111–120 of 348 posts
As a candidate, I've always preferred polite "thanks, but no thanks" responses in a timely manner. The other kind of feedback that I like is things like, "we need people with a different background / experience than you have." IMO, judgement feedback (you screwed up how you handle your yak shaving, or I don't think we'll get along with each other) is too subjective to be constructive. And, I get it. As someone who's…
You do walk a fine line and create a lot of overhead to give feedback to all candidates. Generic feedback like "you weren't the right candidate" or "we were looking for someone who is a better fit" isn't any more helpful than a simple "no".
More detailed feedback can be tainted with personal bias and potentially skewed personal perspective based on how well you got along with an interviewer.
If I was in charge of HR/recruiting/etc I would advocate for not giving feedback, but build more robust communication mechanisms that give candidates a notification or view into the process. For example: 1. I submitted my resume and can see that a recruiter has reviewed it and moved me on to phone screen or its pending recruiter review. > I wasn't selected, but I am a good candidate for other jobs so my resume has been recycled.
Honestly, I don't want feedback from some of the places I've interviewed but I sure hate being ghosted and feeling like I sent me resume into the abyss for no reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that's all very understandable, at the very least give some kind of generic rejection. This was many years ago, but one time I did an all-day onsite interview (~6 hours long) and I was ghosted and never heard from the company again. That infuriates me even to this day. At least give me some kind of news that it was a no.
But the company too spent at least 6 man/hours to interviewing you. Whatever reason they had to not call you back, they didn't come out of it unscathed, interviewing someone is not cheap.
You, on the other hand, are quite possibly still thinking about it every day, and turning down or delaying (and missing) other offers.
We interviewed a lot of hiring managers/etc. while we were working on a previous business in the hiring space. As part of that, we asked them this very question. The fear of litigation was by far the biggest reason we heard, but there were some other popular reasons (mostly relating around conflict avoidance): * Notably, giving feedback feels like an opening for the candidate to submit a rebuttal instead of ending th…
If a rebuttal allows you to identify a good candidate you would otherwise have missed, that's actually a positive thing though? (I appreciate many rebuttals won't be in this category).
With the exception of the resume 1%ers that have some incredible experience/knowledge/executive-connection, applying for jobs is the most soulsucking lottery that can make you feel completely worthless.
I think, at the very least, anyone that gets past an initial screening deserves some feedback.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that's all very understandable, at the very least give some kind of generic rejection. This was many years ago, but one time I did an all-day onsite interview (~6 hours long) and I was ghosted and never heard from the company again. That infuriates me even to this day. At least give me some kind of news that it was a no.
The asymmetry is actually pretty funny if you think about what happens when a candidate declines an offer or ghosts a company. If you ghost, they’re likely going to continue to contact over multiple channels. Because they want an answer so that they can take next steps. Same as a candidate. If you say thanks but no thanks, they’re going to want to know why, is there anything they could have done differently, or try t…
There's asymmetry from the other side too.
As a candidate, I've always preferred polite "thanks, but no thanks" responses in a timely manner. The other kind of feedback that I like is things like, "we need people with a different background / experience than you have." IMO, judgement feedback (you screwed up how you handle your yak shaving, or I don't think we'll get along with each other) is too subjective to be constructive. And, I get it. As someone who's…
I love judgemental feedback, because then I can return it in kind.
As a candidate, I've always preferred polite "thanks, but no thanks" responses in a timely manner. The other kind of feedback that I like is things like, "we need people with a different background / experience than you have." IMO, judgement feedback (you screwed up how you handle your yak shaving, or I don't think we'll get along with each other) is too subjective to be constructive. And, I get it. As someone who's…
I feel that most of the time candidates just want to hear something that puts the situation out of their control, and therefore wasn't merit based. It's always easier to hear "I'm breaking up with you because I'm moving for a new job and want to concentrate on my career" than "I'm breaking up with you because you're awkward around my friends and aren't interesting".
Honest feedback hurts but it’s how you grow.
And if people cared at all about interviewees they’d give some semblance of honest feedback rather than “no thanks.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the company too spent at least 6 man/hours to interviewing you. Whatever reason they had to not call you back, they didn't come out of it unscathed, interviewing someone is not cheap.
That in no way absolves them of the responsibility to treat you like a human and give you a simple "no thanks." This attitude it toxic and feels like you're looking to turn an interview into a lose-lose situation. It doesn't have to be.