Candidate loses 6-figure job offer for being 'too proactive'? Internet slams hiring manager's logic

A recruiter’s LinkedIn post about a banking candidate who lost a lucrative role for being “too proactive” has set off a heated debate online. Many users are questioning whether the decision was fair or if hiring practices themselves need rethinking.

Banking executive recruiter Alex De Golia shared the incident in a LinkedIn post. According to him, the candidate had impressed the hiring manager for a commercial banking business development position and was awaiting next steps.

The recruiter explained that while the company needed to complete a few internal processes before moving forward, the candidate grew impatient. Instead of waiting, he tracked down the HR contact and emailed them directly to ask when the process would proceed.

HR forwarded the email to the hiring manager who, despite being the candidate’s supporter, withdrew interest. The manager reportedly said, “If he can’t follow simple instructions now, how can we trust him with our clients?”

For De Golia, the takeaway was clear: in highly structured industries like banking, skipping protocols is not seen as initiative but as risk.

A Fine Line Between Persistence and Desperation
De Golia’s post drew a stark lesson: one message can derail a promising career opportunity. He cautioned that while enthusiasm is important, impatience may signal desperation. His advice for job seekers was to respect the waiting period, nail the interview, send a thoughtful follow-up, and be ready for the next step instead of trying to bypass the process.

“The process you’re trying to shortcut is the test,” De Golia wrote.

Netizens Push Back
Despite the recruiter’s warning, LinkedIn users were far from unanimous in support. Many felt the candidate’s action did not warrant such a harsh penalty.

One user noted the “mixed messaging” on the platform, pointing out that many candidates land jobs precisely by networking directly with hiring managers and HR.

Another professional, a Delivery Manager, argued that hiring processes often lack clear timelines, which pushes candidates toward excessive follow-ups. “If the hiring manager had simply said, next steps will be shared on a specific date, this situation could have been avoided,” the commenter wrote.

Others were more blunt. “I don’t see how his ‘proactive’ message went off process. That’s a pathetic reason to remove someone from the process,” said one. Another highlighted that “96% of hiring managers have never had interview training,” suggesting the problem may lie with recruiters as much as candidates.

The episode reflects broader frustrations in today’s job market, where candidates face long waits and limited communication. For some, proactiveness is viewed as a sign of ambition; for others, it is a red flag.

At the heart of the debate is a call for transparency. As one commenter put it, hiring managers and candidates alike would benefit from “very clear timelines and open communication.” Without that, the line between persistence and desperation remains dangerously blurry.