5 ms·

If there are two good candidates and I pick one of them, it doesn't necessarily mean you were 'rejected', you just weren't selected. I've been 'rejected' by ple

If there are two good candidates and I pick one of them, it doesn't necessarily mean you were 'rejected', you just weren't selected. I've been 'rejected' by plenty of companies but I try not to take it too personally.

salawat 8y ago
Passive voice. This is the type of weasel language that people try to use to make themselves feel better about what they did. Unless you cleverly redefine rejected to have some additional baggage, the phrase 'not selected' and 'rejected' are semantically equivalent. At least do the people you don't pick the courtesy of owning up to your decision.
- Veen 8y ago
  It has nothing to do with the passive voice. “You were rejected” and “You were not selected” are both passive. “I was given an awesome job by Google” is passive. “Google gave me an awesome job” is active. They mean the same thing. The only difference is whether the sentence puts the emphasis on the entity getting or giving the job.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  There is a clear distinction in my opinion, I've outright rejected candidates because they simply didn't have the skills. And not selected a capable one because someone else edged them out. It's not semantics. There was a decision made based on the individual. The end result is the same but there is a distinct reason for the decision.
- sjg007 8y ago
  You should reframe negative events like a job rejection.
maxxxxx 8y ago
This would be much easier to deal with if companies gave some reasonable feedback. With the way things work as an applicant you don't know if you were completely rejected or almost selected. It's the same.
- slindsey 8y ago
  And it can be completely subjective. I applied for a position and interviewed with two different teams there. I had a friend on the interview board. One team said that I seemed "inflexible" and the other team thought I was "too compliant" and potentially wishy-washy. So my feedback consisted of opposite perspectives.
  - draw_down 8y ago
    It’s noisy data. One point might not be super useful on its own, but if you get one item of feedback consistently... maybe it’s time to listen.
dentemple 8y ago
Still, it's pretty silly when a company says you're not knowledgeable enough in X when you literally wrote the book on X. Being told, "You obviously don't have experience" by a company when it's literally untrue really grinds my gears.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  I think you have to take all interview feedback with a pinch of salt. People make emotional decisions then try and rationalise them. You will rarely hear what the emotional issue was.
  - dentemple 8y ago
    Yeah, I understand it. The _public_ reason for a rejection is rarely the same as the _actual_ reason for a rejection. It just grinds my gears when a company adds that little bit of insult at the end of it, by somehow making it your fault in the end for supposedly lying to them.
- Aunche 8y ago
  This is why a lot of companies just don't bother to give any substantial feedback.
hinkley 8y ago
Maybe its semantics but I only represent myself as rejected when I fail the interview loop. That’s a lot more frustrating, especially when you were stoked about the company.
rabidrat 8y ago
For a company with infinite headcount (any of FAANG), it does mean you were rejected though.
dehrmann 8y ago
It's not just that. Candidates can be perfectly capable and qualified, but have work style, or even values, that don't align with the company. Or they're not a good fit because the recruiter who found them isn't recruiting for a team where they'd be a good fit. So it's not just they they weren't selected, they weren't selected for that role.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  > Candidates can be perfectly capable and qualified, but have work style, or even values, that don't align with the company. That is the candidate's decision to make, not the company's.
  - apersona 8y ago
    Why do you think it's not both? If you were running a startup (company), hiring people who match your team's work style and values is as important as capability.

salawat 8y ago

Passive voice. This is the type of weasel language that people try to use to make themselves feel better about what they did. Unless you cleverly redefine rejected to have some additional baggage, the phrase 'not selected' and 'rejected' are semantically equivalent. At least do the people you don't pick the courtesy of owning up to your decision.

Veen 8y ago
It has nothing to do with the passive voice. “You were rejected” and “You were not selected” are both passive. “I was given an awesome job by Google” is passive. “Google gave me an awesome job” is active. They mean the same thing. The only difference is whether the sentence puts the emphasis on the entity getting or giving the job.
paulie_a 8y ago
There is a clear distinction in my opinion, I've outright rejected candidates because they simply didn't have the skills. And not selected a capable one because someone else edged them out. It's not semantics. There was a decision made based on the individual. The end result is the same but there is a distinct reason for the decision.
sjg007 8y ago
You should reframe negative events like a job rejection.

maxxxxx 8y ago

This would be much easier to deal with if companies gave some reasonable feedback. With the way things work as an applicant you don't know if you were completely rejected or almost selected. It's the same.

slindsey 8y ago
And it can be completely subjective. I applied for a position and interviewed with two different teams there. I had a friend on the interview board. One team said that I seemed "inflexible" and the other team thought I was "too compliant" and potentially wishy-washy. So my feedback consisted of opposite perspectives.
- draw_down 8y ago
  It’s noisy data. One point might not be super useful on its own, but if you get one item of feedback consistently... maybe it’s time to listen.

dentemple 8y ago

Still, it's pretty silly when a company says you're not knowledgeable enough in X when you literally wrote the book on X. Being told, "You obviously don't have experience" by a company when it's literally untrue really grinds my gears.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
I think you have to take all interview feedback with a pinch of salt. People make emotional decisions then try and rationalise them. You will rarely hear what the emotional issue was.
- dentemple 8y ago
  Yeah, I understand it. The _public_ reason for a rejection is rarely the same as the _actual_ reason for a rejection. It just grinds my gears when a company adds that little bit of insult at the end of it, by somehow making it your fault in the end for supposedly lying to them.
Aunche 8y ago
This is why a lot of companies just don't bother to give any substantial feedback.

hinkley 8y ago

Maybe its semantics but I only represent myself as rejected when I fail the interview loop. That’s a lot more frustrating, especially when you were stoked about the company.

rabidrat 8y ago

For a company with infinite headcount (any of FAANG), it does mean you were rejected though.

dehrmann 8y ago

It's not just that. Candidates can be perfectly capable and qualified, but have work style, or even values, that don't align with the company. Or they're not a good fit because the recruiter who found them isn't recruiting for a team where they'd be a good fit. So it's not just they they weren't selected, they weren't selected for that role.

vonmoltke 8y ago
> Candidates can be perfectly capable and qualified, but have work style, or even values, that don't align with the company. That is the candidate's decision to make, not the company's.
- apersona 8y ago
  Why do you think it's not both? If you were running a startup (company), hiring people who match your team's work style and values is as important as capability.