5 ms·

Why bother giving feedback to the recruiter? That's only going to improve the company he's not going to be working at, rewarding them for already failing to do

Why bother giving feedback to the recruiter? That's only going to improve the company he's not going to be working at, rewarding them for already failing to do their jobs (who put this guy is an interviewer's position? etc.)

dvtrn 8y ago
That's only going to improve the company he's not going to be working at, rewarding them for already failing to do their jobs (who put this guy is an interviewer's position? etc.) There's something paradoxical about this statement, I'm not sure if it's the way I'm reading it, or even if you intended it that way. But if there was a "failure" here, and I were in that company's HR and Recruiting shoes-I'd probably want to know about it, and surely you would too if it were your company looking to grow and bring in talent to reach goals? Would you tolerate your staff treating candidates this way?
matthewmacleod 8y ago
That’s a disappointingly cynical view. It costs basically nothing to give that feedback, and that’s how organisations can improve. We often see complaints here about how unwilling companies can be to provide feedback to job applicants. I’d definitely encourage applicants to similarly leave feedback for employers they reject, because it improves the system for everybody. And if you are in a position to do so, try to solicit feedback on your recruitment process from applicants too!
notacoward 8y ago
Feedback is not a reward. It's a way to improve processes, and if we as a group give feedback then we as a group benefit. That recruiter might move on to another company, and you might benefit when you interview there next. Or you might benefit from someone else having given feedback to a recruiter at the next place you interview. Or it could come back to you in myriad other ways. The idea that it's only worth doing things with a direct and immediate benefit might appeal to some people's Randian insensibilities, but it's really quite broken.
chrisbennet 8y ago
I agree with the "don't give them feedback" but for a different reason. If the company has this psycho in there interview rotation, he sends a strong negative signal, basically the company has a "tell" that candidates can use to avoid this guy or companies that would employ him. If the recruiter coaches them to hide their "tell" [removed the guy from the interview rotation], they haven't really fixed the problem, just hidden it. Now, the next guy/girl who interviews won't know about the horrible guy he/she will be working with because the company "hid" him from view until it was too late.

dvtrn 8y ago

That's only going to improve the company he's not going to be working at, rewarding them for already failing to do their jobs (who put this guy is an interviewer's position? etc.) There's something paradoxical about this statement, I'm not sure if it's the way I'm reading it, or even if you intended it that way. But if there was a "failure" here, and I were in that company's HR and Recruiting shoes-I'd probably want to know about it, and surely you would too if it were your company looking to grow and bring in talent to reach goals? Would you tolerate your staff treating candidates this way?

matthewmacleod 8y ago

That’s a disappointingly cynical view. It costs basically nothing to give that feedback, and that’s how organisations can improve. We often see complaints here about how unwilling companies can be to provide feedback to job applicants. I’d definitely encourage applicants to similarly leave feedback for employers they reject, because it improves the system for everybody. And if you are in a position to do so, try to solicit feedback on your recruitment process from applicants too!

notacoward 8y ago

Feedback is not a reward. It's a way to improve processes, and if we as a group give feedback then we as a group benefit. That recruiter might move on to another company, and you might benefit when you interview there next. Or you might benefit from someone else having given feedback to a recruiter at the next place you interview. Or it could come back to you in myriad other ways. The idea that it's only worth doing things with a direct and immediate benefit might appeal to some people's Randian insensibilities, but it's really quite broken.

chrisbennet 8y ago

I agree with the "don't give them feedback" but for a different reason. If the company has this psycho in there interview rotation, he sends a strong negative signal, basically the company has a "tell" that candidates can use to avoid this guy or companies that would employ him. If the recruiter coaches them to hide their "tell" [removed the guy from the interview rotation], they haven't really fixed the problem, just hidden it. Now, the next guy/girl who interviews won't know about the horrible guy he/she will be working with because the company "hid" him from view until it was too late.