4 ms·

Many companies won't give that feedback purely for legal reasons. There might be internal policies on proper wordings they must use when they do not select a ca

Many companies won't give that feedback purely for legal reasons. There might be internal policies on proper wordings they must use when they do not select a candidate just to be on the safe side. The HR or whoever is sending you an email must be very careful or getting sued is very easy. Often people are not realizing this. There are several reasons why someone might not hire you. It can be purely on the technical questions you answered, it could be due to the "fit" criteria (you can be the best programmer out there but that doesn't mean you can fit well with the team), communication ability (articulating something clearly is very important) etc.. An interview is a two way channel. They must like you and you should like them. Although when you are interviewing for some company it's mostly your livelihood that's at stake so you may not think if you are going to be happy and fit well there as long as you get good benefits etc. While it is true that someone cannot be judged in 2/3 hours of interview, there is not much of an alternative here so sometimes it is a leap of faith albeit a calculated one.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
SmellTheGlove 9y ago
If it's specifically about feedback on the whiteboard exercise, I find the legal excuse to be a bit weak. It is something organizations will hide behind because it's a lot easier to say, "I'd love to give you feedback, but HR/Legal says we can't because of liability concerns." That makes the company look like the good guy, just blame the system. Specifically on the whiteboard, the primary reason for not providing feedback is very simple - HR and managers have jobs to do, and they're going to focus on their primary duties on the business side, and active candidates on the HR side. Once you didn't pass the exercise, they're not going to spend time on you because that's inefficient for them - essentially sinking someone's time to write you feedback when you ultimately won't be working for them. In the US, anyone can be sued for anything, so it is technically true that there's a legal reason not to give feedback there. But I think the risk of that takes a back seat to simply not wanting to spend the time on something that isn't seen as valuable to the company even if it is to the excluded candidate. Now, as to everything else, particularly "fit" and all of that - yeah, there's a very valid legal risk that would suggest you should not provide that feedback. Fit is subjective, and a lot easier for someone to decide fit meant age/race/sex/etc. My final opinion is that this type of feedback wouldn't actually be useful. It sounds like it would be, but that suggests that hiring orgs all think the same. They don't, and that's good for all of us.
- vinhboy 9y ago
  > If it's specifically about feedback on the whiteboard exercise That's exactly what I am asking for. I am not looking for feedback on me personally, but I would like to know why I failed the whiteboard. If I did something wrong, or inefficient, I want to know this. It's such a good learning opportunity, it's a shame for it to be wasted. And it won't even take that much time. Just send me a quick email. I always ask for feedback, so one company said something along the lines of "you didn't use OO, and you didn't name functions very well for someone with your experience" That was like a lightbulb moment for me.
  - SmellTheGlove 9y ago
    The thing is, if you know you screwed up the whiteboard exercise, you should think about whether you need anyone's feedback. There are lots of materials and guides on working whiteboard exercises, given how pervasive they are in the industry. If you're self-aware enough to know the whiteboard exercise sunk you, you are in a good spot to identify and fix your weaknesses. This is not intended to be harsh, but comes across that way in writing: It's not a wasted learning opportunity just because someone else isn't willing to read out your evaluation. Critical thinking is as important as any other skill to a developer, so you going back through what you did and then looking at opportunities for improvement is as valuable as anyone else's feedback. I get that it's helpful, all I'm saying is it's not entirely necessary, and not a showstopper to improvement.
    - vinhboy 9y ago
      I mostly agree with you and I very much do what you suggested. After all my interviews, I spend a lot of time researching the question to see what the correct answer is. For example, in one interview they asked me to make a crossword puzzle solver. After the interview, I spent the rest of the day researching algorithms to do this. That's great and all, but it doesn't give me insight into specific things I could improve for the next interview. Was I too slow? Was my solution too convoluted? Did I spent too much time thinking and not verbalizing? Is my solution wrong? I wish to have that kind of feedback because it will highlight my deficiencies. I get that they don't owe it to me to provide that feedback, and there is no incentive for them to. But it's a nice to have. As software engineers, we're all familiar with code reviews and why we do them. This is very much similar to that.
linkregister 9y ago
This is just cargo-cult lawyering. Telling a candidate the reason why they failed is standard practice for Facebook, Google, and many startups. I think that it's a good sign of how confident a company is in it's outlook by how they approach interview feedback. Unless that feedback belies discrimination toward a protected class, it poses no legal risk. Conversely, it sours the candidate's impression of the company when a recruiter refuses to give meaningful feedback. People talk. A future customer might be friends with that candidate who failed.
kafkaesq 9y ago
Many companies won't give that feedback purely for legal reasons. That's not the real reason. They like to think it's the reason. But it's not the real reason. The main reason they don't like to give feedback is that it's awkward and embarrassing. And because the most hiring managers (and especially most HR staff) don't have the communication skills (or plain and simple personal maturity) to convey the information tactfully. And because (in a large part due to the second factor mentioned), it can take up a an awful lot of time (in a process that generally ends up taking much longer than anyone would like or expect it to, in the first place). (Yes, I know there are anecdotal stories of candidates occasionally getting all huffy, or in fact doing much worse, when you give them honest feedback; and I wouldn't doubt that there's been a frivolous, costly lawsuit here or there, once upon a time. But still, my observation of the industry and of general human nature suggests that's not the real reason). Even so: I'm OK with not getting feedback. And I can (sort of) forgive them when they're late in coming back with a simple "no". But not getting any kind of a status (not even a boilerplate rejection email), ever? That's the part I don't get.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

SmellTheGlove 9y ago

If it's specifically about feedback on the whiteboard exercise, I find the legal excuse to be a bit weak. It is something organizations will hide behind because it's a lot easier to say, "I'd love to give you feedback, but HR/Legal says we can't because of liability concerns." That makes the company look like the good guy, just blame the system. Specifically on the whiteboard, the primary reason for not providing feedback is very simple - HR and managers have jobs to do, and they're going to focus on their primary duties on the business side, and active candidates on the HR side. Once you didn't pass the exercise, they're not going to spend time on you because that's inefficient for them - essentially sinking someone's time to write you feedback when you ultimately won't be working for them. In the US, anyone can be sued for anything, so it is technically true that there's a legal reason not to give feedback there. But I think the risk of that takes a back seat to simply not wanting to spend the time on something that isn't seen as valuable to the company even if it is to the excluded candidate. Now, as to everything else, particularly "fit" and all of that - yeah, there's a very valid legal risk that would suggest you should not provide that feedback. Fit is subjective, and a lot easier for someone to decide fit meant age/race/sex/etc. My final opinion is that this type of feedback wouldn't actually be useful. It sounds like it would be, but that suggests that hiring orgs all think the same. They don't, and that's good for all of us.

vinhboy 9y ago
> If it's specifically about feedback on the whiteboard exercise That's exactly what I am asking for. I am not looking for feedback on me personally, but I would like to know why I failed the whiteboard. If I did something wrong, or inefficient, I want to know this. It's such a good learning opportunity, it's a shame for it to be wasted. And it won't even take that much time. Just send me a quick email. I always ask for feedback, so one company said something along the lines of "you didn't use OO, and you didn't name functions very well for someone with your experience" That was like a lightbulb moment for me.
- SmellTheGlove 9y ago
  The thing is, if you know you screwed up the whiteboard exercise, you should think about whether you need anyone's feedback. There are lots of materials and guides on working whiteboard exercises, given how pervasive they are in the industry. If you're self-aware enough to know the whiteboard exercise sunk you, you are in a good spot to identify and fix your weaknesses. This is not intended to be harsh, but comes across that way in writing: It's not a wasted learning opportunity just because someone else isn't willing to read out your evaluation. Critical thinking is as important as any other skill to a developer, so you going back through what you did and then looking at opportunities for improvement is as valuable as anyone else's feedback. I get that it's helpful, all I'm saying is it's not entirely necessary, and not a showstopper to improvement.
  - vinhboy 9y ago
    I mostly agree with you and I very much do what you suggested. After all my interviews, I spend a lot of time researching the question to see what the correct answer is. For example, in one interview they asked me to make a crossword puzzle solver. After the interview, I spent the rest of the day researching algorithms to do this. That's great and all, but it doesn't give me insight into specific things I could improve for the next interview. Was I too slow? Was my solution too convoluted? Did I spent too much time thinking and not verbalizing? Is my solution wrong? I wish to have that kind of feedback because it will highlight my deficiencies. I get that they don't owe it to me to provide that feedback, and there is no incentive for them to. But it's a nice to have. As software engineers, we're all familiar with code reviews and why we do them. This is very much similar to that.

linkregister 9y ago

This is just cargo-cult lawyering. Telling a candidate the reason why they failed is standard practice for Facebook, Google, and many startups. I think that it's a good sign of how confident a company is in it's outlook by how they approach interview feedback. Unless that feedback belies discrimination toward a protected class, it poses no legal risk. Conversely, it sours the candidate's impression of the company when a recruiter refuses to give meaningful feedback. People talk. A future customer might be friends with that candidate who failed.

kafkaesq 9y ago

Many companies won't give that feedback purely for legal reasons. That's not the real reason. They like to think it's the reason. But it's not the real reason. The main reason they don't like to give feedback is that it's awkward and embarrassing. And because the most hiring managers (and especially most HR staff) don't have the communication skills (or plain and simple personal maturity) to convey the information tactfully. And because (in a large part due to the second factor mentioned), it can take up a an awful lot of time (in a process that generally ends up taking much longer than anyone would like or expect it to, in the first place). (Yes, I know there are anecdotal stories of candidates occasionally getting all huffy, or in fact doing much worse, when you give them honest feedback; and I wouldn't doubt that there's been a frivolous, costly lawsuit here or there, once upon a time. But still, my observation of the industry and of general human nature suggests that's not the real reason). Even so: I'm OK with not getting feedback. And I can (sort of) forgive them when they're late in coming back with a simple "no". But not getting any kind of a status (not even a boilerplate rejection email), ever? That's the part I don't get.