I went through an extensive interview process with Teramind for a Controller role and was led to believe an offer was imminent. The CFO communicated that approvals were in progress and that they expected to move forward shortly. Based on that level of confidence, I declined another full-time offer and multiple contract opportunities.
Shortly after, I was informed the role was being paused until Q2. Disappointing, but understandable.
What’s not acceptable is what happened next.
In Q2, I proactively reached back out, reiterated my interest, and shared that I had taken a contract role but remained open to joining. Since then, communication has been inconsistent at best—delays, vague responses, and ultimately no real follow-through. It has felt like a continuous runaround with no clear direction or accountability.
At a senior level, candidates are making real career decisions based on what is communicated. To first signal strong intent, then pause, and later fail to re-engage in a meaningful or respectful way reflects poorly on the organization.
The interview experience itself was positive, but the lack of follow-through and respect for a candidate’s time and decisions outweighs that.
Pros:
Professional and engaging interview process
Leadership team seemed knowledgeable and aligned during interviews
Cons:
Communicated strong offer intent before approvals were finalized
Caused candidates to make decisions based on incomplete information
Poor follow-up and lack of accountability post-delay
Ongoing runaround with no clear communication in Q2
Advice to Management:
If approvals are not finalized, do not communicate near-offer certainty. And if you ask candidates to stay engaged after a delay, follow through. Respect for candidates shouldn’t stop once hiring plans change.
