I'm going to start biting my keyboard if I get one more formulaic rejection without anyone telling me why they rejected me. It's infuriating. I've got years of experience and the right tech stack, but all the applications are going in the trash!
In my case, HR tells me that I'm not allowed to tell applicants why they were rejected. Nothing personal, but my job is more important to me that someone's feelings.
Sadly this is interviews now. Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done.
Same for references. The best you can realistically hope for now is written confirmation of dates you worked somewhere, your job title, and at a push (maybe) your salary, although I've never once found it's in the prospective employee's best interest to disclose previous salaries.
(Depending on where you are in the world your new employer may just be able to get this info from the government anyway or ask for your last payslip).
> Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done.
(Note: I am assuming this is true in the US. This is may not be true in other countries)
Job seeking is inherently a confidential activity for many people, as the interviewee want to make sure that their current job is safe before leaving for a new role. To sue a company because they didn't get the role is to put their current role at risk.
In addition, the company has a lot more power and resources than the interviewee. They can drag the process out to the point where the interviewee withdraws, runs out of money or settle. Given that, the interviewee has to have significant proof as well as resources and privilege to able to successfully sue the company.
All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound.
> All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound.
Imagine you are GC and think about it from a risk/reward standpoint.
If you let people give feedback, given enough hires, some hiring manager will likely say something that draws a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if it is a reasonable case, that's still time, money and distraction.
And what does the company get in return? People who they didn't hire might think slightly better of it.
When you model it in terms of corporate incentives, the decision almost makes itself.
Not to mention the fact that even in the smallest cities there are several attorneys willing to take employment lawsuits on spec (lose get nothing, win get 30-40% of the award). If you're in a major city like NYC there will be thousands.
The math is pretty simple, Company has to pay its attorneys no matter what. Lawyer is working on spec, the client pays nothing out of pocket. Why would Company spend $400k on a trial that they might lose (and then pay out a 6-figure award on top of that) if they can just pay Lawyer $25k with an NDA and be done? Lawyer gets $7500 for a few days work spread over a couple months, interviewee gets almost $20k for a couple depositions, Company just "saved" $375k or potentially a lot more.
That's a hell of a lot of risk to take on just to send people an email saying "we thought it was bad that you bit the hiring manager." Just saying "we decided not to move forward with your application at this time" eliminates that risk entirely, including the $25k.
>Sadly this is interviews now. Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done.
Labor laws get violated all the time in interviews because most companies don't provide pre-interview warnings and most interviewers aren't familiar with the law. Outside of a few big companies that actually have been sued over this, I think most companies just don't care.
With feedback, liability just sounds like a WAY more prudent reason than "we're lazy" and "we're actually just afraid of our own employees humiliating us".
Nobody has once ever said to me "we're not hiring you because of [ethnicity]" and I'm certain they never would, but several times I have received feedback which proved incompetence.
In general I think being unwilling to give feedback is a sign that the company is not confident in the abilities of its employees and vice versa.
Racism is one example - there are other scenarios where a company might not hire someone who they think might inconvenience them that would also fall under labor laws:
- pregnant women
- parents with care responsibilities
- disabled people who would need the company to make accommodations they currently don't have in place
There's a lot of scenarios that aren't immediately obvious unless they apply directly to you which is why many of those regulations exist in the first place.
In many cases, as long as your company's representatives don't explicitly say why the applicant didn't get the job, then the company is not on the hook.
There's, like, 5 scenarios and yet most HR companies don't EVEN say "hey, don't mention kids or pregnancy during an interview" because they don't rate the risk that highly. It wouldn't even take 2 minutes!
It literally happened to my wife the other day - she was asked if she wanted kids. HR could have warned them not to say that. Apparently they did not.
The same companies that don't give a shit about this don't suddenly become more legally risk averse when it comes to feedback. They aren't genuinely worried that your programming test feedback might say your algorithm was too jewy or your knowledge of data structures made you look pregnant. Theyre just afraid that your feedback will make them look stupid and don't want to admit it.
HR has a reason for that. Yes, possibly lawsuits, but also there is a small minority of absolutely crazy people. It's a very small amount of people, but high enough that if you do a decent amount interviews, you will run into these people. When you give these people a reason why you rejected them, they will hound and harass the company in order to "prove" the company is incorrect in their assessment. They're why we can't have nice things.
They used to be called Personnel and their job was to pay salaries, keep track of vacation time, medical reimbursements and the like. Actual work. Good times.
Want to travel back in time? Go work for a small company. Our two dozen souls are human resourced by the COO, who hires and fires, and a manager of the basic paperwork. There are no layers to fight through, you just call the boss, and he's refreshingly blunt.
But warning, there are fewer places to hide at SmallCo.
I'm starting to think hr is just filled with the dumbest people with no ability to think overall. Fwiw, Microsoft rejected me, annoying..., but, the recruiter actually spent like an entire 30 min call going over the feed back they gave. Somehow they can do it, but other companies can't?
A recruiter is a third party and has a monetary reason to work with you to get you placed elsewhere.
Microsoft HR has no reason to expose themselves to anything that could possibly maybe someday involve a discrimination lawsuit. So why would they allow it?
The parent likely meant an internal recruiter, a role distinct from HR (probably much better paid too).
It is the job of such people to make you feel OK in hope you apply again for another position with the same company. I worked for few companies that had internal recruiters.
Yeah that's how it went, you would think most companies want people to view them positively. Except laziness and lack of critical thinking skills leads to useless policies. Here I am on, on a public forum, giving a shout out to MS. How many companies am I shit talking with my friends during their work search too? Like datadog giving me three! leetcode screen questions, then rejecting me without useful feedback. Or the various companies giving multihour take home assignments then giving generic rejections.
When the market turns around (or if? it'll turn around right guys?), all those companies that just left a bad impression need workers, which ones will get considered?
Would you like to take a look at http://cupid.careers and go through the quiz? I'd like to know if people in your situation could benefit from the matching score.
The best way I got better at interviewing is being on the other side of the table trying to fill a professional position.
The number of resumes you get that just are not a good fit is crazy. The tech stack doesn’t match, the experience is totally different, etc. and then the ones that DO get an interview have wildly different experience because they embellish their resume.
If you ever do get a handful of candidates that are all actually good matches, it usually comes down to price and likability. If you’re asking for too high of a salary, it’s not impossible but it is a tough sell if there really are equal candidates. Even if you are a good match it is entirely possible that a team simply liked someone else’s personality and culture fit more.
Personally, I hate this too. I once spent over 20 hours interviewing and testing with a popular personal financial tool. Out of over 500 applicants I was one of the final 3. Even that wasn't enough to merit anything beyond a templatized rejection letter, and radio silence when I asked for any information.
Professionally, I still hate it, but to some degree I understand it. Forgetting even the matter of additional business spent personalizing rejections, the truth is that most of the time the rejection will be taken personally, feelings will be hurt, and any feedback given won't be actionable anyway.
"Sorry, you look good on paper, but your solution to the challenge you was buggy, and you misunderstood the requirements. Go become a better developer."
"Sorry, your code was good, but you struggled to convey information to us. It appears you're a terrible communicator and that would cause problems on our team. Maybe some books on the topic would help, but I doubt it."
"Sorry, you aren't a good fit for our culture. You're abrasive and rude, and talked to the interviewer like you knew better than them. Quit being a narcissistic jerk."
If you're talking about being rejected at the application stage, IME it probably means you didn't follow the instructions completely, you don't actually meet the requirements (remember, it's probably HR or someone non-technical doing the first stage of rejections; they're just driving by checklist, so simple things sometimes get triggered here; if the requirements say "5 years JavaScript experience" and you list "5 years React experience" that might not make it through their filter), or your resume/application needs revising.
Your examples presume that the interviewer actually has actionable feedback for you.
Many people who interview candidates have no clue what they're doing. I also started out winging it. And I don't see much training being given to new interviewers, apart from being interviewees.
The chief mistake is interviewers not giving feedback on the spot to check their assumptions/conclusions. Following procedure, but not actually collaborating with the candidate on their shared objective; finding out whether there's a good fit.
On both sides of the table, my advice would be to ensure that the conclusions you're reaching are openly and explicitly put on the table for discussion right there and then.
I'm not affiliated with them, but it seems like paying for a one time consultation/mock interview through https://interviewing.io/ might help uncover something useful.
It does suck that you have to pay to hear the "other side" i.e. a sort of "Honesty as a Service"...
Also, for what it's worth, feel free to reach out (email in profile). I haven't interviewed millions of people, but maybe I can help. And it's always more fun to commiserate with someone.
Wow, is that a local/US thing? Having worked for the majority of my career in the UK (and now in Central Europe) I didn't experience many rejections after an interview, but these few I did have I was always told why.
Unless you mean, they don't tell you why, when they don't even invite you for an interview. That I found very common, but I think it can be a number of things. From stuff that is completely irrelevant to your suitability as a candidate (they already found someone, but they are unsure that person is going to cut it - it's in their interest to not respond and keep you in suspense for a bit, if the other person quits after a week, they might get back to you), or they currently have approval for one new employee, but they're hoping to get another job approved any day..., there are also recruiters and middle men that just want to build up their candidate DBs. I see lots of the same ads from such companies. Then there are all the "we have a great project paying $5xTheUsual, immediate start", but when you talk to them you find you have to help them win that business first... Such companies profit from just having lots of cvs on file to be able to tell a potential customer: we have 20 people with that skill you need.
So, unfortunately not getting a reason for rejection prior to an interview stage is pretty normal.
I once got told why over a phone call, and I suspect that's because in California, recording the phone call without consent is not legal. So it would not be allowed as evidence.
I once asked for a feedback, was told that they won't give any. Filed a GDPR request and got all of their e-mails and internal tickets about me and my application. Funnily, they printed this data, scanned to PDF and sent the PDF via e-mail.
> they printed this data, scanned to PDF and sent the PDF via e-mail.
I guess it may not be in this case (low volume, text content), but this could be a tactic to generate hurdles for anyone attempting to use it in systematic fashion.
I've heard of a case where a state org was required to send some students a set of spreadsheets (I guess they required it).
They printed the spreadsheets, laid the pages out-of-order on a table (to be clear, a physical table, a flat surface made of wood with 4 legs) and took a picture with worse than average lighting and a skewed framing. Technically they complied. A person could, with some effort, read the contents of the spreadsheets. In practice, the students couldn't get to what they wanted (automated verification of the values in the spreadsheets)
TBH it had a bit of an urban legend vibe back when I heard it years ago, but I wouldn't doubt it
I think it was more about security/confidentiality - when you print and scan you exactly see what's that that you're sending. No hidden HTML elements, e-mail headers and stuff like that. And they blacked out some of the stuff I didn't need to see (again, with a permanent marker so hard to do it wrong).
Internal conversations about you does not qualify as personal data. The data was not collected from you and you did not have to consent to have them talking about you.
It's a weak, absurd argument. The key part is about data that is collected from the person by the data processor.
To repeat: a conversation of two people with their opinion of sircastor is not information about you. It's not like people could only emit their opinion if you consented to it, and you are not the one taking this report from a third-party and giving to the company interviewing you.
The effort was zero - I copy-pasted an e-mail template from the internet and volia.
Yes, this is in Europe.
I think I learned quite a lot, namely:
- why I failed the interview (I struggled to produce correct code, the code wasn't very robust and I said it's ok to put it into production)
- why I haven't failed the interview (ex. no mention of my English language skills) - which was more valuable for me than the "why I failed"
- a fairly good confidence that there's little details omitted - when they submit you a voluntary feedback they may give just the most obvious information. Ofc I didn't get the data about what was said on internal meetings.
- some insight into their internal structure, opinions of individual interviews about me etc.
I probably burned bridges with that company but after the interview neither party was interested in cooperation so I decided to give it a shot and see what happens.
I had to wait exactly 30 (or 14?) days (GDPR deadline) for the feedback to get to my mailbox.
An interviewee was unhappy with my decision and felt that they hadn't had a fair hearing - and complained.
In this case we had a standard form where we assessed candidates over multiple factors (comms skills, technical skills, etc) - so if they got to see the result they'll have seen evaluations on all of that.
I wasn't very impressed with getting the complaint (the only one out of 100+ interviews) but hopefully GDPR is a more neutral way of getting that sort of feedback these days.
> hopefully GDPR is a more neutral way of getting that sort of feedback.
Only a complete fool would comply with this request. GDPR is not a magic codeword that can force companies to give data away. I am not calling BS on OP's request, but there is absolute no way that internal communications about an applicant falls into GDPR. Basic test: did the person had to consent to "people will talk about you over email" somewhere? If not, it is not data protected by GDPR.
I used to get mad because I was taking it personally. However, over time, it's become abundantly clear that I'm either overqualified and the interviewers are just not that great or there's a major shortcoming in the interview process. It's sad that it happens so often, but for some reason like many things in the world the interview process is optimizing for the wrong things.
are they calling you? many companies have an automatic filter for CVs(one person won't read 200+ CV's), I was in the same boat till I used a CV parser, it digest your CV so programs can read it perfectly.
