Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates?

#51

Post by jakejake » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 10:46 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #34

jzwinck wrote: post #4

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.

> Not only does fear of lawsuits prevent companies from disclosing no-hire reasons, it prevents them from even recording those reasons internally. I don't get this mentality. A) I seem to be unaware of the rash of lawsuits befalling companies that provide feedback. I admit I just may be ignorant of them. B) It seems that not recording reasons actually makes the company more vulnerable. When you combine a "preponderan…

I really don't know of any specific cases either, but it does seem to be a fear that is perpetuated regardless.

Regardless it's just seems like there's so many opportunities to create legal trouble by giving a reason, and almost no reason against saying nothing.

Re: Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates?

#52

Post by gomox » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 10:47 PM UTC

mhurron wrote: post #46

vonmoltke wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only does fear of lawsuits prevent companies from disclosing no-hire reasons, it prevents them from even recording those reasons internally. I don't get this mentality. A) I seem to be unaware of the rash of lawsuits befalling companies that provide feedback. I admit I just may be ignorant of them. B) It seems that not recording reasons actually makes the company more vulnerable. When you combine a "preponderan…

Absence of evidence is not evidence. Not having hiring records on anyone is not proof that a company is discriminating. > that is the reason given in discussions about why it is so hard to fire people for going though the PIP process instead of just cutting them loose That is a different case though. In the event of a firing, you have their work performance leading up to that event to take into account. If you have a…

In case of discrimination alegations (race, disability and veteran-related matters in the US), the burden is on the accused to provide proof of non-discrimination.

In this case, the usual practice for proving innocence is to show that the statistical distribution of hires is similar to the statistical distribution of applicants. For example, if I had 50% latino applicants, 50% of my hires should be latinos.

That being said, the sort of publicity these issues get mean that companies try really hard to steer clear of any discrimination accusations. It's a delicate problem to handle.

Re: Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates?

#53

Post by thaumasiotes » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 10:48 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #41

geebee wrote: post #8

I get it, lawsuits. There's very little upside for the employer, the benefit would go to the candidate, and the liability is on the employer. I suppose one benefit for the employer might be that the candidate could improve, should there be an opportunity to interview again later. It's a problem, though. I once did a 7 hour take home exam, didn't hear back for a month, and finally got the one line rejection listed in…

Maybe ask if it's worthwhile applying in the future? Google recommended I did, then phoned me a little over a year after that rejection. Presumably I didn't do too badly on their tests up to that point.

Google didn't specifically recommend reapplying when they rejected me, but they did solicit me to interview again a couple years down the line. They rejected me again, and that time the recruiter did say "I hope you'll still consider applying to Google in the future". Why would I? I paid several hundred dollars for the privilege of applying the first time, and history strongly suggests that they're not going to take me.

Re: Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates?

#54

Post by whitegrape » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 10:48 PM UTC

mhurron wrote: post #46

vonmoltke wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only does fear of lawsuits prevent companies from disclosing no-hire reasons, it prevents them from even recording those reasons internally. I don't get this mentality. A) I seem to be unaware of the rash of lawsuits befalling companies that provide feedback. I admit I just may be ignorant of them. B) It seems that not recording reasons actually makes the company more vulnerable. When you combine a "preponderan…

Absence of evidence is not evidence. Not having hiring records on anyone is not proof that a company is discriminating. > that is the reason given in discussions about why it is so hard to fire people for going though the PIP process instead of just cutting them loose That is a different case though. In the event of a firing, you have their work performance leading up to that event to take into account. If you have a…

Nitpick: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.[1] But it is not evidence for just anything...

[1] http://oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html

Re: Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates?

#55

Post by loup-vaillant » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 10:51 PM UTC

jeffwass wrote: post #24

joezydeco wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

How can I understand my weaknesses at the last interview if you didn't tell me what they are in the first place? Surely you don't expect me to improve upon a total lack of feedback?

I used to worry about blanket rejections. Not any more. They're not actionable, so I ignore them.

Re: Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates?

#56

Post by loup-vaillant » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 10:54 PM UTC

dms105 wrote: post #40

Ive always offered to give detailed feedback to my candidates that didn't pass a technical screen. I'd say about 80% of them were eager to hear it, and were grateful to get information that could help them get better at coding, or at least interviewing. It leaves people with a good impression of the company, and you get the satisfaction of knowing you helped someone. You aren't going to get sued for telling someone w…

Wait a minute, 1 candidate out of 5 wasn't eager to hear about the technical feedback? Any idea why?

Re: Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates?

#57

Post by Swizec » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 10:58 PM UTC

kafkaesq wrote: post #38

Swizec wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I don't know what to say or how to not sound like a dick. I'm sure you know the stock phrases. If you don't, "Thanks for taking the time to speak with us, but we've decided to move on with another candidate. Good luck with your job search" is perfectly adequate. If it's been a few weeks, and you feel you need to apologize for the delay -- then of course do so. Really, it does help. About the only "dick move" is sendi…

> I'm sure you know the stock phrases.

I think it has more to do with feeling like a dick and not wanting to say No explicitly because it causes emotional discomfort. So you procrastinate to avoid that discomfort.

I'm sure you've heard of the concept of "fade out" in dating. Same thing.

I know on a logical level that this makes me a dick and that I shouldn't do it. But on an emotional level, it's so much easier to avoid making an implicit decision explicit.

That said, I hold everyone who's ever followed up of their own accord in very high regard. If I don't say anything for two weeks send me an email.

Re: Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates?

#58

Post by lazyant » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 11:05 PM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #26

lazyant wrote: post #18

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.

Hmm, in my case at least with a bunch of companies, they had laid out the interview process (say, 3 or 4 steps) and they stopped communicating after the 2nd or 3rd step (with more to come) so I don't think they had me as a secondary alternative, I don't know why they can't just say "Sorry, you are not the right fit for us" and _then_ stop communicating for the legal / time waste reasons the article gives.

Re: Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates?

#59

Post by gozur88 » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 11:09 PM UTC

lazyant wrote: post #58

gozur88 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmm, in my case at least with a bunch of companies, they had laid out the interview process (say, 3 or 4 steps) and they stopped communicating after the 2nd or 3rd step (with more to come) so I don't think they had me as a secondary alternative, I don't know why they can't just say "Sorry, you are not the right fit for us" and _then_ stop communicating for the legal / time waste reasons the article gives.

That does seem a bit rude.

Re: Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates?

#60

Post by yuhong » Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 11:55 PM UTC

gomox wrote: post #52

mhurron wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absence of evidence is not evidence. Not having hiring records on anyone is not proof that a company is discriminating. > that is the reason given in discussions about why it is so hard to fire people for going though the PIP process instead of just cutting them loose That is a different case though. In the event of a firing, you have their work performance leading up to that event to take into account. If you have a…

In case of discrimination alegations (race, disability and veteran-related matters in the US), the burden is on the accused to provide proof of non-discrimination. In this case, the usual practice for proving innocence is to show that the statistical distribution of hires is similar to the statistical distribution of applicants. For example, if I had 50% latino applicants, 50% of my hires should be latinos. That bein…

I dislike employment anti-discrimination laws for this and other reasons. I suggest a compromise of limiting it to manual labor jobs and the like for which the anti-discrimination laws were actually designed for.