Ask HN: Why has ghosting candidates become so prevalent
I don’t really understand why or see the reason behind why companies ghost, especially after take-home challenges. I had an opportunity I was really looking forward to, and they didn’t give me any feedback or anything about the challenge. I thought I had done a pretty good job on the coding part, maybe not as well as I could have with the system design. But I didn’t receive any feedback at all? It’s slightly soul-crushing, but it seems to be pretty commonplace, and I don’t really get why.
32 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 83.2 ms ] threadSo it's at least 5 times as many applicants per position.
When you got 10 people to pass step 1, and 5 people to pass step 2, and 3 people to pass step 3, its not that hard to send a "thanks but we need someone with xyz skill".
Now, the reasons are even more random and arbitrary.
Now you might have 100 people pass step 1, and 50 people to pass step 2, and 30 people to pass step 3. So companies are pickier, but also they tend to reject you more randomly.
I've done a few interviews and they would say stuff that basically said "i'm not really listening just browsing reddit while you're talking"
Kinda sad
Lots of tiny shops move quick, but may need some sort of differentiator (highly relevant experience, a blog, cool portfolio/project, etc)
You can't remember? Maybe it is because you don't care about them too.
IMHO, organizations that behave like this tend to be dysfunctional. I am sure they are also more likely to ignore customer complaints, etc.
Disagreed. The only thing this means is that their recruiting process is dysfunctional. That doesn’t mean that it would automatically lead to poor hiring decisions and suboptimal candidates getting hired (and thus making the company dysfunctional). A dysfunctional recruiting process could also be biased towards high false negatives (aka a lot of deserving candidates not getting hired) without being accompanied by high false positives (aka a lot of bad candidates getting hired).
> I am sure they are also more likely to ignore customer complaints
This is not directly relevant to the experience of an employee at such a company.
Look, I do not approve of those practices. I believe that every candidate deserves a closure on the status of their application, even if it is something as low-bar as an automated rejection. I also believe that good customer support is a sign of a company being enjoyable to work at. However, the absence of those is not necessarily an indicator of a good workplace imo. And the opposite could be true as well. E.g., Amazon customer support being top notch and going above and beyond what I expected of them as a user, but they also have by far the most obnoxious recruiting experience I’ve ever encountered. And the stories from my friends who worked there just made me never consider working there ever, just from the quality of it as a workplace.
And, for context, the list of companies I have on that list is so tiny, it could be counted on half of a singular hand.
Maybe it is still nice to work there, but it will slowly fall apart.
A templated rejection email sent from whatever tool you're using to manage resumes/interviews is fine.
"Dear applicant, we have decided not to move forward with your application. Thank you for your time. We appreciate your interest and wish you the best" is far better than getting ghosted.
Is that considered normal?
Maybe I am too polite but I always let contractors know if I am going with someone else or not proceeding with home repair.
You already answered.
You see yourself as a human being, but companies see you as an asset.
Assets don't have a soul, they don't need feedback, they are just assets, things to be used in their strategy to make profits.
When companies give you feedback they are just saying you are or can be useful for them to reach their goals,just that.
That doesn't make sense to me. You'd think candidates you don't even care to interview would be the ones you'd ignore/ghost, not the ones who are probably in the last 5 or so candidates for the role.
But hey, I guess that sort of strange behaviour isn't entirely new. I still remember getting ghosted by a company that gave me two phone interviews and two in person interviews in the office.
Also, it seems that they also have some incentive to drag it along for candidates that drop out of the process, so you have a back up.
Plus, you're now busy onboarding and so it's like you already ate your meal.
There are time constraints on the hiring manager/team with the numbers of applicants and legal ramifications for the company if something is misstated or could be construed as against hiring laws.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/27/4-in-10-companies-say-theyve...
Recruiters strike again.
Reason 1: It’s generally safer, liability wise to ghost. The more information you share, the more information that can be used against you.
Reason 2: They give feedback and you want to debate why you’re right and why their feedback isn’t valid. They’ve got a job to do that isn’t going back and forth with you.
Reason 3: They just found somebody they liked better for whatever reason and don’t care enough to tell you.
I always write, “Thanks for your time and interest but we’re moving ahead with other candidates.” Any response I get where the first words aren’t “Thank you” gets insta-deleted.
Developers, despite everything they claim, are more likely to fear confrontation. Denying a person a job is highly confrontational even when exceptionally polite. On the other side of the table it will likely be viewed as an unnecessary inconvenience.
I try to think about this optimistically. I wouldn’t want to work with people who are cowardly about talking to people or expressing business concerns openly. If it’s how they behave during hiring it’s how they will behave at work.
Increasing this cost can make non-ghosting prevalent.