s responsibility in this situation.
Explanation of the communication process
The communication process in this case involved an initial screening call with a third-party recruiter, followed by a phone interview with the hiring manager. The candidate received the manager’s name and number from the recruiter and expected a direct phone call from the manager. However, the candidate received voicemails instead of direct calls from the manager, as the calls were marked as “suspected spam” and automatically sent to voicemail. This posed challenges in establishing timely and consistent communication between the manager and the candidate.
The Manager’s Actions
Voicemail instead of direct phone call
The hiring manager chose to leave voicemails instead of directly calling the candidate. While this may have been a result of the candidate’s number being marked as “suspected spam,” it created confusion and inconvenience for the candidate. Direct phone calls would have allowed for immediate conversation and clarification of the communication issues.
Scheduling interviews on short notice
The manager scheduled interviews with the candidate on short notice, which presented challenges for the candidate. The candidate explained their unavailability due to illness and requested to schedule the interviews for the following week. However, the manager insisted on scheduling the interviews for the immediate next day, displaying a lack of flexibility and consideration for the candidate’s circumstances.
Insisting on immediate confirmation
The manager repeatedly insisted on immediate confirmation from the candidate regarding the scheduled interviews. This put undue pressure on the candidate and ignored the candidate’s explanation of being ill and unable to attend the interviews on such short notice. The manager’s insistence on immediate confirmation was unprofessional and disregarded the candidate’s well-being.
Dismissing candidate’s concerns about missed calls
When the candidate explained their issues with receiving the manager’s calls due to them being marked as “suspected spam,” the manager dismissed their concerns and suggested adding expected numbers to their contacts. While the manager’s point about whitelisting the number was valid, their tone and dismissiveness towards the candidate’s challenges were unprofessional.
The Candidate’s Actions
Not whitelisting the manager’s number
The candidate failed to whitelist the manager’s number after the first instance of the call being marked as “suspected spam.” While it was necessary for the candidate to take this action to ensure clear communication, their failure to do so resulted in further miscommunication.
Explaining inability to fix the issue
The candidate explained to the manager that they were unable to fix the issue of calls being marked as “suspected spam” from their end. While the candidate’s explanation may have been valid, their inability to resolve the issue by whitelisting the number reflected poorly on their proactive approach to problem-solving.
Withdrawing from the hiring process
Feeling disrespected and exhausted by the communication issues and the manager’s behavior, the candidate made the decision to withdraw from the hiring process. The candidate emailed their withdrawal, citing the ongoing issues with receiving calls and their belief that the company’s rush and disregard for alternative communication methods indicated a poor work environment.
Evaluation
Assessing the manager’s behavior
The manager’s behavior raises concerns about their professionalism and consideration for candidates. Their choice to leave voicemails instead of making direct calls, insistence on short notice interviews, and disregard for the candidate’s concerns about missed calls are indicators of poor management skills. These actions create an environment of stress, lack of flexibility, and disrespect towards candidates.
Examining the candidate’s responsibility
While the candidate could have taken steps to whitelist the manager’s number to prevent further miscommunication, the responsibility for effective communication primarily falls on the hiring manager. The candidate’s inability to fix the issue from their end was a limitation, but the manager should have sought alternative methods of communication to ensure clarity and avoid potential misunderstandings.
Assessing the validity of feelings of unprofessionalism
The candidate’s feelings of being disrespected and encountering unprofessional behavior are valid based on their interactions with the manager. The manager’s insistence on short notice interviews, dismissiveness of the candidate’s concerns, and lack of flexibility contribute to a sense of unprofessionalism and a negative candidate experience.
Justification for withdrawing from the process
Given the communication issues and the manager’s behavior, the candidate’s decision to withdraw from the hiring process seems justified. The candidate recognized the potential challenges they might have faced working in an environment where their time and concerns were not valued. By withdrawing, the candidate prioritized their well-being and chose not to pursue an employment opportunity that raised red flags.
Conclusion
Reflection on the situation
This situation highlights the importance of effective communication in the hiring process. Both the manager and the candidate played a role in the breakdown of communication, but the manager’s behavior and approach to scheduling and confirmation were more significant factors. The candidate’s decision to withdraw from the process was a reasonable response to the challenges they faced.
Final evaluation of the manager’s professionalism
Based on the manager’s actions described, it is evident that their professionalism is in question. Their choice to leave voicemails instead of direct calls, insistence on short notice interviews without considering the candidate’s availability, and dismissal of the candidate’s concerns indicate a lack of professionalism and respect for candidates. This raises concerns about how the manager may treat employees if hired.
