When you don't get any feedback after an interview

When you do an interview, go home, two weeks later you get told that you made it to the 'second round' of interviews, you go again and you get interviewed again, and then complete silence. You email them, and you get nothing.

I know they don't have an obligation to respond, but it would be great of they spend 2 minutes sending an email "Sorry you were not successful at this stage good luck kthxbai" email and BCC all candidates they interviewed.

Or "sorry we have hire freeze". Anything really.

How hard can it be?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Danielm7

This has always bothered me. I wouldn't expect a reason why they aren't going forward, but at the very least that the position was no longer available. I do most of my hiring through a recruiter now and I let them know right away if we're not going to the next round, no point in leaving them hanging.

the_Grinch

Guess being in government has taught me that not getting a response is pretty normal. I know when we are hiring the time between the first interview and the second interview can be months. Then you factor in the background check and you are talking six months to be hired. While I understand how it sucks to not know at the same time what a pain to have to reply or send out an email to everyone you interviewed to say you aren't moving on in the process.

I find that society as a whole has moved away from "confrontation". With how stressed people are now a days I can see why a company might just leave you in the dark. If the choice is between reaching out and telling you that you didn't get it only to be in some way harassed after or just leaving you be I'd choose to let you figure it out on your own as well.

Office Space put it best:

Bob Slydell: Milton Waddams.

Bill Lumbergh: Who’s he?

Bob Porter: You know, squirrely looking guy, mumbles a lot.

Bill Lumbergh: Oh, yeah.

Bob Slydell: Yeah, we can’t actually find a record of him being a current employee here.

Bob Porter: I looked into it more deeply and I found that apparently what happened is that he was laid off five years ago and no one ever told him, but through some kind of glitch in the payroll department, he still gets a paycheck.

Bob Slydell: So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch.

Bill Lumbergh: Great.

Dom Portwood: So um, Milton has been let go?

Bob Slydell: Well just a second there, professor. We uh, we fixed the *glitch*. So he won’t be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it will just work itself out naturally.

Bob Porter: We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem solved from your end.

NetworkNewb

I think that is just the way some people are programmed in general. They don't like giving bad news or disappointing people so they just don't ever respond. I don't know about you guys, but I have a one or two friends that I will ask them if they want to go out and do something, and if they can't or don't want to do anything they just won't respond half the time... EXTREMELY annoying.

Chinook

I feel sorry for the recruiters who get paid commission who go through the whole process only to have the job pulled out from under them. I've gone through multiple interviews only to have the job suddenly get put on hold. In one case after I flew across the country, etc. What a waste of my time.

UnixGuy

I email and ask them for feedback and they don't respond. In my books this doesn't show a lot of intelligence from their side, but yes it's out of my control.

@NetworkNewb: I don't have time for those kind of 'friends'...

markulous

I always ask after an in person interview. I never get responses. They're always like "Email me with ANY questions " but I guess that only applies when you're still in the running for the job. It's annoying. I don't need a novel but a couple sentences would be polite.

UnixGuy

There are many professionals who read this forum, let's hope that this thread help change something. For those of us who are on the other side (Interviewing people), let's make it a habit to respond to candidates and let them know they were not selected. All it takes is one email, BCC to everyone who weren't selected. Easy.

techfiend

NetworkNewb wrote: »

I think that is just the way some people are programmed in general. They don't like giving bad news or disappointing people so they just don't ever respond. I don't know about you guys, but I have a one or two friends that I will ask them if they want to go out and do something, and if they can't or don't want to do anything they just won't respond half the time... EXTREMELY annoying.

I had friends did this regularly too. If they're good friends I ask them why they don't respond and let the other ones go. I believe the main reason is passive-aggressiveness is very common where we live.

UnixGuy

techfiend wrote: »

..I believe the main reason is passive-aggressiveness ....

I have a zero tolerance policy for this

fredrikjj

It hurts the company's brand so I don't understand why people involved in hiring are allowed to behave this way. Maybe it's because it's just a few people (UnixGuy, and the other people that didn't move on from the first round of interviews), but people talk to one another, and suddenly you have quite a few professionals (if you got a first interview you at the very least have skills they are interested in) that have a negative opinion of this company. They've damaged the company's reputation, and made hiring new people harder the next time. Are (good) tech people really that easy to find that you can treat them badly, and they will still line up and be interested in working for you? I don't know.

PS.
Generally speaking, I find stuff like this really odd because in every other interaction a company has with an outside entity, there's a focus on good interactions. You want good customer service so that end users or buyers of your product feel good about the purchase and buy more in the future. You want good relationships with suppliers, and potential suppliers, so that you don't fail to get whatever inputs you need. You even want to have a solid relationship with competitors because there may be times when you will co-operate with them for some reason, perhaps because a mutual client demands some interoperability work or whatever. But suddenly, when it's about hiring people, many companies suddenly stop caring about this. Why?

thomas_

I think it might be related to a cultural shift involving a mindset of "my time is more important than anyone else's time, so if a person can no longer immediately benefit me I don't have time for them."

I have too much experience not getting replies on dating websites to care whether or not a hiring manager will contact me back. I just apply for jobs and move on. If I get an interview great, I will g in for an interview. When I get home from the interview I apply to more jobs. It's great if I hear back from them, but I just assume I'm not going to hear back from them.

Danielm7

markulous wrote: »

I always ask after an in person interview. I never get responses. They're always like "Email me with ANY questions " but I guess that only applies when you're still in the running for the job. It's annoying. I don't need a novel but a couple sentences would be polite.

People are just scared of lawsuits. They could tell you, "the position is no longer open" but if you're looking for feedback on why you weren't selected I doubt you'll get a deep answer on why they didn't select you. Years ago I helped fill a position I was leaving. I got a pile of resumes via email, one guy looked pretty good and in his email he linked his website and said I can check it out to see his work. I went there, the guy was full on bonkers. Long rants consisting over every thing you shouldn't talk about at work, religion, politics, racism, he even made a few posts that made him sound literally crazy, not just rude and socially awkward.

We passed on the interview, I told him when the position was filled. He emailed, repeatedly, demanding an explanation as to why the new person was better than him until I left a week later.

NavyMooseCCNA

In my most recent job search, many companies didn't even send out an acknowledgement that you sent a resume. After over six months, I have gotten rejection emails for positions I applied to in February!

networker050184

A lot of it probably has to with avoiding liability for any perceived discrimination. I know when we reject someone it's HR that handles that part. We don't have any personal communication with the candidate to let them know why. I believe it's just some generic "we decided to go with candidates who's background more closely aligns with the position blah blah blah."

the_Grinch

I am shocked people feel this is such a big deal. More than likely HR and legal probably have a policy of not allowing those who do the interview to reach out to candidates. Also, while I'm not saying my time is any more important than someone I have interviewed, in the scope of priorities reaching back out to someone isn't going to rank very high. As Danielm7 shows, sometimes it leads you down a path you don't want to go down.

Fact is there are any number of things that could transpire from the time you interview. Someone else might have gotten the position, funding is no longer available for the position, an incident occurs and has to be dealt with. Then you add in that (at least in the States) everyone is so sue happy that it's not worth the risk of sending back any kind of feedback for fear that it will cost your company money and you your job. Personally, the feedback on how you did comes from the results. Got the job? You did well. Didn't get the job? You didn't do well.

Just as an example when I worked for a University I had applied for the position and interviewed a year before I actually got hired. First time they went radio silent and I just assumed they went with someone else. Out of the blue I get a call to see if I was still interested and if I was willing to come in for another interview. Did that and I got hired. Probably six months into the job my boss brought up how happy they were I did come and that he was ticked it took so long. I asked why it took that long. Seems internally there was a struggle as to the level of person they wanted to bring in. As that happened eventually management felt they were getting by alright and decided to hold off on hiring. A year later they saw they needed the spot and moved quickly to hire for it. Was it right? Probably not. Did I get worked up about it? Nope. Is what it is sometimes.

UnixGuy

networker050184 wrote: »

... "we decided to go with candidates who's background more closely aligns with the position blah blah blah."

^^ and that's more than enough to be honest.

No_Nerd

"we decided to go with candidates who's background more closely aligns with the position blah blah blah."

This was all I ever said to someone who I interviewed.

Something else and you might end up getting into a lot of legal issues

markulous

How would there be legal issues unless I'm saying it's because of something protected (e.g. race, disability, religion, etc)?

networker050184

There won't be legal issues if you don't say anything stupid. Companies try to avoid the chance of that happening all together though.

DatabaseHead

We are in a selfish risk avoidance society. How does it benefit them by replying to you? That answer is it doesn't.

@Networker there are companies out there that won't provide any answers in regards to former employment including your basics. Last title, departure date etc...... There is 0 value for that company to provide that information.

You just answered your own response. SOME of these HR folks are under qualified and paid accordingly. Something has to give, and that is quality, how do you manage against that? Remove that communication channel.

thomas_

No_Nerd wrote: »

"we decided to go with candidates who's background more closely aligns with the position blah blah blah."

This was all I ever said to someone who I interviewed.

Something else and you might end up getting into a lot of legal issues

Even your example seems like it might open up the door for a lawsuit if a candidate is sue happy.

tpatt100

I have had it happen to me before but most of the time I get generic feedback which is better than nothing. I think if you take your time to interview it's the polite thing to do.

I do think like what was already mentioned that it's a liability issue if companies don't give feedback.

beads

Does the lack of feedback of any type tell you anything if not the quality of the people doing the interviewing?

Food for thought.

- b/eads

Techytach

I am going through this as well recently. What is worse is the last two interviews I was on they explicitly said they would get back to my by xyz date to let me know one way or the other.

I hear nothing. So I send an email thanking them, and asking what I might do to better qualify myself, etc. Nothing.

At least don't lie to my face in the interview. Note, I didn't even ask them, they volunteered this information about getting back to me. Rather confused... (these were jobs at a community college and an elementary school, so there wasn't some corporate HR policy limiting communications.)

DatabaseHead

@ Techytach, probably pulled away to create a schedule for their daughter's softball team. Emailing all those parent's can get exhausting!

TechGromit

UnixGuy wrote: »

I know they don't have an obligation to respond, but it would be great of they spend 2 minutes sending an email "Sorry you were not successful at this stage good luck kthxbai" email and BCC all candidates they interviewed.

I agree, while I feel they don't owe you an answer if your one of the hundreds that apply for the job, if they bring you in for an interview, they do. Two interviews I had in the past, after months of repeatably asking if a decision had been made, One emailed me a one word answer, "no" when I asked the manager if I got the job. The other said the decision had already been made, and those applicants that have been selected have been informed. If you don't have the balls to tell someone sorry you haven't been selected, either face to face, email or on the phone, your not management material in my opinion.

networker050184

beads wrote: »

Does the lack of feedback of any type tell you anything if not the quality of the people doing the interviewing?

Food for thought.

- b/eads

I don't think it does necessarily. The company likely has rules about this type of stuff.

UnixGuy

To wrap this up, here's what I really think:

1) Unless you send a very dumb response such as 'you were rejected because of your age/race/gender' then I don't see a law suit happening. Come on.

2) If they don't send a response it tells me that the HR/recruitment people/process is lousy, and that's very common unfortunately.

3) As professionals, when and if we are the ones hiring, let's make it a habit of response to candidates even if it's a generic "we selected someone else with better match of skills/experience" and bcc to everyone - it takes 2 minutes, don't be lazy.

networker050184

UnixGuy wrote: »

T3) As professionals, when and if we are the ones hiring, let's make it a habit of response to candidates even if it's a generic "we selected someone else with better match of skills/experience" and bcc to everyone - it takes 2 minutes, don't be lazy.

That may or may not be something possible to do by the professional doing the hiring. I definitely don't get a chance to send a mass email to all rejected candidates.

I think to wrap it up simply, if you don't hear back you aren't what they were looking for. Move on to the next one.

UnixGuy

networker050184 wrote: »

That may or may not be something possible to do by the professional doing the hiring. I definitely don't get a chance to send a mass email to all rejected candidates.

I think to wrap it up simply, if you don't hear back you aren't what they were looking for. Move on to the next one.

but that's the point that I'm trying to make, sending mass email (really generic email) will take less than 5 mins, and the task (and should) be delegated to HR. It's nicer to know that u were rejected rather waiting and waiting and then deciding to move on. But as candidates it's something we don't have control over