3 ms·

I understand your point but don't you think there needs to be some middleground between not offering any follow-up at all and arguing endlessly about the decisi

by chki 7y ago

I understand your point but don't you think there needs to be some middleground between not offering any follow-up at all and arguing endlessly about the decision? If you send an Email with some reasons, you're not required to spend hours defending your position. But giving some feedback is beneficial to the applicant and potentially also to yourself because you're forced to think about the reasons and keep a record which might also be useful.

inapis 7y ago
Tragedy of the commons. If 99 people will endlessly argue with you and 1 is rational, you'd just do a blanket ban on giving explanations. I've frequently found that you just need to get people started and their rant will probably not end. Has always been true on Internet. Has become truer in day to day life for me too. At a certain point, you just want to switch off the tap.
- filoleg 7y ago
  But do you actually have to argue back with those people? If I had to give a feedback to a candidate, I would just send the feedback, read their response (if I cared for it), and then set an email rule to autoforward all of their future emails to a separate folder that I have for stuff like that that I never open.
  - privateSFacct 7y ago
    Just realize that one person could result in you losing your job. Sometimes folks have an axe to grind or lots of time on their hands (unemployed).
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      In the case of unemployment, that "or" could very well be an "and". Every day of being unemployed grinds that axe sharper and sharper.
privateSFacct 7y ago
The problem is the downside risk and law of large numbers. The downside is huge and the upside is tiny in terms of engaging at all. You screen 100 resumes - you talk to 20 people. If you give quick feedback in the response for those 20, and do 5 positions in a year that's 100 quick pieces of feedback - I agree - would be totally useful. Didn't have required license, communication skills weaker, not familiar with industry, not local to area etc etc. I could do these very quickly. BUT it only takes ONE person tweeting and being offended by the response to cause huge problems even BEFORE you get to litigation risk and folks going back and forth on topics. Imagine this - even job references in the US have gone to almost no content. "Giving a negative reference may expose the company to legal liability if the former employee does not get a desired job and decides to sue for defamation or slander. But providing a positive reference or failing to disclose potentially damaging information can leave the company open to legal liability (negligent referral) as well." - Result - again, just very little info is disclosed.

by chki 7y ago

inapis 7y ago

Tragedy of the commons. If 99 people will endlessly argue with you and 1 is rational, you'd just do a blanket ban on giving explanations. I've frequently found that you just need to get people started and their rant will probably not end. Has always been true on Internet. Has become truer in day to day life for me too. At a certain point, you just want to switch off the tap.

filoleg 7y ago
But do you actually have to argue back with those people? If I had to give a feedback to a candidate, I would just send the feedback, read their response (if I cared for it), and then set an email rule to autoforward all of their future emails to a separate folder that I have for stuff like that that I never open.
- privateSFacct 7y ago
  Just realize that one person could result in you losing your job. Sometimes folks have an axe to grind or lots of time on their hands (unemployed).
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    In the case of unemployment, that "or" could very well be an "and". Every day of being unemployed grinds that axe sharper and sharper.

privateSFacct 7y ago

The problem is the downside risk and law of large numbers. The downside is huge and the upside is tiny in terms of engaging at all. You screen 100 resumes - you talk to 20 people. If you give quick feedback in the response for those 20, and do 5 positions in a year that's 100 quick pieces of feedback - I agree - would be totally useful. Didn't have required license, communication skills weaker, not familiar with industry, not local to area etc etc. I could do these very quickly. BUT it only takes ONE person tweeting and being offended by the response to cause huge problems even BEFORE you get to litigation risk and folks going back and forth on topics. Imagine this - even job references in the US have gone to almost no content. "Giving a negative reference may expose the company to legal liability if the former employee does not get a desired job and decides to sue for defamation or slander. But providing a positive reference or failing to disclose potentially damaging information can leave the company open to legal liability (negligent referral) as well." - Result - again, just very little info is disclosed.