3 ms·

This comes up a lot in these types of discussions, but I have a (major) gripe with this: Laws differ. There are some large (and overrepresented on this site?) c

This comes up a lot in these types of discussions, but I have a (major) gripe with this: Laws differ. There are some large (and overrepresented on this site?) countries in the world that have a "sue them" culture and, obviously, laws to back this type of behavior. Lots of countries don't, though - and there I'd expect this kind of feedback. I know, I'm not a lawyer and I might even be a bit naive here, but telling me that I seemed to lack the required understanding in technology X or couldn't convince them that I'd get up to speed in Y shouldn't open any chance to drag in a lawyer. Of course, things like 'you didn't fit the team' or 'your personal hygiene is not good enough for our corporate standards' might be something that is harder to disclose.. Bottomline: I hate your easy way out, giving no valueable feedback at all/in general.

Nitramp 16y ago
Look at it from the company perspective. Out of 10 people, you'll probably upset 5, or enter a discussion with them asserting they are actually good; maybe 4 actually accept criticism and are thankful, and one sues. So for the most part, it's doing more damage than good to the company image (and from my personal experience, I guess the ratio of not-taking-criticism people is much higher), and might get you into trouble that is at least annoying (sued). On the other hand, the company has exactly nothing to win from this. If the candidate really were good and only had to learn X, then they'd probably hire him anyway, and the negative image effects for many people certainly outweigh the positive for a few.
- darklajid 16y ago
  I agree - somewhat. I'd like to waive the legal stuff (see above, I'm just unconvinced that a lot of perfectly valid reasons to reject a candidate offer legal problems in a lot of places around the world). But obviously your 'why help someone that you don't want' point is valid. I'd say it still should be done: - Just as it is a good idea for a person to think of "You'll always meet twice in life" I kind of think that a company should do the same. That guy might come around alot smarter and you do want him the second time. Or he might work elsewhere and be your contact when your company does a deal with that company. - He talks about small companies. I kind of expect employers that probably offer 'transparency, lack of hierarchies, ..' to be more human. I'm pondering a lot about the 'they'll take it badly' comments right now (not only from you, all over this HN thread). I was _sure_ that most people feel like the author of the blog entry, seriously missing out the honest feedback. Maybe I was too naive..
  - mgkimsal 16y ago
    I've wanted that feedback as well, and I know others that do. I know I'd generally react favorably to the feedback, using it to improve. However, I think we (people who want this and talk about wanting it and wouldn't go off the deep end) are in a minority. We're writing and talking about it - we (here on HN and blogs and such) tend to have more self-awareness than others - or at least express that self-awareness more than others. But we're in the minority - people would sue, they'd stalk, they'd pester, they'd argue, etc. Companies love NDAs - how about an NFOA - a Non Freak Out Agreement? Sign it before an interview. If you've signed it, we'll give you honest, open, critical feedback about how you do or don't fit in with the company's needs. Honestly, I do think sometimes I've not gotten a job it was more a personality/culture fit than anything else, but I'd like to know that as well (and frankly wouldn't mind giving them some feedback on their culture too!). But without knowing, perhaps I get too hung up on a linkedlist question and fret about that in future. And turning it around, perhaps the company could get some good feedback on their own operating culture ("no, being on call 24/7 to babysit broken code isn't worth $30k, but you didn't say that in the job description").
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  I'd like to emphasize this point. Any sort of personalized response is seen as an invitation to initiate a conversation. Which is fine if you want to have that conversation and the person on the other end isn't a sore loser or doesn't have an overinflated ego that you just bruised. Sore losers and overinflated egos aren't the majority, but they do seem to form a very large minority...
RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
> Bottomline: I hate your easy way out, giving no valueable feedback at all/in general. Yes, laws differ, and there are no doubt countries, and perhaps places within countries, where giving constructive feedback would not result in any problems. Then I fall back on - I simply don't have the time. Besides, you're arguing with the wrong person. You may hate the situation. I hate the situation. As I said, I'd really like to take some of the unsuccessful candidates for a coffee and tell them how they could improve their chances. I'd even consider running a one-off, one hour "seminar" to show people what they did wrong, and why their existing skills didn't match. But I can't do that on my company's time, and I sure as hell would feel uncomfortable charging people I've just rejected for an hour of time. They're unemployed! (usually) So it's not going to happen. The market doesn't allow for it - these days you're often lucky even to get a rejection letter at all. I watched my wife send out over a thousand job applications and get perhaps 10 responses. Companies are, almost by definition, sociopaths. It does them no good at all to spend time or money helping people they've just rejected. The individuals in the company may, and often do, feel bad about it, but that's simply the way it is. Bottom line: This is how things are now, and if you don't like it, find some way to change it.
- darklajid 16y ago
  First of all: I'm not sure if my "I hate your .. way" was taken as a personal accusation of some sorts. It wasn't meant to be one. Were these 10 responses valuable for your wife, or "We're sorry to inform you.." useless types that didn't help at all? Not providing feedback on company time is an shady argument from my point of view as well. The decisions to hire someone that involved me (granted, maybe roundabout a dozen hires only, I don't claim to be any kind of expert here) meant that we interviewed them and usually talked about the candidates directly afterwards. Most rejects were done right there, while we discussed the very reasons, on company time anyway and by definition. Writing them down and sending an email if you are in that situation doesn't cost your company a lot of time (Cue the "Did you sent the mail" questions: No. I never had the contact details/access to the resume and was just a code monkey involved in questioning the candidate). That's - sad.
  - 16y ago

Nitramp 16y ago

Look at it from the company perspective. Out of 10 people, you'll probably upset 5, or enter a discussion with them asserting they are actually good; maybe 4 actually accept criticism and are thankful, and one sues. So for the most part, it's doing more damage than good to the company image (and from my personal experience, I guess the ratio of not-taking-criticism people is much higher), and might get you into trouble that is at least annoying (sued). On the other hand, the company has exactly nothing to win from this. If the candidate really were good and only had to learn X, then they'd probably hire him anyway, and the negative image effects for many people certainly outweigh the positive for a few.

darklajid 16y ago
I agree - somewhat. I'd like to waive the legal stuff (see above, I'm just unconvinced that a lot of perfectly valid reasons to reject a candidate offer legal problems in a lot of places around the world). But obviously your 'why help someone that you don't want' point is valid. I'd say it still should be done: - Just as it is a good idea for a person to think of "You'll always meet twice in life" I kind of think that a company should do the same. That guy might come around alot smarter and you do want him the second time. Or he might work elsewhere and be your contact when your company does a deal with that company. - He talks about small companies. I kind of expect employers that probably offer 'transparency, lack of hierarchies, ..' to be more human. I'm pondering a lot about the 'they'll take it badly' comments right now (not only from you, all over this HN thread). I was _sure_ that most people feel like the author of the blog entry, seriously missing out the honest feedback. Maybe I was too naive..
- mgkimsal 16y ago
  I've wanted that feedback as well, and I know others that do. I know I'd generally react favorably to the feedback, using it to improve. However, I think we (people who want this and talk about wanting it and wouldn't go off the deep end) are in a minority. We're writing and talking about it - we (here on HN and blogs and such) tend to have more self-awareness than others - or at least express that self-awareness more than others. But we're in the minority - people would sue, they'd stalk, they'd pester, they'd argue, etc. Companies love NDAs - how about an NFOA - a Non Freak Out Agreement? Sign it before an interview. If you've signed it, we'll give you honest, open, critical feedback about how you do or don't fit in with the company's needs. Honestly, I do think sometimes I've not gotten a job it was more a personality/culture fit than anything else, but I'd like to know that as well (and frankly wouldn't mind giving them some feedback on their culture too!). But without knowing, perhaps I get too hung up on a linkedlist question and fret about that in future. And turning it around, perhaps the company could get some good feedback on their own operating culture ("no, being on call 24/7 to babysit broken code isn't worth $30k, but you didn't say that in the job description").
bryanlarsen 16y ago
I'd like to emphasize this point. Any sort of personalized response is seen as an invitation to initiate a conversation. Which is fine if you want to have that conversation and the person on the other end isn't a sore loser or doesn't have an overinflated ego that you just bruised. Sore losers and overinflated egos aren't the majority, but they do seem to form a very large minority...

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago

> Bottomline: I hate your easy way out, giving no valueable feedback at all/in general. Yes, laws differ, and there are no doubt countries, and perhaps places within countries, where giving constructive feedback would not result in any problems. Then I fall back on - I simply don't have the time. Besides, you're arguing with the wrong person. You may hate the situation. I hate the situation. As I said, I'd really like to take some of the unsuccessful candidates for a coffee and tell them how they could improve their chances. I'd even consider running a one-off, one hour "seminar" to show people what they did wrong, and why their existing skills didn't match. But I can't do that on my company's time, and I sure as hell would feel uncomfortable charging people I've just rejected for an hour of time. They're unemployed! (usually) So it's not going to happen. The market doesn't allow for it - these days you're often lucky even to get a rejection letter at all. I watched my wife send out over a thousand job applications and get perhaps 10 responses. Companies are, almost by definition, sociopaths. It does them no good at all to spend time or money helping people they've just rejected. The individuals in the company may, and often do, feel bad about it, but that's simply the way it is. Bottom line: This is how things are now, and if you don't like it, find some way to change it.

darklajid 16y ago
First of all: I'm not sure if my "I hate your .. way" was taken as a personal accusation of some sorts. It wasn't meant to be one. Were these 10 responses valuable for your wife, or "We're sorry to inform you.." useless types that didn't help at all? Not providing feedback on company time is an shady argument from my point of view as well. The decisions to hire someone that involved me (granted, maybe roundabout a dozen hires only, I don't claim to be any kind of expert here) meant that we interviewed them and usually talked about the candidates directly afterwards. Most rejects were done right there, while we discussed the very reasons, on company time anyway and by definition. Writing them down and sending an email if you are in that situation doesn't cost your company a lot of time (Cue the "Did you sent the mail" questions: No. I never had the contact details/access to the resume and was just a code monkey involved in questioning the candidate). That's - sad.
- 16y ago