Job interviews are often stressful, but most candidates expect a basic level of transparency once the process ends. However, a recent Reddit post has reignited debate around hiring ethics after a job seeker claimed that the very person who interviewed him ultimately secured the role himself. The account has struck a chord with professionals online, many of whom say such experiences are becoming increasingly common in competitive corporate hiring.
That is when he noticed that one of the interviewers had recently updated his profile with a new designation. The title matched the position the candidate had been interviewing for. During the interviews, the company had reportedly indicated that the candidate would be working closely with this individual, not replacing or reporting to him, which made the discovery even more unsettling.
In the Reddit post, the candidate expressed feeling used and misled by the hiring process. He suggested that the interviews may have served as a way for the company — or the interviewer himself — to gather ideas and insights before deciding to fill the role internally. The lack of communication after the final round added to his frustration, leaving him without clarity or closure.
Some users suggested that interviews are sometimes used as informal research exercises, allowing internal employees to absorb industry knowledge before stepping into expanded roles. Others criticised lengthy interview processes and case studies, calling them red flags when transparency is lacking.
Professionals from HR and recruiting backgrounds also weighed in, noting that allowing someone involved in the interview panel to later take the role raises serious ethical concerns. A few users recounted cases where interviewers were later revealed to be competing candidates, creating clear conflicts of interest that undermined the fairness of the process.
Others pointed out that such practices often signal deeper organisational problems, including poor leadership and weak hiring governance. In several shared experiences, the internal hires who secured roles under such circumstances did not last long, reinforcing doubts about the decision-making behind them.
Silence After Final Interview
The candidate, who works in the tech marketing space, shared that he had reached the final stage of interviews for a senior marketing position. After completing the process, he waited for a response but heard nothing from the company. With no follow-up or rejection email, he decided to check LinkedIn for updates related to the role.That is when he noticed that one of the interviewers had recently updated his profile with a new designation. The title matched the position the candidate had been interviewing for. During the interviews, the company had reportedly indicated that the candidate would be working closely with this individual, not replacing or reporting to him, which made the discovery even more unsettling.
In the Reddit post, the candidate expressed feeling used and misled by the hiring process. He suggested that the interviews may have served as a way for the company — or the interviewer himself — to gather ideas and insights before deciding to fill the role internally. The lack of communication after the final round added to his frustration, leaving him without clarity or closure.
Reddit Users Share Similar Experiences
The post quickly gained traction, prompting dozens of responses from users who said they had faced similar situations. Several commenters described interview processes where internal candidates were never disclosed, despite external applicants being led to believe they were strong contenders.Some users suggested that interviews are sometimes used as informal research exercises, allowing internal employees to absorb industry knowledge before stepping into expanded roles. Others criticised lengthy interview processes and case studies, calling them red flags when transparency is lacking.
Professionals from HR and recruiting backgrounds also weighed in, noting that allowing someone involved in the interview panel to later take the role raises serious ethical concerns. A few users recounted cases where interviewers were later revealed to be competing candidates, creating clear conflicts of interest that undermined the fairness of the process.
Others pointed out that such practices often signal deeper organisational problems, including poor leadership and weak hiring governance. In several shared experiences, the internal hires who secured roles under such circumstances did not last long, reinforcing doubts about the decision-making behind them.
