All they said was: "the process has been fiercely competitive" and "we have identified a more experienced and suitable candidate with whom we wish to move forward".
Now I'm left thinking, what experience am I lacking that is blocking my in-house move?
PS - been in PP for about 4 years now, applied for a 2PQE+ role.
0
0
Don’t feel too down on it. With in-house you can occasionally get a unicorn candidate, I.e. someone who’s already in house at a direct competitor so knows the industry inside out, when you do it’s a no brainer to hire them but it’s rare it happens, just try again elsewhere
1
0
Err could be anything really. Maybe you come across really badly with stary, mad eyes? Actually no, we still recruit people like that, so it's likely something else.
What sort of inhouse? FTSE 100 blue chip will be quite different to some shitty little company. The latter may not want you if you have too much intelligence and ambition.
If you have on point experience then maybe you were just too expensive.
Most likely they just took someone internal.
0
0
Most inhouse employers and roles are gash anyway so chances are you dodged a bullet.
0
0
4PQE.
Thanks all - didn't feel 'down' per se, but do wonder if I'm lacking certain experience that an in-house demands. A bit annoying when it happens as you don't know what to 'fix'.
Field is media finance.
Job is at one of the major streamers (which ironically I unsubscribed from two months ago - perhaps they found that on a database search...)
0
0
When I give feedback to people who apply for our in-house jobs it tends to be pretty generic like the type you got - basically we try to find a reason that makes sense and leave it at that.
It’s quite hard to give feedback which is basically - we preferred someone else/we thought you were a bit annoying/we didn’t click with you.
I’d focus on interview technique and not worry too much about lack of experience. For instance, if you come across too lawyerly/waffly then lots of places won’t like that.
0
0
If you can’t answer that question yourself then they were probably right tbf.
Recruiting someone straight from PP is a risk in house, you don’t know if they’ll “get it”, the shift from being a revenue generator to a cost centre, giving pragmatic advice, can they take a view, can they hold their own against Bob from Yorkshire who’s been doing it his way for thirty years, are they a cvnt, all these questions, and that’s before you get to actual relevant experience. If it was Acme Widgets and someone who has worked in house at Beta Widgets applies, they have more experience than you.
Next time get your story straight, convince them you know what In house work is like as distinct from PP work, you’re pragmatic, will take a view but hold your own on the important stuff, and aren’t a cvnt then you’ll hopefully do better.
0
0
Hmm cross post didn’t see anything after splishsplas post
0
0
Hey, are you Spielberg?
0
0
No idea who got hired.
I don't do much distribution / tax as there is a separate team for that. Maybe that's why.
Who is Spielberg?
0
0
If you're not getting interviews then the problem is your lack of experience or other covering letter/cv content. Lots of ways to improve that.
If you're getting interviews but not jobs then the problem is probably that they don't think you'd fit as well into their team as another candidate. That will vary from role to role so just keep applying and you'll find the right fit eventually.
0
0
What was the role? A "2PQE+ role" isn't giving us much to go on. Could be anything from adding a junior to support an existing team to needing a sole counsel / head of, so your 4PQE of PP might be ok or it might be bugger all.
0
0
the title says 'Counsel' and says for basic qualifications '2PQE+'
likely a support role
0
0
Last person I hired was simply better than the other two. There was nothing wrong with any of them, it's like coming third in a race and saying "what is it about me that caused me to lose"?
0
0
regardless of what the feedback is at that level the job is decided on the following:
0
0
Yeah, how dare they.
0
0
OP is defo Spielberg.
Jack you sound a bit of a plum there tbh. In house is just a job, same as all the others.
0
0
They probably knew who they wanted before the recruitment process began. But just for cya reasons they can say they tested the market.
0
0
This is a tough on because it's a legitimate reason to move in house but your don't want to come across as lazy. When I started applying for in house roles I took a very broad approach and had a few interviews which gave me some good experience for when the right role came up. A lot of those applications didn't even get to interview. One of them got to the point of asking for references but then someone else popped up who was perfect for the role. Eventually I got offered a role I was seconded to. In house teams don't like taking risks on candidates when they often have so many they've already road tested.
Don't take it personally. It's not like applying for a training contract where they're looking for someone with generic high qualities. They really want someone with specific qualities that may go beyond your legal experience. If another candidate has a bit of an edge on you then that's who they'll pick.
0
0
DSAR them for some proper feedback if they are not willing to give it.
This is probably terrible advice if you work in a small sector.
0
0
That feedback does not mean much. Could be any reason. Some good advice from Jack there.
no in house employer wants to hear about work / life balance as a true reason for moving.
speaking to in house lawyers, even if not in your area, about the true differences is a good idea. It can be hard to imagine.
Also yes it can be that they don’t want someone too ambitious but I would think for a streamer that might be a bit different.
That job may not have been a good for for you either don’t forget.
Join the discussion