11 ms·

I feel that most of the time candidates just want to hear something that puts the situation out of their control, and therefore wasn't merit based. It's always

I feel that most of the time candidates just want to hear something that puts the situation out of their control, and therefore wasn't merit based. It's always easier to hear "I'm breaking up with you because I'm moving for a new job and want to concentrate on my career" than "I'm breaking up with you because you're awkward around my friends and aren't interesting".

michaelborromeo 7y ago
You really want to go through life thinking you’re competent at something? Honest feedback hurts but it’s how you grow. And if people cared at all about interviewees they’d give some semblance of honest feedback rather than “no thanks.”
- adamredwoods 7y ago
  I had to dig to get any type of feedback on my interviews, and even then it wasn't clear on what I needed to do to improve.
  - Koshkin 7y ago
    > what It may be not your fault. Or, it might have been your lucky day, not getting that job. In any case, you need to make damn sure that you know your trade.
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  > And if people cared at all about interviewees they’d give some semblance of honest feedback rather than “no thanks.” A former Apple architect once gave me "honest feedback" about the languages I work with. It was his opinion about industry direction, that 8 years later, was 100% wrong. (Although I don't think I was a good match for his startup.) That's why I consider honest feedback flame bait.
  - danaris 7y ago
    If you get a piece of feedback from one person, you know what you would need to do differently to get hired by that person. If you get similar pieces of feedback from 3 people, you now likely know what you need to do differently to get hired, period. It’s not about getting specific, individual pieces of feedback. It’s about being able to triangulate toward what you need to do differently. And maybe you get 3 pieces of feedback that are all completely contradictory. That tells you that what you need to do is keep trying.
    - zeroonetwothree 7y ago
      That assumes there is no systematic bias. Which clearly there is.
      - lxglv 7y ago
        Sure, there may be, and you will have proofs that it exists and may find a way, how to handle it.
      - gunshai 7y ago
        >That assumes there is no systematic bias. Which clearly there is. This is a non-helpful statement. Humans are bias machines. We function based on our collective experience or in some cases differed experience. Saying there is systemic bias doesn't really add anything other than saying exploit what ever bias you can find to your advantage.
      - mewpmewp2 7y ago
        And receiving that feedback helps you realize if there is any bias and adapt accordingly.
  - mewpmewp2 7y ago
    You take the advice with grain of salt. Still better than receiving no feedback. I don't think it is productive to think of it as flame bait.
adamredwoods 7y ago
Rejection is incredibly difficult to deal with. I suspect some people will say they are immune to it, but (anecdotal example) I've been rejected from hundreds of jobs over the past 3 years and every one hurts a little. I felt it never got easier to deal with rejection, but it got easier to interview and move on. Perhaps it's not the rejection, but the energy in creating the next steps I need to take (more resumes, taking classes, new career, therapy, etc).
- Koshkin 7y ago
  > rejected from hundreds of jobs Sounds extreme. Were you applying to random jobs?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - adamredwoods 7y ago
    You're right, it was probably only around two hundred or so jobs I applied to with 50% response/rejection rate over the past 3 years.
  - thayne 7y ago
    Unfortunately, for many recent college graduates, it's not.
  - stakhanov 7y ago
    It's not extreme at all. Companies are treating it as a numbers game, which is part of what the article is about. The flipside of the coin is that candidates are forced into treating it as a numbers game too. For example: As a candidate you might submit a resume and get an automated "Thank you, we'll be in touch". There's a large variety of reasons why you might face a very low probability that someone will indeed be in touch that have nothing to do with you. The most common is that you're just too late in the process. They might already have dozens of viable candidates in later stages. They are being economical about their interviewers' time, thinking: Well, the probability that all of those later-stage candidates will end up getting terminated is low, so we're not doing first-round interviews for now. But they are not being economical about expectations created in candidates' minds about the likelihood of getting an offer. They've simply defined the process to say: We pull the advertising after the role has been filled, because there is always the chance that we will have to go back to candidates in earlier rounds. There might be even more extreme cases. Not saying that this is particularly common, but imagine a company has decided they need a diversity hire, say hiring a woman to an all-male tech team. All applications by men may be dead on arrival. They may not want to send out rejection letters so as not to establish the pattern. Or the role may have already been filled and there may simply be clerical error or clerical laziness to blame about why the advertising hasn't been pulled yet. So, from a candidate's point of view: "We will be in touch" means almost nothing. Having come across a job ad means less than nothing. Your calculation is simply going to be: I get one human contact out of every ten times I submit a resume. I get one firm offer out of every ten times I get a human contact. I'm shooting for three firm offers to choose from. So that means I have to submit my resume 300 times. Consequently you can't afford to be all too picky. You just submit to everything that could even remotely be a match. You only start putting real brain power into thinking about whether you actually want to work there in later stages of the process. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's just the world we live in now.
thayne 7y ago
I don't have hard numbers, but anecdotally, I know two people for whom this is simply not true at all. It took them months to find jobs, and they sincerely wanted to know why they were being rejected. If you are told "we didn't hire you, because you don't have skill X", or "you don't have any experience with Y", then you can focus on getting better at that thing. It was extremely frustrating for them to be told "We found a better candidate", or more commonly, getting no response at all.
- Loughla 7y ago
  The problem is, often, there isn't a skill or experience that is the reason. I literally just went through this. I interviewed for a position that I am way qualified for. I check every box, in terms of skills and abilities and experience. I'm essentially doing the job right now, just with a different title. And I was passed over for a less qualified, less experienced candidate. The reason I was given, as I dove through the organization (it's where I work now) to ask for feedback to improve myself professionally, was that there wasn't really anything I can get better at, it was just 'fit'. I was able to ask probing questions to get to the root of that, and it turns out that, outside of the folks I work with daily, people outside of my division don't necessarily know my leadership abilities. But tell me, how would you even go about quantifying that for an external candidate, other than saying the, very safe, 'we found a better candidate'?
croon 7y ago
Easier? Yes. Helpful? Not IMHO. I spent my first 20 years on this earth incapable of processing critique, regardless of merit. It was incredibly difficult to get out of that. But once you realize that rejection or critique is just input, you can learn from it. It's obviously not always helpful, but the majority of the time it sure is (YMMV). You can categorize some cases into these: 1) Someone has observed something you do that you're unaware of, and could work on. 2) Someone has misinterpreted something you do, and now you know they have, but can be glad they told you so you know where they stand, and/or clear the confusion by explaining what really happened. 3) Someone doesn't like something you do, but you are already aware of you doing it, but think your way is better, for reasons X, Y and Z, and if you feel like it you can explain that. 4) Someone who has more experience than you recognizes a behavior from their earlier selves, and points this out so that you get a head start at learning their lesson. Regardless of the merit of the feedback, you can't process it and deal (or not deal) with it until you hear it. If you can step away from yourself and just observe and reflect, there are so many things you can learn that I wish I could imprint on a younger me. But at least I'm trying to catch up as a 30-something now.

michaelborromeo 7y ago

You really want to go through life thinking you’re competent at something? Honest feedback hurts but it’s how you grow. And if people cared at all about interviewees they’d give some semblance of honest feedback rather than “no thanks.”

adamredwoods 7y ago
I had to dig to get any type of feedback on my interviews, and even then it wasn't clear on what I needed to do to improve.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  > what It may be not your fault. Or, it might have been your lucky day, not getting that job. In any case, you need to make damn sure that you know your trade.
gwbas1c 7y ago
> And if people cared at all about interviewees they’d give some semblance of honest feedback rather than “no thanks.” A former Apple architect once gave me "honest feedback" about the languages I work with. It was his opinion about industry direction, that 8 years later, was 100% wrong. (Although I don't think I was a good match for his startup.) That's why I consider honest feedback flame bait.
- danaris 7y ago
  If you get a piece of feedback from one person, you know what you would need to do differently to get hired by that person. If you get similar pieces of feedback from 3 people, you now likely know what you need to do differently to get hired, period. It’s not about getting specific, individual pieces of feedback. It’s about being able to triangulate toward what you need to do differently. And maybe you get 3 pieces of feedback that are all completely contradictory. That tells you that what you need to do is keep trying.
  - zeroonetwothree 7y ago
    That assumes there is no systematic bias. Which clearly there is.
    - lxglv 7y ago
      Sure, there may be, and you will have proofs that it exists and may find a way, how to handle it.
    - gunshai 7y ago
      >That assumes there is no systematic bias. Which clearly there is. This is a non-helpful statement. Humans are bias machines. We function based on our collective experience or in some cases differed experience. Saying there is systemic bias doesn't really add anything other than saying exploit what ever bias you can find to your advantage.
    - mewpmewp2 7y ago
      And receiving that feedback helps you realize if there is any bias and adapt accordingly.
- mewpmewp2 7y ago
  You take the advice with grain of salt. Still better than receiving no feedback. I don't think it is productive to think of it as flame bait.

adamredwoods 7y ago

Rejection is incredibly difficult to deal with. I suspect some people will say they are immune to it, but (anecdotal example) I've been rejected from hundreds of jobs over the past 3 years and every one hurts a little. I felt it never got easier to deal with rejection, but it got easier to interview and move on. Perhaps it's not the rejection, but the energy in creating the next steps I need to take (more resumes, taking classes, new career, therapy, etc).

Koshkin 7y ago
> rejected from hundreds of jobs Sounds extreme. Were you applying to random jobs?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- adamredwoods 7y ago
  You're right, it was probably only around two hundred or so jobs I applied to with 50% response/rejection rate over the past 3 years.
- thayne 7y ago
  Unfortunately, for many recent college graduates, it's not.
- stakhanov 7y ago
  It's not extreme at all. Companies are treating it as a numbers game, which is part of what the article is about. The flipside of the coin is that candidates are forced into treating it as a numbers game too. For example: As a candidate you might submit a resume and get an automated "Thank you, we'll be in touch". There's a large variety of reasons why you might face a very low probability that someone will indeed be in touch that have nothing to do with you. The most common is that you're just too late in the process. They might already have dozens of viable candidates in later stages. They are being economical about their interviewers' time, thinking: Well, the probability that all of those later-stage candidates will end up getting terminated is low, so we're not doing first-round interviews for now. But they are not being economical about expectations created in candidates' minds about the likelihood of getting an offer. They've simply defined the process to say: We pull the advertising after the role has been filled, because there is always the chance that we will have to go back to candidates in earlier rounds. There might be even more extreme cases. Not saying that this is particularly common, but imagine a company has decided they need a diversity hire, say hiring a woman to an all-male tech team. All applications by men may be dead on arrival. They may not want to send out rejection letters so as not to establish the pattern. Or the role may have already been filled and there may simply be clerical error or clerical laziness to blame about why the advertising hasn't been pulled yet. So, from a candidate's point of view: "We will be in touch" means almost nothing. Having come across a job ad means less than nothing. Your calculation is simply going to be: I get one human contact out of every ten times I submit a resume. I get one firm offer out of every ten times I get a human contact. I'm shooting for three firm offers to choose from. So that means I have to submit my resume 300 times. Consequently you can't afford to be all too picky. You just submit to everything that could even remotely be a match. You only start putting real brain power into thinking about whether you actually want to work there in later stages of the process. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's just the world we live in now.

thayne 7y ago

I don't have hard numbers, but anecdotally, I know two people for whom this is simply not true at all. It took them months to find jobs, and they sincerely wanted to know why they were being rejected. If you are told "we didn't hire you, because you don't have skill X", or "you don't have any experience with Y", then you can focus on getting better at that thing. It was extremely frustrating for them to be told "We found a better candidate", or more commonly, getting no response at all.

Loughla 7y ago
The problem is, often, there isn't a skill or experience that is the reason. I literally just went through this. I interviewed for a position that I am way qualified for. I check every box, in terms of skills and abilities and experience. I'm essentially doing the job right now, just with a different title. And I was passed over for a less qualified, less experienced candidate. The reason I was given, as I dove through the organization (it's where I work now) to ask for feedback to improve myself professionally, was that there wasn't really anything I can get better at, it was just 'fit'. I was able to ask probing questions to get to the root of that, and it turns out that, outside of the folks I work with daily, people outside of my division don't necessarily know my leadership abilities. But tell me, how would you even go about quantifying that for an external candidate, other than saying the, very safe, 'we found a better candidate'?

croon 7y ago

Easier? Yes. Helpful? Not IMHO. I spent my first 20 years on this earth incapable of processing critique, regardless of merit. It was incredibly difficult to get out of that. But once you realize that rejection or critique is just input, you can learn from it. It's obviously not always helpful, but the majority of the time it sure is (YMMV). You can categorize some cases into these: 1) Someone has observed something you do that you're unaware of, and could work on. 2) Someone has misinterpreted something you do, and now you know they have, but can be glad they told you so you know where they stand, and/or clear the confusion by explaining what really happened. 3) Someone doesn't like something you do, but you are already aware of you doing it, but think your way is better, for reasons X, Y and Z, and if you feel like it you can explain that. 4) Someone who has more experience than you recognizes a behavior from their earlier selves, and points this out so that you get a head start at learning their lesson. Regardless of the merit of the feedback, you can't process it and deal (or not deal) with it until you hear it. If you can step away from yourself and just observe and reflect, there are so many things you can learn that I wish I could imprint on a younger me. But at least I'm trying to catch up as a 30-something now.