DEAR JOYCE: I had an excellent work history at a company where I had worked for almost six years when it was sold to a larger corporation. My department was transferred to another city, but I agreed to stay beyond my exit date to finish a special project.

Several months later, hearing of an opening at my former company, I re-applied, interviewed and was rated "most qualified." After that, stone cold silence.

When the successful candidate didn't pan out three months later, the job was open again. An office friend e-mailed me to quickly contact the department supervisor, who said I wouldn't have to re-interview and would just start working.

We settled on salary and hours and agreed that I would start work the following Monday. She only had to check "one little thing" and would get back to me within 24 hours. Instead, the supervisor left on vacation. I contacted her boss, the department manager. He apologized for the confusion and explained that the company had to follow certain guidelines. After telling me again that I am by far "the most qualified," the manager said that they had to interview other applicants and he'd call me the following week.

Nine days later, the manager contacted me to report they were still interviewing, but that he should have an answer within a few days. Three weeks later, the manager did call -- to tell me they had hired someone else.

I am upset, not about the job loss but about being put on hold for six weeks. Isn't there some code of ethics companies should adhere to, or am I expecting too much? -- Strung Along

Two experienced employment experts share their insights.

Any of several factors could be at play, says James M. Lemke, a human resources executive for Opportunity International and 15-year veteran of major-league employment consulting:

"The company has the right to take as long as needed to make a hiring decision. The company may have held off making a formal offer due to derogatory information found in your reader's personnel file; the company may have been under the EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) gun to hire a person for this position who was in the "under-utilized" category; or the company may just have been trying to keep cost down and go with the most qualified but lowest paid candidate.

"In any case, the way this episode was mishandled, I'll bet the supervisor who made the verbal employment offer won't be getting a performance review that she can send home to mom."

Susan Smith senses there is more to this story. Smith, president of Smith Professional Search in Bingham Farms, Mich., has extensive experience in executive recruiting and has observed many similar situations.

"When a highly regarded former employee wants to come back, the red carpet is rolled out," Smith explains. "Your reader, perhaps not a stellar employee in the company's perspective, got her info from the often unreliable grapevine. Perhaps the supervisor didn't have the authority to make a job offer, or perhaps your reader misunderstood. The supervisor may have had her hands slapped for making an unauthorized offer, causing her to ignore your reader."

If so, why didn't the supervisor or manager just communicate that she spoke out of line? "Rather than encourage lawsuits," Smith says, "employers commonly say nothing or simply that a person didn't fit rather than offer detailed explanations."

Smith says it's shortsighted for an employer to dangle a candidate for six long weeks:

"With companies spending buckets of money to land on 'best places to work' lists, why not learn to understand how candidates view their application process? When a candidate is asked to come in for an interview, takes the time to prepare for it, uses personal time to be there, and then the company never communicates the outcome, what kind of impression does that leave on the candidate or perhaps a future customer? Ethics? What about the Golden Rule?"