Telling candidates why they are not a good fit is not the company job, it's your job as a candidate to figure out why you are not a good fit. Also it would open them to some liability, which is something that anyone prefers to avoid.
I sometimes made interviews with potential candidates, and if you do it at a time you'll learn that it's really not something personal. I just say this, so that you know that you don't suck actually. Most companies are looking for someone who know their stuff (surprisingly hard to find ) AND is nice (someone you can work with ).
If you do the two above thing for a long enough time, have a good CV, ideally some personal project to show, you'll land up a good job in the end.
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 "No Win, No Fee" lawyers.
Sometimes, of course, the prospective candidate really has no skills at all in the required areas. I'm reminded of the Tom Lehrer quotation:
" ... one of the many fine things one has to admit
is the way that the army has carried the American
democratic ideal to its logical conclusion in the
sense that not only do they prohibit discrimination
on the grounds of race, creed, and color, but also
on the grounds of ability. "
But I'd love to tell people why they were unsuccessful. I'd love to give them the opportunity to learn, to grow, to improve, or in some cases simply to say "Well, I guess we weren't a good fit."
However, the age of litigation prevents me from doing that. And I'm not allowed to say "Sorry" either, because that could be taken as an admission of culpability.
I didn't really think of "Oh maybe some companies DO want to give feedback, its just better that they dont, for say perhaps, legal reasons". The sorry part makes total sense though, I've seen that a lot.
I guess there are those kind of people who feel discriminated against what might only be some helpful feedback, it's a shame, because it's one of the most educational means of response I've come across, in my experience.
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.
Good point but I would say don't bother asking. The answer will be useless to you because you can't trust its authenticity. Only people inside the company will know the real reason and perhaps not even there.
I wonder if a journalistic website might help? A writer could vet people who are genuine hirers and become an avenue for them to anonymously talk about their frustrations.
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 that I seemed to lack the required understanding in technology X or couldn't convince them that I'd get up to speed in Y shouldn't open any chance to drag in a lawyer. Of course, things like 'you didn't fit the team' or 'your personal hygiene is not good enough for our corporate standards' might be something that is harder to disclose..
Bottomline: I hate your easy way out, giving no valueable feedback at all/in general.
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 trouble that is at least annoying (sued).
On the other hand, the company has exactly nothing to win from this. If the candidate really were good and only had to learn X, then they'd probably hire him anyway, and the negative image effects for many people certainly outweigh the positive for a few.
I agree - somewhat. I'd like to waive the legal stuff (see above, I'm just unconvinced that a lot of perfectly valid reasons to reject a candidate offer legal problems in a lot of places around the world). But obviously your 'why help someone that you don't want' point is valid. I'd say it still should be done:
- 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..
I've wanted that feedback as well, and I know others that do. I know I'd generally react favorably to the feedback, using it to improve. However, I think we (people who want this and talk about wanting it and wouldn't go off the deep end) are in a minority. We're writing and talking about it - we (here on HN and blogs and such) tend to have more self-awareness than others - or at least express that self-awareness more than others. But we're in the minority - people would sue, they'd stalk, they'd pester, they'd argue, etc.
Companies love NDAs - how about an NFOA - a Non Freak Out Agreement? Sign it before an interview. If you've signed it, we'll give you honest, open, critical feedback about how you do or don't fit in with the company's needs. Honestly, I do think sometimes I've not gotten a job it was more a personality/culture fit than anything else, but I'd like to know that as well (and frankly wouldn't mind giving them some feedback on their culture too!). But without knowing, perhaps I get too hung up on a linkedlist question and fret about that in future. And turning it around, perhaps the company could get some good feedback on their own operating culture ("no, being on call 24/7 to babysit broken code isn't worth $30k, but you didn't say that in the job description").
I'd like to emphasize this point. Any sort of personalized response is seen as an invitation to initiate a conversation. Which is fine if you want to have that conversation and the person on the other end isn't a sore loser or doesn't have an overinflated ego that you just bruised. Sore losers and overinflated egos aren't the majority, but they do seem to form a very large minority...
> 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 like to take some of the unsuccessful candidates for a coffee and tell them how they could improve their chances. I'd even consider running a one-off, one hour "seminar" to show people what they did wrong, and why their existing skills didn't match.
But I can't do that on my company's time, and I sure as hell would feel uncomfortable charging people I've just rejected for an hour of time. They're unemployed! (usually)
So it's not going to happen. The market doesn't allow for it - these days you're often lucky even to get a rejection letter at all. I watched my wife send out over a thousand job applications and get perhaps 10 responses. Companies are, almost by definition, sociopaths. It does them no good at all to spend time or money helping people they've just rejected.
The individuals in the company may, and often do, feel bad about it, but that's simply the way it is.
Bottom line: This is how things are now, and if you don't like it, find some way to change it.
But I can't do that on my company's time, and I sure as hell would feel uncomfortable charging people I've just rejected for an hour of time. They're unemployed! (usually)
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.
First of all: I'm not sure if my "I hate your .. way" was taken as a personal accusation of some sorts. It wasn't meant to be one.
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.
> ... not sure if ... was taken as a personal accusation
> of some sorts. It wasn't meant to be one.
None taken.
> Were these 10 responses valuable for your wife,
> or "We're sorry to inform you.." useless types
All useless. She also got about 5 or 8 interviews, which resulted in exactly 2 rejection letters, and the remainder gave neither reply nor feedback.
> Not providing feedback on company time is a shady
> argument ... 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
If you're blunt, honest and open, maybe not. But being careful, constructive, and defensive against counter-attack then it can be time-consuming. The argument goes "We've had the discussion, we're not going to employ them, why should we spent 30 minutes documenting the reasons, only to open ourselves thereby to the potential of a lengthy, drawn-out process of arbitration or agrument? Better to just ignore them from now on."
I don't do that, and my co-directors know that I won't. I always provide some feedback, but I'm always ultra-careful in what I say. Even then I've had stand-up knock-down arguments about opening the company to the potential for undesirable consequences.
There's also the fact that there's multiple candidates for one position. You might have been a good choice, but someone else had more experience, or another diferential.
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 position as required by HR, but when an executive saw it on the intranet, he made us hire his son/nephew/family friend. We didn't read or respond to any of the resumes.
5. We were planning to hire someone, but by the time the resumes started arriving, the perfect candidate presented himself. We didn't read or respond to any of the resumes.
6. We were planning to hire someone, but the budget was cut. We didn't read or respond to any of the resumes.
7. We got 1,200 resumes in 2 days so HR ran them through a filter with almost no correlation to potential suitability for the job. Your resume didn't get through the filter. Next time, add buzzwords from the ad.
8. Your resume made it through the HR filter, but we only had time to read 20% of them. Yours wasn't pretty enough.
9. Your resume didn't stick out in a field of many that did stick out. You probably should have some kick-ass differentiator FRONT AND CENTER.
10. We read many great resumes. Yours was substandard compared to many of them for one or more of many possible reasons. Have 5 friends proofread it and give you brutally honest feedback for next time.
11. Your resume sucked but you don't. Find 5 friends. See #10.
12. You interviewed well, but someone else absolutely kicked ass. We loved him/her. Tough break for you, I guess.
13. You didn't interview well, but we can't really put our finger on it and don't have time to respond. Tough break.
14. You interviewed well and are still under consideration. But we are waiting on corporate for 27 other things. You'll probably find another job before we get back to you.
15. You really do suck. (No you don't. Chances are the process never got this far.)
Any recommendations? It would save me a lot of time if I could spend a little money and read a book to save the hours wasted on applying for junk offers.
I think the total time spent reading the book and evaluating the job would be more than knocking out a quick cover letter and sending it off with your CV
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 I word a reply to make sure it stays within the bounds of relevant laws. And I'm happy to do that if the candidate asked after it - but not if they've expressed no interest.
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 surprisingly the person you're dealing with directly inside the company.
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"
Friend of mine, statistics phd, interviewing with big-name University for Prof position. In car on way to airport with junior faculty member, asked "What do you think my chances are?"
Junior said "Nil. You are female with kids. Elderly faculty think you will put them before the job, and not pull your weight. They reject all the mothers."
They did indeed reject her, with a polite letter. Now she works at another big University, very successful, students love her, lucky to have her.
So its not always (almost never) about the resume or interview.
When I have hired people, I have always offered to explain the reasons for rejection, when I turned people down. The ones that opted in, I have given an answer. This way, I don't have to spend time on telling people why I turned them down if they don't really care.
The thing is - It's quite hard to give that kind of feedback. A great deal of the assertion of candidates ultimately comes down to instinct. That's hard to qualify. Besides, you want to be very careful about your wording, so it usually takes up a lot of time to write even a few paragraphs back to a candidate.
As a tech employer, I can tell you the top 3 reasons why it's hard to provide the feedback you seek:
1) Many times it's not that you're lacking in any manner, it's just that there's someone that suited the position better. It's like dating - if you reject someone because someone better came into your life, what do you tell the other person? Usually it goes "it's not you, it's me...".
2) Sometimes I don't know what I'm looking for until I look. Then I get responses and realize I'm looking for the wrong thing. Then when I say no, again, it's not because of you, it's because of me. Sounds like dating again.
3) Finally, connections and personal relationships help. If I don't know you from Jack Adam, then it's hard to provide any sort of useful feedback if I don't have that much useful feedback. If we had a relationship, then I could give you some sort of advice on what would be a better fit for you, make a recommendation to someone else.
Instead of asking "what went wrong", maybe you might want to ask "is there anyone you can recommend or do you think that something / someone else might be a better fit"? You never know whomever else we might know in the space that's hiring. And while we might have found for ourselves a great mate, that doesn't mean you're not dating material. Perhaps we have just the right fix-up for you. Or maybe not.
Yes but in life as in dating, I'd like to know why I'm not a match.
Knowing the posting was inaccurate for what you're looking for is better than wondering why one got turned down for what seemed a perfect fit.
Instead of asking "what went wrong", maybe you might want to ask "is there anyone you can recommend or do you think that something / someone else might be a better fit"?
I really like this idea, I guess I never considered this as a possibility before. Nothing to lose by asking, though.
I think in many cases, like in relationships, it's intangible. The hired candidate just "clicked" with the interviewer(s). Also mentioned earlier, anyone who has a referral from a current (competent) employee is going to be greatly preferred over any candidate that nobody knows. The first two jobs I had after college I got on my own, everything since then has at least partly involved a referral.
One problem with telling someone why you didn't hire them is that most (yes, most) people will disagree with you. "No, you're wrong I really do know [skill X], and have experience with [technology Y]". (Uhm, no you don't, otherwise I'd have hired you). Or, "but I gave you a good answer!" (wrong again.) At best these are dead-end arguments that leave both parties frustrated. At worst you end up in a courtroom, as others have mentioned.
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.
Things are both simpler and more complicated in the UK.
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.
I've had plenty of feedback from interviews from UK companies without receiving one piece of actionable advice.
To be fair, it was quite clear that I didn't want to work at some of those companies and if I'd have been asked to give them feedback I'd have phrased my disinterest in similarly brief and diplomatic terms which wouldn't have told them much they didn't already know or weren't inclined to disagree strongly with.
Even if the tribunals are inclined to side with the companies, companies' fears are still well placed. A perfectly reasonable "unfortunately we didn't think you had the appropriate experience for the job" can become possible evidence that they were concealing discrimination should the company subesquently hire someone similarly lacking in experience but in every other way perfectly suited to the role. Companies seldom announce their decisions to reject a candidate are based on racism, sexism, homophobia etc even when they are.
I think it could benefit companies to ask for feedback from interviewees.
My top interview tip is to always interview the company back. You may end up spending the next 3 or more years there - you have to be sure its a good fit, too.
But rather the first person in line receiving and reviewing your profile who has the crab mentality thinking that this person seems so good that s/he may change the way how business is done.
And let's accept it. A lot of these front end people dislike change. A lot of them have the same repertoire of outdated processes in hiring and looking for people who would be a good fit in their organization.
This is great article. I recently was to an interview with a company and thought the interview went great. They even told me they had been looking for a candidate since August. To my dismay one week after the interview I received a similar email. No reason, just the "we looked at your credentials and those of other applicants and have decided to continue with other applicants". Funny thing is the job is still posted and probably will be for another 6 months.
What I don't understand is that if company x has been looking to fill a position for 6 months is company x just too picky or have too high expectations of a new applicant?
I really have to agree with this that companies should at least give some additional reason for the turn down instead of the typical form letter. You as an applicant spent a lot of time working on your resume and interviewing skills the least the company could do is let you know why they wont be offering a jab.
One of the things I found interesting about Google's process was that everyone had input on their tracking system. Thus even when a person was a 'good fit' if there was someone in the company who had worked at the same company/time as the candidate, and suggested that the company pass, that carried a huge amount of force.
When ever I recommended someone I would check to see what the other folks that knew them added into the 'mix' if there was someone who clearly had an axe to grind (hey it happens) I'd try to talk to them one on one and figure out if it was a 'real' issue or just a past injustice that was motivating the down vote.
Sometimes it was warranted, there are good people who just don't fit with a company's culture. Sometimes it wasn't. One manager suggested that even if it was just sour grapes between the candidate and the employee it was a 'good signal' because the candidate burned their bridges willingly. (Although I'm a firm believer that people mature and change over time, not everyone subscribes to that philosophy either)
Be nice, be courteous, if they turn you down move on.
I think all these explanation of fear of legal ramifications and how it's hard to provide feedback are just covers.
Employers and/or recruiters don't provide any reason because the the minimum that they have to do to let you know that you are not accepted is to tell you no. They are not bounded in any ways to do more than that. Telling you why means they have to think, to sit down and write more than a sentence. It's easier to just give a canned answer and send it out.
All the outer explanation of legal ramification, hard to provide feed back, it's just smoke screen to cover the most basic human nature to be lazy. Period.
Personally I've had good feedback 1 in every 50 application I sent. I've always proactively asked for feedback when I can and I think I've probably had 3 good feedbacks so far. One went as far as buying me lunch and explain the decision to me while another invited me back to his office where we sat down and chatted for quite a bit.
It's not that you suck, it's just human nature. Most of us are a lazy bunch.
Not sure where you are looking but there has been no lack of jobs for software developers where I am located. If you can code Java in Dallas you can slip and fall into a 6 figure salary. I guess I am spoiled but the ideas of sending out "Hundreds" of resumes seems foreign to me.
I was once not hired for a job i applied for (during the interview i was cross questioned a bit like an interrogation but a lot like i had done something wrong and this was my trial!), after the interview, his assistant was really kind and said to me,"really sorry about, that is my bosses confrontation style ..." then i was told they would like to see me again!
But after some thought (1 second), i just wanted not to go back again ... so maybe meaningful feedback to the interviewer/company would be useful too ...
"Tell Me Why I Suck" could be a great anonymous "3 words"-style service...People post their resumes, cover letters, and people can give anonymous feedback on why they suck.
A friend and I built http://failin.gs with the mindset of vanilla anonymous feedback but were surprised when a lot of people started using their profile as a forum for feedback on their artwork and other hobbies.
In the many interviews I've had to do last year, I'd say a rejection notice is a start. In far too many cases the company simply ignores you. I've gotten to second and third interviews and thought I was doing quite well. Only to never hear from them again. Just sending out a notice would have at least prevented me from wondering.
Knowing why... would be nice, but it's understandleable why companies avoid it. From a purely human perspective it's hard disappointing people and letting them down. People don't like giving other people bad news. Especially if they don't know you. There's no way to tell how the person receiving it is going to react. It's easier to just be as polite as you can about it and keep your resons to yourself.
I hate wondering, but that's just part of the process. I've interviewed with a company where I blew past the technical interview. When I came in to meet with the CEO and do the social bit... well I thought I did alright, but I just never heard back from them again. I've wondered a thousand times what I might've said that would turn them off from a perfectly good candidate such as myself. I'll just have to live without knowing and I think it might be better that way anyway. It might be that the CEO just didn't get a good gut feeling about it, maybe I made a bad joke, maybe someone that works there recommended a friend... who knows? This stuff can be really, painfully arbitrary. It's best not to fret about it and keep your head up.
Getting no feedback sucks. I wrote about this last year [1]. Now Google is somewhat of a special case because it's a highly desirable place to work and very large so you have issues of scale [2].
Sometimes I read posts like this and someone will say "I sent out X hundred resumes" and my response is always "really?". It always strikes me that if that's what you're doing, you're doing something wrong.
Let me explain. I contracted in Australia for some years (where I'm from) and also in the UK (London) for several years. Contracting in London is a soul-destroying experience and there is an industry in dire need of regulation but I digress.
Contracting is possibly the worst and most depressing form of looking for work because you in many ways are at the bottom of the totem pole. You may earn a lot but you pay for that. Companies will generally treat you as replaceable (which you are).
But in the course of much job-seeking I've spoken to many recruiters and some have given me the lowdown on what they do (including the shady practices). But the thing that stuck out the most for me was they all say they can throw out 90-95% of the resumes (CVs actually) they receive within seconds of receiving. This is a combination of them being bad but, more interestingly, the person just isn't suited for the job. Like not even remotely. Basically people take a shotgun approach of applying for everything. If you're a C++ programmer living in Leeds you end up applying for an Oracle DBA position in Reading. I'm not kidding.
I've generally had a reasonable success rate with both getting interviews and getting the job at that point. One reason for this I think is not that I'm some super candidate but that I really target which jobs I go after as being something I'm particularly interested in or something I'm particularly well-suited for.
Part of it too is understanding the process and this varies from place to place.
So in the UK for example you want to deal with only a handful of recruiting agencies. There are many fly-by-night operations who are either harvesting CVs or just hoping to get lucky. Filling one candidate a month can keep a small operation afloat.
So if applying for a job with a bank in London there are three filters you have to make it through:
1. The recruiter. The recruiter may be limited in the number of CVs they can submit (eg 2). Even if they don't submit you they'll often tell you they will, which is why it's important to find one you can trust. Trust but verify;
2. HR. This is in my experience the biggest impediment to filling jobs. HR know nothing about programming so they'll word scan your CV/resume based on buzzwords. So you need to fill your CV with buzzwords, particularly those for the job. This can often mean catering your CV on a per-job basis. Some may not like this because it's more work (which it is) but that's the point: target high-probability jobs. The problem is that a buzzword-filled CV is actually a red flag to anyone technically competent;
3. Hiring Manager: if you make it this far, with UK banks at least, you'll be in a pile of up to 10 CVs generally speaking. Rarely will a hiring manager interview all candidates. They might pick 2-4 they like, screen them by phone and go down to 2-3 onsite interviews. Or they might just interview people until they find someone they like (very common in my experience) so, if you ever have a choice of interview slot, pick the earliest one. Cancel anything else. You can lose a job simply by choosing a slot on the second day and never being seen.
So to return to the issue of feedback: it's even worse with recruiters in the picture. The hiring manager may give feedback to the recruiter (but generally won't; they're too busy). But even if they do the chances of the recruiter passing it along, unless you have a very good relationship with them, is almost zero. At the point you didn't get the job, they lose interest in you until the next job they can shop you for comes up.
Recruitment as it stands now is a disaster but won't really change until ...
As a former hiring manager I can tell you I once tried to give feedback.
There was no threatened litigation, nothing like that at all.
But it resulted in the guy trying to argue the points I made, convince me that he should still get the gig. I tried to be polite and explain clearly our reasoning -- but he just kept pushing. I nearly had to hang up on him to get him off the phone.
At that point I decided whenever I needed to turn someone down I would be as quick and opaque as possible. Since then I never had a problem. Better yet, have HR do it for you.
"I suck" is not a productive line of thought and potential employers will never give you feedback what you suck at. If you're sending out a large number of job applications and resumes, it might be a good idea to incorporate some basic testing methods. Try out different combinations of CVs, different tones, different vocabularies. Maybe there is a simple reason for all the rejections that can be fixed with some minor adjustments. For example, you might be giving too much or too little information on your CV. Perhaps you're applying at the wrong companies or for the wrong position. The point being, if you received so many fuck-off letters, there is probably something systemically wrong here, and chances are you can use a combination of quality assurance and data analysis to find out what it is.
57 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 87.2 ms ] threadI sometimes made interviews with potential candidates, and if you do it at a time you'll learn that it's really not something personal. I just say this, so that you know that you don't suck actually. Most companies are looking for someone who know their stuff (surprisingly hard to find ) AND is nice (someone you can work with ).
If you do the two above thing for a long enough time, have a good CV, ideally some personal project to show, you'll land up a good job in the end.
Sometimes, of course, the prospective candidate really has no skills at all in the required areas. I'm reminded of the Tom Lehrer quotation:
But I'd love to tell people why they were unsuccessful. I'd love to give them the opportunity to learn, to grow, to improve, or in some cases simply to say "Well, I guess we weren't a good fit."However, the age of litigation prevents me from doing that. And I'm not allowed to say "Sorry" either, because that could be taken as an admission of culpability.
(edited to add the Lehrer quotation)
I guess there are those kind of people who feel discriminated against what might only be some helpful feedback, it's a shame, because it's one of the most educational means of response I've come across, in my experience.
Thanks for your response
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.
I know, I'm not a lawyer and I might even be a bit naive here, but telling me that I seemed to lack the required understanding in technology X or couldn't convince them that I'd get up to speed in Y shouldn't open any chance to drag in a lawyer. Of course, things like 'you didn't fit the team' or 'your personal hygiene is not good enough for our corporate standards' might be something that is harder to disclose..
Bottomline: I hate your easy way out, giving no valueable feedback at all/in general.
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 trouble that is at least annoying (sued).
On the other hand, the company has exactly nothing to win from this. If the candidate really were good and only had to learn X, then they'd probably hire him anyway, and the negative image effects for many people certainly outweigh the positive for a few.
- 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..
Companies love NDAs - how about an NFOA - a Non Freak Out Agreement? Sign it before an interview. If you've signed it, we'll give you honest, open, critical feedback about how you do or don't fit in with the company's needs. Honestly, I do think sometimes I've not gotten a job it was more a personality/culture fit than anything else, but I'd like to know that as well (and frankly wouldn't mind giving them some feedback on their culture too!). But without knowing, perhaps I get too hung up on a linkedlist question and fret about that in future. And turning it around, perhaps the company could get some good feedback on their own operating culture ("no, being on call 24/7 to babysit broken code isn't worth $30k, but you didn't say that in the job description").
Besides, you're arguing with the wrong person. You may hate the situation. I hate the situation. As I said, I'd really like to take some of the unsuccessful candidates for a coffee and tell them how they could improve their chances. I'd even consider running a one-off, one hour "seminar" to show people what they did wrong, and why their existing skills didn't match.
But I can't do that on my company's time, and I sure as hell would feel uncomfortable charging people I've just rejected for an hour of time. They're unemployed! (usually)
So it's not going to happen. The market doesn't allow for it - these days you're often lucky even to get a rejection letter at all. I watched my wife send out over a thousand job applications and get perhaps 10 responses. Companies are, almost by definition, sociopaths. It does them no good at all to spend time or money helping people they've just rejected.
The individuals in the company may, and often do, feel bad about it, but that's simply the way it is.
Bottom line: This is how things are now, and if you don't like it, find some way to change it.
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?
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.
I don't do that, and my co-directors know that I won't. I always provide some feedback, but I'm always ultra-careful in what I say. Even then I've had stand-up knock-down arguments about opening the company to the potential for undesirable consequences.
It is more friendly to say: "the hired candidate has a lot more experience" than "you lack experience".
The death spiral candidate will try to discuss his rejection anyway.
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 position as required by HR, but when an executive saw it on the intranet, he made us hire his son/nephew/family friend. We didn't read or respond to any of the resumes.
5. We were planning to hire someone, but by the time the resumes started arriving, the perfect candidate presented himself. We didn't read or respond to any of the resumes.
6. We were planning to hire someone, but the budget was cut. We didn't read or respond to any of the resumes.
7. We got 1,200 resumes in 2 days so HR ran them through a filter with almost no correlation to potential suitability for the job. Your resume didn't get through the filter. Next time, add buzzwords from the ad.
8. Your resume made it through the HR filter, but we only had time to read 20% of them. Yours wasn't pretty enough.
9. Your resume didn't stick out in a field of many that did stick out. You probably should have some kick-ass differentiator FRONT AND CENTER.
10. We read many great resumes. Yours was substandard compared to many of them for one or more of many possible reasons. Have 5 friends proofread it and give you brutally honest feedback for next time.
11. Your resume sucked but you don't. Find 5 friends. See #10.
12. You interviewed well, but someone else absolutely kicked ass. We loved him/her. Tough break for you, I guess.
13. You didn't interview well, but we can't really put our finger on it and don't have time to respond. Tough break.
14. You interviewed well and are still under consideration. But we are waiting on corporate for 27 other things. You'll probably find another job before we get back to you.
15. You really do suck. (No you don't. Chances are the process never got this far.)
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 I word a reply to make sure it stays within the bounds of relevant laws. And I'm happy to do that if the candidate asked after it - but not if they've expressed no interest.
(fwiw, this is in the UK)
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 surprisingly the person you're dealing with directly inside the company.
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"
Junior said "Nil. You are female with kids. Elderly faculty think you will put them before the job, and not pull your weight. They reject all the mothers."
They did indeed reject her, with a polite letter. Now she works at another big University, very successful, students love her, lucky to have her.
So its not always (almost never) about the resume or interview.
The thing is - It's quite hard to give that kind of feedback. A great deal of the assertion of candidates ultimately comes down to instinct. That's hard to qualify. Besides, you want to be very careful about your wording, so it usually takes up a lot of time to write even a few paragraphs back to a candidate.
1) Many times it's not that you're lacking in any manner, it's just that there's someone that suited the position better. It's like dating - if you reject someone because someone better came into your life, what do you tell the other person? Usually it goes "it's not you, it's me...".
2) Sometimes I don't know what I'm looking for until I look. Then I get responses and realize I'm looking for the wrong thing. Then when I say no, again, it's not because of you, it's because of me. Sounds like dating again.
3) Finally, connections and personal relationships help. If I don't know you from Jack Adam, then it's hard to provide any sort of useful feedback if I don't have that much useful feedback. If we had a relationship, then I could give you some sort of advice on what would be a better fit for you, make a recommendation to someone else.
Instead of asking "what went wrong", maybe you might want to ask "is there anyone you can recommend or do you think that something / someone else might be a better fit"? You never know whomever else we might know in the space that's hiring. And while we might have found for ourselves a great mate, that doesn't mean you're not dating material. Perhaps we have just the right fix-up for you. Or maybe not.
Just one additional perspective.
Yes but in life as in dating, I'd like to know why I'm not a match.
Knowing the posting was inaccurate for what you're looking for is better than wondering why one got turned down for what seemed a perfect fit.
Instead of asking "what went wrong", maybe you might want to ask "is there anyone you can recommend or do you think that something / someone else might be a better fit"?
I really like this idea, I guess I never considered this as a possibility before. Nothing to lose by asking, though.
(and by the way, that would be a great solution to solve!)
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.
To be fair, it was quite clear that I didn't want to work at some of those companies and if I'd have been asked to give them feedback I'd have phrased my disinterest in similarly brief and diplomatic terms which wouldn't have told them much they didn't already know or weren't inclined to disagree strongly with.
Even if the tribunals are inclined to side with the companies, companies' fears are still well placed. A perfectly reasonable "unfortunately we didn't think you had the appropriate experience for the job" can become possible evidence that they were concealing discrimination should the company subesquently hire someone similarly lacking in experience but in every other way perfectly suited to the role. Companies seldom announce their decisions to reject a candidate are based on racism, sexism, homophobia etc even when they are.
My top interview tip is to always interview the company back. You may end up spending the next 3 or more years there - you have to be sure its a good fit, too.
Think about it this way. You are vying with 30 - 40 other people for one spot.
Failure should not be a surprise. Especially when there is no way to clearly differentiate the best from the top 10%.
Maybe it is not who sucks.
But rather the first person in line receiving and reviewing your profile who has the crab mentality thinking that this person seems so good that s/he may change the way how business is done.
And let's accept it. A lot of these front end people dislike change. A lot of them have the same repertoire of outdated processes in hiring and looking for people who would be a good fit in their organization.
What I don't understand is that if company x has been looking to fill a position for 6 months is company x just too picky or have too high expectations of a new applicant?
I really have to agree with this that companies should at least give some additional reason for the turn down instead of the typical form letter. You as an applicant spent a lot of time working on your resume and interviewing skills the least the company could do is let you know why they wont be offering a jab.
Just my two cents...
When ever I recommended someone I would check to see what the other folks that knew them added into the 'mix' if there was someone who clearly had an axe to grind (hey it happens) I'd try to talk to them one on one and figure out if it was a 'real' issue or just a past injustice that was motivating the down vote.
Sometimes it was warranted, there are good people who just don't fit with a company's culture. Sometimes it wasn't. One manager suggested that even if it was just sour grapes between the candidate and the employee it was a 'good signal' because the candidate burned their bridges willingly. (Although I'm a firm believer that people mature and change over time, not everyone subscribes to that philosophy either)
Be nice, be courteous, if they turn you down move on.
Employers and/or recruiters don't provide any reason because the the minimum that they have to do to let you know that you are not accepted is to tell you no. They are not bounded in any ways to do more than that. Telling you why means they have to think, to sit down and write more than a sentence. It's easier to just give a canned answer and send it out.
All the outer explanation of legal ramification, hard to provide feed back, it's just smoke screen to cover the most basic human nature to be lazy. Period.
Personally I've had good feedback 1 in every 50 application I sent. I've always proactively asked for feedback when I can and I think I've probably had 3 good feedbacks so far. One went as far as buying me lunch and explain the decision to me while another invited me back to his office where we sat down and chatted for quite a bit.
It's not that you suck, it's just human nature. Most of us are a lazy bunch.
But after some thought (1 second), i just wanted not to go back again ... so maybe meaningful feedback to the interviewer/company would be useful too ...
Knowing why... would be nice, but it's understandleable why companies avoid it. From a purely human perspective it's hard disappointing people and letting them down. People don't like giving other people bad news. Especially if they don't know you. There's no way to tell how the person receiving it is going to react. It's easier to just be as polite as you can about it and keep your resons to yourself.
I hate wondering, but that's just part of the process. I've interviewed with a company where I blew past the technical interview. When I came in to meet with the CEO and do the social bit... well I thought I did alright, but I just never heard back from them again. I've wondered a thousand times what I might've said that would turn them off from a perfectly good candidate such as myself. I'll just have to live without knowing and I think it might be better that way anyway. It might be that the CEO just didn't get a good gut feeling about it, maybe I made a bad joke, maybe someone that works there recommended a friend... who knows? This stuff can be really, painfully arbitrary. It's best not to fret about it and keep your head up.
Sometimes I read posts like this and someone will say "I sent out X hundred resumes" and my response is always "really?". It always strikes me that if that's what you're doing, you're doing something wrong.
Let me explain. I contracted in Australia for some years (where I'm from) and also in the UK (London) for several years. Contracting in London is a soul-destroying experience and there is an industry in dire need of regulation but I digress.
Contracting is possibly the worst and most depressing form of looking for work because you in many ways are at the bottom of the totem pole. You may earn a lot but you pay for that. Companies will generally treat you as replaceable (which you are).
But in the course of much job-seeking I've spoken to many recruiters and some have given me the lowdown on what they do (including the shady practices). But the thing that stuck out the most for me was they all say they can throw out 90-95% of the resumes (CVs actually) they receive within seconds of receiving. This is a combination of them being bad but, more interestingly, the person just isn't suited for the job. Like not even remotely. Basically people take a shotgun approach of applying for everything. If you're a C++ programmer living in Leeds you end up applying for an Oracle DBA position in Reading. I'm not kidding.
I've generally had a reasonable success rate with both getting interviews and getting the job at that point. One reason for this I think is not that I'm some super candidate but that I really target which jobs I go after as being something I'm particularly interested in or something I'm particularly well-suited for.
Part of it too is understanding the process and this varies from place to place.
So in the UK for example you want to deal with only a handful of recruiting agencies. There are many fly-by-night operations who are either harvesting CVs or just hoping to get lucky. Filling one candidate a month can keep a small operation afloat.
So if applying for a job with a bank in London there are three filters you have to make it through:
1. The recruiter. The recruiter may be limited in the number of CVs they can submit (eg 2). Even if they don't submit you they'll often tell you they will, which is why it's important to find one you can trust. Trust but verify;
2. HR. This is in my experience the biggest impediment to filling jobs. HR know nothing about programming so they'll word scan your CV/resume based on buzzwords. So you need to fill your CV with buzzwords, particularly those for the job. This can often mean catering your CV on a per-job basis. Some may not like this because it's more work (which it is) but that's the point: target high-probability jobs. The problem is that a buzzword-filled CV is actually a red flag to anyone technically competent;
3. Hiring Manager: if you make it this far, with UK banks at least, you'll be in a pile of up to 10 CVs generally speaking. Rarely will a hiring manager interview all candidates. They might pick 2-4 they like, screen them by phone and go down to 2-3 onsite interviews. Or they might just interview people until they find someone they like (very common in my experience) so, if you ever have a choice of interview slot, pick the earliest one. Cancel anything else. You can lose a job simply by choosing a slot on the second day and never being seen.
So to return to the issue of feedback: it's even worse with recruiters in the picture. The hiring manager may give feedback to the recruiter (but generally won't; they're too busy). But even if they do the chances of the recruiter passing it along, unless you have a very good relationship with them, is almost zero. At the point you didn't get the job, they lose interest in you until the next job they can shop you for comes up.
Recruitment as it stands now is a disaster but won't really change until ...
As a former hiring manager I can tell you I once tried to give feedback.
There was no threatened litigation, nothing like that at all.
But it resulted in the guy trying to argue the points I made, convince me that he should still get the gig. I tried to be polite and explain clearly our reasoning -- but he just kept pushing. I nearly had to hang up on him to get him off the phone.
At that point I decided whenever I needed to turn someone down I would be as quick and opaque as possible. Since then I never had a problem. Better yet, have HR do it for you.