21–30 of 58 posts
America has an extremely litigious society. I won't tell you why you suck, because if I do you'll find a way to sue me.
A very good point. It's actually the UK, but to be honest.. The same can be said in most countries nowadays
1. There is no position. We're just "feeling out" the marketplace. 2. There is no position. This was a headhunter building his database. 3. We were planning to promote from within, but HR made us post the position anyway. We didn't read or respond to any of the resumes. 4. We already had the perfect candidate, but HR made us post the position anyway. We didn't read or respond to any of the resumes. 5. We posted the p…
(and by the way, that would be a great solution to solve!)
Have you tried asking? I've done this in the past with jobs for which I was not accepted. Some were happy to, some weren't, but where they did it was useful. And as an employer now, I'm generally happy to share useful feedback. But I'll usually only bother if the candidate asks me. This is at least partly because - as RiderOfGiraffes alludes to, there are legal issues involved, and I have to think very hard about how…
It's not really happening at the moment, I'm a freelance developer now. But after having a discussion with a friend going through the same trouble, I had the question. I probably didn't ask as much as I should/could have, I possibly asked 5-10% of employers, and when I had either no response or a negative 'you didnt suit our needs', I guess I just gave up. I think it's extremely dependent of the company, and surprisi…
What's the harm in something like: "Hey, remember me? I once applied here and wasn't hired, but I really like your company and I was wondering if you have any advice to make me a stronger applicant for future openings"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comes up a lot in these types of discussions, but I have a (major) gripe with this: Laws differ. There are some large (and overrepresented on this site?) countries in the world that have a "sue them" culture and, obviously, laws to back this type of behavior. Lots of countries don't, though - and there I'd expect this kind of feedback. I know, I'm not a lawyer and I might even be a bit naive here, but telling me…
> Bottomline: I hate your easy way out, giving no valueable feedback at all/in general. Yes, laws differ, and there are no doubt countries, and perhaps places within countries, where giving constructive feedback would not result in any problems. Then I fall back on - I simply don't have the time. Besides, you're arguing with the wrong person. You may hate the situation. I hate the situation. As I said, I'd really lik…
This actually sounds like a place where the government could do some good by somewhat reducing information asymmetries and helping the market function better. I'm not think of regulations. I don't think those would be necessarily positive. Instead, I think there would be tremendous benefit in funding such seminars, recording them, doing some in-depth journalism, and publishing the results.
Where could I apply for a grant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comes up a lot in these types of discussions, but I have a (major) gripe with this: Laws differ. There are some large (and overrepresented on this site?) countries in the world that have a "sue them" culture and, obviously, laws to back this type of behavior. Lots of countries don't, though - and there I'd expect this kind of feedback. I know, I'm not a lawyer and I might even be a bit naive here, but telling me…
> Bottomline: I hate your easy way out, giving no valueable feedback at all/in general. Yes, laws differ, and there are no doubt countries, and perhaps places within countries, where giving constructive feedback would not result in any problems. Then I fall back on - I simply don't have the time. Besides, you're arguing with the wrong person. You may hate the situation. I hate the situation. As I said, I'd really lik…
Were these 10 responses valuable for your wife, or "We're sorry to inform you.." useless types that didn't help at all?
Not providing feedback on company time is an shady argument from my point of view as well. The decisions to hire someone that involved me (granted, maybe roundabout a dozen hires only, I don't claim to be any kind of expert here) meant that we interviewed them and usually talked about the candidates directly afterwards. Most rejects were done right there, while we discussed the very reasons, on company time anyway and by definition.
Writing them down and sending an email if you are in that situation doesn't cost your company a lot of time (Cue the "Did you sent the mail" questions: No. I never had the contact details/access to the resume and was just a code monkey involved in questioning the candidate). That's - sad.
Companies won't do it because they fear being taken to court for discrimination. When hiring we were specifically advised by our legal team not to tell people why they were unsuccessful. It doesn't matter how careful you are, anything you say can be leapt upon by an unsuccessful candidate and used as an excuse to drag you to court claiming that they were discriminated against. This is especially true in these days of…
Also, for real, about 8 out of 10 people take it badly. I've tried it. It just doesn't work. Why don't you ask for it though? A quick reply: "I'd love to hear why I was rejected, won't take it badly, but as an opportunity to learn". Don't make them do all the work.
So, you want to know what you did wrong? Maybe it's that you didn't develop a good enough rapport with your interviewer to show you knew how to listen to them and "take a hint". Next time, be sure to checkin with the person you're talking to by asking things like, "does that answer your question", and "do you want me to go into more detail".
And it's great that you're looking for feedback, but why are you whining about not getting it after the fact when you could just ask for it in the interview? When an interviewer asks you a question, do your best to answer it and if you're not sure how you've done, just frickin' ask! "What do you think? Is that a good solution", or, "That's how I'd tackle it. What would you do?" Demonstrate that you know where your weaknesses are and that you have genuine interest in improving your skillset/knowledge/whatever.
One of the most important qualities I look for in people I work with is self-awareness of how they're perceived. People who lack this are a pain in the ass to manage. In the extreme, they're self-entitled primadonnas who are impossible to give feedback to. But even in moderation, this is problematic. Yes, I know you don't think copy/pasting code is all that bad, or that you're l33t-speak documentation is readable enough... but it's not. Don't make me argue with you about it.
Simpler because the rules are quite clear (and very fair) and more complex because company managers tend to make up extreme rules that are way beyond what is necessary.
Job application disputes are not settled in a standard court, they go to an employment tribunal instead and are decided by one judge and two independent lay-member volunteers (often councillors, trade-unionists, clergy, business leaders etc).
For a case to be heard there would almost certainly have had to be discrimination on the grounds of disability, race, sex, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief. While some serious degree of "bad-process" might make it it would be unlikely to be successful.
Apart from blatant discrimination, tribunals mostly look for consistency in how workers are treated. So if you tell one candidate why they weren't successful there is an argument that all must be told. A simple way round this is to wait to be asked and only reply to those candidates that ask.
Sadly, UK companies seem to be un-necessarily paranoid about this and I have heard management claim all sorts of reasons why reasonable openness cannot be practiced during the job-interview process.
Generally, though, UK tribunals tend towards doing the right thing from my experience. In the 2 tribunals I have been present at, both sided with the company (as they should have). Both had a trade unionist on the tribunal.
I do think that companies have a moral duty to tell applicants why they were unsuccessful if they got as far as an interview, even if it is just to say "there was a better candidate on the day". They have made a commitment to the candidate and the candidate has reciprocated by turning up to be interviewed.
Companies should do the right thing rather than fear litigation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comes up a lot in these types of discussions, but I have a (major) gripe with this: Laws differ. There are some large (and overrepresented on this site?) countries in the world that have a "sue them" culture and, obviously, laws to back this type of behavior. Lots of countries don't, though - and there I'd expect this kind of feedback. I know, I'm not a lawyer and I might even be a bit naive here, but telling me…
Look at it from the company perspective. Out of 10 people, you'll probably upset 5, or enter a discussion with them asserting they are actually good; maybe 4 actually accept criticism and are thankful, and one sues. So for the most part, it's doing more damage than good to the company image (and from my personal experience, I guess the ratio of not-taking-criticism people is much higher), and might get you into troub…
- Just as it is a good idea for a person to think of "You'll always meet twice in life" I kind of think that a company should do the same. That guy might come around alot smarter and you do want him the second time. Or he might work elsewhere and be your contact when your company does a deal with that company. - He talks about small companies. I kind of expect employers that probably offer 'transparency, lack of hierarchies, ..' to be more human.
I'm pondering a lot about the 'they'll take it badly' comments right now (not only from you, all over this HN thread). I was _sure_ that most people feel like the author of the blog entry, seriously missing out the honest feedback. Maybe I was too naive..