4 ms·
They're trying to say Google's more likely to reject you for a soft-skills deficit, but they're incorrectly drawing any conclusions from "I can't tell you why".
by FLUX-YOU 9y ago
They're trying to say Google's more likely to reject you for a soft-skills deficit, but they're incorrectly drawing any conclusions from "I can't tell you why". It could have been anything from discrimination to a simple mishap of hiring for a position already filled and the recruiter/interviewer saving face.
- twblalock 9y agoMost companies won't tell you why. There is no upside for them, and significant downside if they reveal something that could open them up to a lawsuit. It's easier for companies to have a blanket policy of never telling than to educate everyone involved in the hiring process about the complex and ever-changing realities of employment law, discrimination law, protected classes, etc.
- crdoconnor 9y agoThis is why I don't believe almost all companies that profess a commitment to diversity in hiring. They're committed to diversity right up until the point where not being committed would open them up to a lawsuit. THAT'S when they chicken out.
- gozur88 9y agoYep. I've never worked for a company where we told people why they didn't make the cut. Heck, the person who delivered the bad news didn't even know - we selected the candidate we wanted (or none) and told HR to make the rest happen. In most cases there's no answer beyond someone else seemed like a better fit for the position. How would it help to know you would have got the job if only this other person didn't apply?
- lifeisstillgood 9y ago> How would it help to know you would have got the job if only this other person didn't apply? great way to look at what bothers us all after a rejection - thanks
- l_t 9y agoWell, it depends. At my job, we do give feedback to all our candidates. Basically, we condense our notes about the candidate down to the most important points and send it to them. We've found that candidates appreciate getting this kind of feedback because: 1. It gives them a kind of closure and treats them with respect. 2. It can help them improve for future applications. Usually, the reason is not "Someone else is a better fit". We're not just trying to fill one position -- if we find good engineers, we'll hire them. Usually feedback is related to stuff that came up in either the coding project or the interview. It helps people in the same way that code review helps them: by giving them an opportunity to learn and improve.
- gozur88 9y ago>Basically, we condense our notes about the candidate down to the most important points and send it to them. This is an excellent basis for a lawsuit.
- l_t 9y agoHow so? (edit: I wonder if we're talking about slightly different things here. The "notes" I'm referring to are primarily code commentary -- the same kind of material we cover in pair programming. As far as I know, we don't share notes about our internal decision-making process, which perhaps is what you're talking about.)
- gozur88 9y agoAh... I misunderstood. I thought you were sending them notes on your impressions of the candidates themselves.
- nawitus 9y agoThe upside is creating a better brand for the company. It's a small upside to be honest.
- Realist1337 9y agoI've been in a hiring capacity many times and as explained to me by HR/Legal: Never reveal the reason for passing on a candidate. They explained that in the US, it can provide rationale for lawsuits if the person comes up with some counterpoint, perhaps with evidence that you were in possession of the counterpoint. I am not a lawyer, but that is the reason given to me by multiple big companies.
- KKKKkkkk1 9y agoI also interviewed with Apple in Cupertino and they gave me a clear reason why they passed on me. So either Apple is immune to the US legal system or all this talk about lawsuits is hogwash.
- l_t 9y agoIMO, there's an ethical upside as well. Doing the right thing is its own reward, emotionally speaking.