Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reasons Why Job Seekers Are Not Given Feedback

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 348 posts

Re: Reasons Why Job Seekers Are Not Given Feedback

#281

Post by crispyambulance »

stakhanov wrote: post #216
Koshkin wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rejected from hundreds of jobs Sounds extreme. Were you applying to random jobs?

It's not extreme at all. Companies are treating it as a numbers game, which is part of what the article is about. The flipside of the coin is that candidates are forced into treating it as a numbers game too. For example: As a candidate you might submit a resume and get an automated "Thank you, we'll be in touch". There's a large variety of reasons why you might face a very low probability that someone will indeed be…

It's only a "numbers game" if you treat it as such by "shot-gunning" your applications. Much better to exercise your professional network (in the flesh or online).

The whole point of web-based application process is to weed out as many candidates as possible. If you can skip that step and first make contact with a human, the odds are much better and it's less work and stress for everyone.

Re: Reasons Why Job Seekers Are Not Given Feedback

#282

Post by croon »

CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #107
gwbas1c wrote: post #83

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".

Easier? Yes. Helpful? Not IMHO. I spent my first 20 years on this earth incapable of processing critique, regardless of merit. It was incredibly difficult to get out of that. But once you realize that rejection or critique is just input, you can learn from it. It's obviously not always helpful, but the majority of the time it sure is (YMMV).

You can categorize some cases into these:

1) Someone has observed something you do that you're unaware of, and could work on.

2) Someone has misinterpreted something you do, and now you know they have, but can be glad they told you so you know where they stand, and/or clear the confusion by explaining what really happened.

3) Someone doesn't like something you do, but you are already aware of you doing it, but think your way is better, for reasons X, Y and Z, and if you feel like it you can explain that.

4) Someone who has more experience than you recognizes a behavior from their earlier selves, and points this out so that you get a head start at learning their lesson.

Regardless of the merit of the feedback, you can't process it and deal (or not deal) with it until you hear it.

If you can step away from yourself and just observe and reflect, there are so many things you can learn that I wish I could imprint on a younger me. But at least I'm trying to catch up as a 30-something now.

Re: Reasons Why Job Seekers Are Not Given Feedback

#283

Post by michaelt »

cion wrote: post #274
edu wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent said to multiply _only the primes_ from 2 to N, and then add one not factorial plus one. In your example it would be (2 * 3) + 1 = 7, prime.

Oh, sorry, didn't realize that. It still doesn't work, though, as the example of 2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13 + 1 = 59 * 509 shows.

Right, but if you were testing N=13 as the highest prime, then (2 * 3 * 5 * 7 * 11 * 13) + 1 must either be prime itself, i.e. have no prime factors, or must have a prime factor greater than 13. And in either case, a prime greater than 13 exists - in your example, 59.

This is Euclid's proof [1] and it's some 2300 years old.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_theorem

Re: Reasons Why Job Seekers Are Not Given Feedback

#284

Post by precisioncoder »

perlgeek wrote: post #264
Doxin wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly was the policy that caused this? In my (luckily very limited) job searching experience, the salary is something that gets negotiated. I ask for something on the high side, they offer something on the low side. Repeat until you end somewhere reasonable. The only thing I can imagine causing someone to not be hired on salary without them knowing the reason is if there's no negotiation.

That's a cultural thing in the company I work for (or maybe broader in Germany, dunno), where some people think that if they start to negotiate, they might lowball candidates, and then they leave after half a year or so. We try to hire more long term (we aim for 5+ years retention), dunno if that's related, or if there is any evidence to back this procedure. I find it a bit weird myself, which is why as a candidate I…

As an employee I found a nice hack around that. The employer made an offer and I made a counter offer, the employer said he couldn't meet it and I explicitly told him it was negotiable. He thought about it for a couple days and found a way to hack his system to give me more and I got something around the middle of our offers. We both ended up happy in the end, I'm still there.

Re: Reasons Why Job Seekers Are Not Given Feedback

#285

Post by ozim »

jnwatson wrote: post #8

I'm a software developer turned temporary recruiter for a startup (just hired last position yay!). The number one reason why I don't give feedback anymore is the candidate's response. It is almost universally negative. Candidates want to get into an argument about their skills or performance. Now, everyone gets a form letter, and I don't deviate from that.

Oh yeah, that is just like problem with code reviews. I don't want to argue. Just giving feedback leave it or take it.

For job interview it should be also easier of you get no and then some reason, deal is off the table.

So maybe if people get feedback they think that something is still there and this has to be communicated as well in bold font "NO THANKS"?

I think it is with people who are not that confident, they try to hold on to a deal? Which also could be people you don't want to hire...

Re: Reasons Why Job Seekers Are Not Given Feedback

#286

Post by ghaff »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #266
ghaff wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the most part I agree. Let me offer one counterexample though. I've never been primarily a developer but I have worked in areas where one of my primary outputs is writing. When I've hired for a similar role, if someone doesn't (for whatever reason) have writing sample(s), they're not going to get hired unless they produce one. It doesn't have to be an assignment; choose a relevant topic. But I'm not going to trus…

I'm curious about what the situation would be where a person had done tons of great writing but could not come up with one sample. Confidentiality?

I agree it would be a bit odd--and something of a red flag TBH.

>confidentially

But yes. One can imagine someone writing non-public reports and analyses for internal or client use only and just doesn't really do that kind of thing in their spare time. Myself, I have tons of public material but I've also written many things I couldn't share.

Re: Reasons Why Job Seekers Are Not Given Feedback

#287

Post by Loughla »

thayne wrote: post #199
CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I don't have hard numbers, but anecdotally, I know two people for whom this is simply not true at all. It took them months to find jobs, and they sincerely wanted to know why they were being rejected. If you are told "we didn't hire you, because you don't have skill X", or "you don't have any experience with Y", then you can focus on getting better at that thing. It was extremely frustrating for them to be told "We f…

The problem is, often, there isn't a skill or experience that is the reason. I literally just went through this.

I interviewed for a position that I am way qualified for. I check every box, in terms of skills and abilities and experience. I'm essentially doing the job right now, just with a different title.

And I was passed over for a less qualified, less experienced candidate. The reason I was given, as I dove through the organization (it's where I work now) to ask for feedback to improve myself professionally, was that there wasn't really anything I can get better at, it was just 'fit'.

I was able to ask probing questions to get to the root of that, and it turns out that, outside of the folks I work with daily, people outside of my division don't necessarily know my leadership abilities. But tell me, how would you even go about quantifying that for an external candidate, other than saying the, very safe, 'we found a better candidate'?

Re: Reasons Why Job Seekers Are Not Given Feedback

#288

Post by Loughla »

bdowling wrote: post #181
wgerard wrote: post #10

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…

Here's another one: * We already had a candidate in mind but our hiring process requires us to publicly post the opening and interview other candidates before we hire the person we already decided on.

I honestly wonder how much time, energy, and resources are wasted on that type of process across the US. Direct placement isn't necessarily a bad thing, I don't know why organizations don't just do that.

Maybe it's to spread the fault around if it goes bad?

Re: Reasons Why Job Seekers Are Not Given Feedback

#289

Post by pc86 »

crispyambulance wrote: post #281
stakhanov wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not extreme at all. Companies are treating it as a numbers game, which is part of what the article is about. The flipside of the coin is that candidates are forced into treating it as a numbers game too. For example: As a candidate you might submit a resume and get an automated "Thank you, we'll be in touch". There's a large variety of reasons why you might face a very low probability that someone will indeed be…

It's only a "numbers game" if you treat it as such by "shot-gunning" your applications. Much better to exercise your professional network (in the flesh or online). The whole point of web-based application process is to weed out as many candidates as possible. If you can skip that step and first make contact with a human, the odds are much better and it's less work and stress for everyone.

I am on my 7th or 8th job now and have only applied to probably 12 in my entire life.

Tailoring resumes to specific postings, and trying to find someone at the company you have some sort of connection with, are both pretty damn important unless, as you say, you're shot-gunning an identical resume to every company within 50 miles.

Re: Reasons Why Job Seekers Are Not Given Feedback

#290

Post by DoofusOfDeath »

MereInterest wrote: post #194
Koshkin wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see why. (Shouldn’t stop looking around, ever.)

You interview at two companies. Your first choice rejects you. Your second choice says yes immediately, then gives you time to decide. If the first company rejects you and tells you so, you can immediately accept the second choice. If the first company rejects you and ghosts you, you instead wait a month hoping the first company will get back to you, then accept the second choice. If you are willing to completely bur…

Exactly this.
Post reply on HN