Not only does fear of lawsuits prevent companies from disclosing no-hire reasons, it prevents them from even recording those reasons internally. If you get rejected and don't know why, take heart: a year from now the company also won't know why. You can apply again as if it were Groundhog Day.
We keep a record of all coding exercises performed by people who want to come in for an interview. We reference it for those who reapply to see if there has been improvement. All of our interview questions are in a github repo and peer reviewd so you don't get those brain teaser useless questions.
I wish we took notes during interviews. On well. We still remember candidates who apply multiple times.
Not only does fear of lawsuits prevent companies from disclosing no-hire reasons, it prevents them from even recording those reasons internally. If you get rejected and don't know why, take heart: a year from now the company also won't know why. You can apply again as if it were Groundhog Day.
Just pray you don't get the same people interviewing you again...
Why?
From the other side of the desk, wouldn't you be impressed if you had a candidate come in for another interview, and they explicitly tell you that you had interviewed them previously and they understood their weaknesses at that time. And they're looking forward to show you just how much their chops have improved in the meantime, and then proceed to do just that?
I try to do this whenever I am the one talking through the results of the interview with a candidate but only if the candidate seems open to it. It seems like a valuable thing to do even from the company's perspective. If you are considering doing this: It isn't always received positively so you have to be prepared for that. You and your company will be judged in this conversation and it's likely that the candidate will not agree with you. Also, if the decision is final (for now or forever) make that very clear right away so no one wastes their time arguing their case. It seems best to approach it with the mindset that no interview process is perfect and your conclusion is based on your side of the exchange you had (which may just be a few hours with the person); it's possible your company's assessment is wrong for some reason but you've made your best effort to make the correct decision. It's easy to come off as arrogant when you're the side doing the rejecting.
I have successfully offered feedback and later hired a candidate (more than once!) when they returned after taking on a new project that helped them grow in a way that addressed the feedback. Our company has also changed its collective mind about some people when we have had success with another candidate or found a particular project or situation that minimizes the risk of whatever we were concerned about (for near-hires). An interview that results in a rejection isn't necessarily a permanent dead end.
I get it that giving feedback can expose a company to lawsuits and takes a lot of time, now, what's the excuse for not even informing the candidate of the rejection? many companies simply stop communicating.
I think it's because they don't want to be in the position of making an offer to someone they explicitly rejected when the preferred candidate didn't work out.
Quick answer from the article: >In a litigious society, and particularly in the aftermath of many of the class action and civil lawsuits of the late 90s and early 00s, companies became hypersensitive in order to protect their interests. As such, many companies adopted a blanket approach to dealing with things like interview feedback for candidates by simply declining to give any details.
Which makes perfect sense. The company doesn't derive any benefit from telling you why they didn't hire you. There's no reason to do it if it involves risk.
I once received feedback after being rejected for a position. In this particular case I knew full well why I hadn't been given me the job, but nonetheless their willingness to open up about their decision making process made a big and lasting impression on me. Of course, it was a startup. No company with more than 20 employees would probably even consider doing something like this, and unfortunately I doubt that will…
> At the other end of the spectrum are companies or teams that don't even bother notifying candidates they've been rejected. I'm sure they have good reasons, but to me that sends a negative signal. As someone who's done that before, it's because my plate is too full (my own fault), which is why I'm looking for candidates, and I'm busy dealing with everybody who is still in the pipeline or getting used to working with…
> That said, big companies have professionals whose job it is to make sure this doesn't happen.
Big companies are supposed to have professionals whose job it is to make sure this doesn't happen. Some (Amazon) seem to just not give a shit.
The reason that companies need to worry about lawsuits is that the hiring process is usually not very strenuous. When people make arbitrary and capricious decisions, bias tends to be a thing.