4 ms·

- it's more work - there's a nonzero chance nobody even saw your application, let alone carefully review it and think about whether you would be a good/bad cand

by jstx1 4y ago

- it's more work - there's a nonzero chance nobody even saw your application, let alone carefully review it and think about whether you would be a good/bad candidate and why - there's no incentive for them to do it - it's a rejection, they don't have a reason to please you - the less information they give, the less exposed they are to liabilities like being accused of hiring discrimination

geoduck14 4y ago
- there's no incentive for them to do it - it's a rejection, they don't have a reason to please you Oh, my gosh. The sheer quantity of candidates I reject. I have a complicated puzzle that is poorly described by the Job Description. In the interview, I try to see how you fit I to the existing puzzle. If you don't fit, then you "don't fit". As simple as that. Don't take it personal. Don't re think your life. Just... keep looking.
- azmodeus 4y ago
  As an employer you are shooting yourself in the foot with a poor job description. Describing it as a complicated puzzle is not an amazing sign.
  - tpmoney 4y ago
    They didn’t say the job description was a complicated puzzle, they said the puzzle (in this case implied to be the position trying to be filled) is poorly described by the job description. Which is honestly a pretty accurate summation. There are a lot of things that go into making a candidate a good fit for a position, not all of which can be well captured in a job description
- faraaz98 4y ago
  Job descriptions shouldnt be a complicated puzzle then. I once interviewed at a company and mid-interview I could see I was struggling, interviewers were super nice though helped me solve the problem they gave. No wonder i didnt get the job, but rejection email said they thought I am a good engineer. I replied if they can tell me where I can improve. They did so politely. Few months down the road, I improved and applied again. I got the job
  - flappyeagle 4y ago
    You were always qualified and they shouldn’t have rejected you the first time. This is an example of what not to do on the hiring managers part.
    - faraaz98 4y ago
      No I was very unprepared, even I could tell
      - flappyeagle 4y ago
        As an interviewer, my job isn't to judge whether a candidate is prepared. My job is to judge whether they can do the job. If the interviewer says "I think you're a good engineer", the next sentence should be "we would like to make you an offer". If I could hire people by reading their mind and understanding their ability, without requiring an ounce of preparation, I would do that.
    - munchbunny 4y ago
      I disagree that the second sentence follows from the first. Interviewing is a game of incomplete information, and you won’t find consensus among programmers for how they would rather be interviewed. It’s entirely possible that the candidate was just off their game that day, or they weren’t “warmed up”. I get noticeably better at interviewing after the first few. It happens, but the interviewer has the information they got, and it’s not possible to totally control for that kind of variance. What hiring managers should be actively minimizing, that most hiring managers I’ve seen do not, is variance that their interview process introduces by, for example, not standardizing and training their interviewers.
  - aartav 4y ago
    I don't this the job description is the complicated puzzle - its people that are the complex puzzle. Even with the most perfectly defined job description, you might have many candidates who "fit" that description, so you have to weigh a lot of other factors which run a huge gamut. Many, many times I've had multiple candidates that are more-or-less the same in terms of experience, technical competence, ability to learn, get shit done, etc - so you start looking at other factors and it can get down to things like communication, personal hygiene, general awkwardness, etc.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Ehhhh I don’t know. I hire for a relatively junior level. I don’t require a lot of specific skills. I just want good reasoning skills and some basic domain familiarity. When I turn someone down, it’s usually an evaluation of their competency. I don’t really get a chance to communicate that, and it would be a bit uncomfortable if I could.
  - missingrib 4y ago
    You may or may not be correct, so it would be fine. Many companies have awful interviewing practices.
ThePadawan 4y ago
> - there's no incentive for them to do it - it's a rejection, they don't have a reason to please you Just want to point out that this really depends on your location - here in Switzerland, the talent pool is vastly smaller compared to the number of companies and open positions. I have in fact, reapplied to companies before that had a very honest and feedback-rich hiring process and simply rejected me because they found a better fit with another candidate. (For full disclosure: I reapplied at that company, was hired, and fired after three months for office political reasons. So do take this story with a generous pinch of salt.)
pydry 4y ago
The discrimination thing is kind of bullshit. A just-so story. It's really not that hard to avoid liability on that. Even so, lot of companies are deficient in explaining to their employees that certain kinds of discrimination are illegal, coz it still happens plenty - almost always during interviews. Remarks about pregnancy do happen. It is more work to provide feedback (which I think is mainly what people hate) but it's better for your hiring reputation, provided the feedback isnt routinely nonsensical - in which case staying quiet probably is better.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  > The discrimination thing is kind of bullshit. A just-so story. It's really not that hard to avoid liability on that. Plus, if a company is worried that revealing their reason for rejecting is legally risky, then maybe they should stop rejecting candidates for legally risky reasons. If they are worried about a lawsuit, they might want to consider that their evaluation process could be either overtly discriminatory, or reliant on people’s personal biases (conscious or unconscious). For example if they reject based simply on some gut feeling, or whether or not they like the person, or the classic bias: “cultural fit”. Basically, reasons they would not want to have to articulate in front of a judge.
  - HowTheStoryEnds 4y ago
    Perception vs reality. What in reality is just an objectively fine reason can be spun into a totally different perspective.
- aartav 4y ago
  I don't think it really is better for your hiring reputation - if it were people would clearly know companies that gave great feedback, but honestly no one ever says "Oh I really like _company_, because they give great post interview feedback"
tablespoon 4y ago
> - it's more work - there's a nonzero chance nobody even saw your application, let alone carefully review it and think about whether you would be a good/bad candidate and why Also if they give reasons, I suppose it's also an invitation to the candidate to rules lawyer why those reasons aren't actually accurate and they should still get the job, which would be even more work for someone to deal with.
trinovantes 4y ago
I think the possibility of a lawsuit is the main reason why feedback is generally not given
- wmeredith 4y ago
  This is a big part of it. I've worked places we couldn't tell people why they were terminated for fear of a lawsuit, much less why someone's application was rejected.
- aartav 4y ago
  There's also avoiding the people who want to debate your reasons.

by jstx1 4y ago

geoduck14 4y ago

- there's no incentive for them to do it - it's a rejection, they don't have a reason to please you Oh, my gosh. The sheer quantity of candidates I reject. I have a complicated puzzle that is poorly described by the Job Description. In the interview, I try to see how you fit I to the existing puzzle. If you don't fit, then you "don't fit". As simple as that. Don't take it personal. Don't re think your life. Just... keep looking.

azmodeus 4y ago
As an employer you are shooting yourself in the foot with a poor job description. Describing it as a complicated puzzle is not an amazing sign.
- tpmoney 4y ago
  They didn’t say the job description was a complicated puzzle, they said the puzzle (in this case implied to be the position trying to be filled) is poorly described by the job description. Which is honestly a pretty accurate summation. There are a lot of things that go into making a candidate a good fit for a position, not all of which can be well captured in a job description
faraaz98 4y ago
Job descriptions shouldnt be a complicated puzzle then. I once interviewed at a company and mid-interview I could see I was struggling, interviewers were super nice though helped me solve the problem they gave. No wonder i didnt get the job, but rejection email said they thought I am a good engineer. I replied if they can tell me where I can improve. They did so politely. Few months down the road, I improved and applied again. I got the job
- flappyeagle 4y ago
  You were always qualified and they shouldn’t have rejected you the first time. This is an example of what not to do on the hiring managers part.
  - faraaz98 4y ago
    No I was very unprepared, even I could tell
    - flappyeagle 4y ago
      As an interviewer, my job isn't to judge whether a candidate is prepared. My job is to judge whether they can do the job. If the interviewer says "I think you're a good engineer", the next sentence should be "we would like to make you an offer". If I could hire people by reading their mind and understanding their ability, without requiring an ounce of preparation, I would do that.
  - munchbunny 4y ago
    I disagree that the second sentence follows from the first. Interviewing is a game of incomplete information, and you won’t find consensus among programmers for how they would rather be interviewed. It’s entirely possible that the candidate was just off their game that day, or they weren’t “warmed up”. I get noticeably better at interviewing after the first few. It happens, but the interviewer has the information they got, and it’s not possible to totally control for that kind of variance. What hiring managers should be actively minimizing, that most hiring managers I’ve seen do not, is variance that their interview process introduces by, for example, not standardizing and training their interviewers.
- aartav 4y ago
  I don't this the job description is the complicated puzzle - its people that are the complex puzzle. Even with the most perfectly defined job description, you might have many candidates who "fit" that description, so you have to weigh a lot of other factors which run a huge gamut. Many, many times I've had multiple candidates that are more-or-less the same in terms of experience, technical competence, ability to learn, get shit done, etc - so you start looking at other factors and it can get down to things like communication, personal hygiene, general awkwardness, etc.
oneoff786 4y ago
Ehhhh I don’t know. I hire for a relatively junior level. I don’t require a lot of specific skills. I just want good reasoning skills and some basic domain familiarity. When I turn someone down, it’s usually an evaluation of their competency. I don’t really get a chance to communicate that, and it would be a bit uncomfortable if I could.
- missingrib 4y ago
  You may or may not be correct, so it would be fine. Many companies have awful interviewing practices.

ThePadawan 4y ago

> - there's no incentive for them to do it - it's a rejection, they don't have a reason to please you Just want to point out that this really depends on your location - here in Switzerland, the talent pool is vastly smaller compared to the number of companies and open positions. I have in fact, reapplied to companies before that had a very honest and feedback-rich hiring process and simply rejected me because they found a better fit with another candidate. (For full disclosure: I reapplied at that company, was hired, and fired after three months for office political reasons. So do take this story with a generous pinch of salt.)

pydry 4y ago

The discrimination thing is kind of bullshit. A just-so story. It's really not that hard to avoid liability on that. Even so, lot of companies are deficient in explaining to their employees that certain kinds of discrimination are illegal, coz it still happens plenty - almost always during interviews. Remarks about pregnancy do happen. It is more work to provide feedback (which I think is mainly what people hate) but it's better for your hiring reputation, provided the feedback isnt routinely nonsensical - in which case staying quiet probably is better.

ryandrake 4y ago
> The discrimination thing is kind of bullshit. A just-so story. It's really not that hard to avoid liability on that. Plus, if a company is worried that revealing their reason for rejecting is legally risky, then maybe they should stop rejecting candidates for legally risky reasons. If they are worried about a lawsuit, they might want to consider that their evaluation process could be either overtly discriminatory, or reliant on people’s personal biases (conscious or unconscious). For example if they reject based simply on some gut feeling, or whether or not they like the person, or the classic bias: “cultural fit”. Basically, reasons they would not want to have to articulate in front of a judge.
- HowTheStoryEnds 4y ago
  Perception vs reality. What in reality is just an objectively fine reason can be spun into a totally different perspective.
aartav 4y ago
I don't think it really is better for your hiring reputation - if it were people would clearly know companies that gave great feedback, but honestly no one ever says "Oh I really like _company_, because they give great post interview feedback"

tablespoon 4y ago

> - it's more work - there's a nonzero chance nobody even saw your application, let alone carefully review it and think about whether you would be a good/bad candidate and why Also if they give reasons, I suppose it's also an invitation to the candidate to rules lawyer why those reasons aren't actually accurate and they should still get the job, which would be even more work for someone to deal with.

trinovantes 4y ago

I think the possibility of a lawsuit is the main reason why feedback is generally not given

wmeredith 4y ago
This is a big part of it. I've worked places we couldn't tell people why they were terminated for fear of a lawsuit, much less why someone's application was rejected.
aartav 4y ago
There's also avoiding the people who want to debate your reasons.