5 ms·

I'm going to start biting my keyboard if I get one more formulaic rejection without anyone telling me why they rejected me. It's infuriating. I've got years of

I'm going to start biting my keyboard if I get one more formulaic rejection without anyone telling me why they rejected me. It's infuriating. I've got years of experience and the right tech stack, but all the applications are going in the trash!

stronglikedan 3y ago
In my case, HR tells me that I'm not allowed to tell applicants why they were rejected. Nothing personal, but my job is more important to me that someone's feelings.
- lfowles 3y ago
  It's not feelings, it's the lack of feedback loop.
- tayo42 3y ago
  I'm starting to think hr is just filled with the dumbest people with no ability to think overall. Fwiw, Microsoft rejected me, annoying..., but, the recruiter actually spent like an entire 30 min call going over the feed back they gave. Somehow they can do it, but other companies can't?
  - bombcar 3y ago
    A recruiter is a third party and has a monetary reason to work with you to get you placed elsewhere. Microsoft HR has no reason to expose themselves to anything that could possibly maybe someday involve a discrimination lawsuit. So why would they allow it?
    - tayo42 3y ago
      What? Companies like Microsoft have their own recruiters.
      - Eumenes 3y ago
        Microsoft uses 100s of third party recruiters/agencies.
    - Roark66 3y ago
      The parent likely meant an internal recruiter, a role distinct from HR (probably much better paid too). It is the job of such people to make you feel OK in hope you apply again for another position with the same company. I worked for few companies that had internal recruiters.
  - richiebful1 3y ago
    Microsoft is so big, they might have an opening somewhere else you can fill. By providing feedback, they're building goodwill
    - tayo42 3y ago
      Yeah that's how it went, you would think most companies want people to view them positively. Except laziness and lack of critical thinking skills leads to useless policies. Here I am on, on a public forum, giving a shout out to MS. How many companies am I shit talking with my friends during their work search too? Like datadog giving me three! leetcode screen questions, then rejecting me without useful feedback. Or the various companies giving multihour take home assignments then giving generic rejections. When the market turns around (or if? it'll turn around right guys?), all those companies that just left a bad impression need workers, which ones will get considered?
      - rglullis 3y ago
        Would you like to take a look at http://cupid.careers http://cupid.careers and go through the quiz? I'd like to know if people in your situation could benefit from the matching score.
        tayo42 3y ago
        Sure just promise to not doxx me when you get my real name. Hah
- highwaylights 3y ago
  Sadly this is interviews now. Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done. Same for references. The best you can realistically hope for now is written confirmation of dates you worked somewhere, your job title, and at a push (maybe) your salary, although I've never once found it's in the prospective employee's best interest to disclose previous salaries. (Depending on where you are in the world your new employer may just be able to get this info from the government anyway or ask for your last payslip).
  - conjectures 3y ago
    Yeah the previous salary thing is a tough one. It's also tough when it's reframed in terms of 'what are your expectations'. I was wondering what the best way to field those questions is.
  - rilindo 3y ago
    > Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done. (Note: I am assuming this is true in the US. This is may not be true in other countries) Job seeking is inherently a confidential activity for many people, as the interviewee want to make sure that their current job is safe before leaving for a new role. To sue a company because they didn't get the role is to put their current role at risk. In addition, the company has a lot more power and resources than the interviewee. They can drag the process out to the point where the interviewee withdraws, runs out of money or settle. Given that, the interviewee has to have significant proof as well as resources and privilege to able to successfully sue the company. All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound.
    - _jal 3y ago
      > All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound. Imagine you are GC and think about it from a risk/reward standpoint. If you let people give feedback, given enough hires, some hiring manager will likely say something that draws a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if it is a reasonable case, that's still time, money and distraction. And what does the company get in return? People who they didn't hire might think slightly better of it. When you model it in terms of corporate incentives, the decision almost makes itself.
- SanjayMehta 3y ago
  I remember when there were no HR departments. They used to be called Personnel and their job was to pay salaries, keep track of vacation time, medical reimbursements and the like. Actual work. Good times.
  - hirundo 3y ago
    Want to travel back in time? Go work for a small company. Our two dozen souls are human resourced by the COO, who hires and fires, and a manager of the basic paperwork. There are no layers to fight through, you just call the boss, and he's refreshingly blunt. But warning, there are fewer places to hide at SmallCo.
  - KineticLensman 3y ago
    > They used to be called Personnel Although back in the day I remember them also being referred to as the Anti-Personnel department.
- iteria 3y ago
  HR has a reason for that. Yes, possibly lawsuits, but also there is a small minority of absolutely crazy people. It's a very small amount of people, but high enough that if you do a decent amount interviews, you will run into these people. When you give these people a reason why you rejected them, they will hound and harass the company in order to "prove" the company is incorrect in their assessment. They're why we can't have nice things.
alexfromapex 3y ago
I used to get mad because I was taking it personally. However, over time, it's become abundantly clear that I'm either overqualified and the interviewers are just not that great or there's a major shortcoming in the interview process. It's sad that it happens so often, but for some reason like many things in the world the interview process is optimizing for the wrong things.
BurningFrog 3y ago
I assume the legal risk is too big. I once got told why over a phone call, and I suspect that's because in California, recording the phone call without consent is not legal. So it would not be allowed as evidence. Needless to say, I am not a lawyer.
Roark66 3y ago
Wow, is that a local/US thing? Having worked for the majority of my career in the UK (and now in Central Europe) I didn't experience many rejections after an interview, but these few I did have I was always told why. Unless you mean, they don't tell you why, when they don't even invite you for an interview. That I found very common, but I think it can be a number of things. From stuff that is completely irrelevant to your suitability as a candidate (they already found someone, but they are unsure that person is going to cut it - it's in their interest to not respond and keep you in suspense for a bit, if the other person quits after a week, they might get back to you), or they currently have approval for one new employee, but they're hoping to get another job approved any day..., there are also recruiters and middle men that just want to build up their candidate DBs. I see lots of the same ads from such companies. Then there are all the "we have a great project paying $5xTheUsual, immediate start", but when you talk to them you find you have to help them win that business first... Such companies profit from just having lots of cvs on file to be able to tell a potential customer: we have 20 people with that skill you need. So, unfortunately not getting a reason for rejection prior to an interview stage is pretty normal.
pikrzyszto 3y ago
I once asked for a feedback, was told that they won't give any. Filed a GDPR request and got all of their e-mails and internal tickets about me and my application. Funnily, they printed this data, scanned to PDF and sent the PDF via e-mail.
- sircastor 3y ago
  Was it insightful? Did it help?
- gregsadetsky 3y ago
  absolutely brilliant! like a mini personal FOIA[0] request. wow. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(Un...
- MPSimmons 3y ago
  oh wow, that's interesting. I am assuming it was European. Do you think what you learned made it worth the effort?
  - pikrzyszto 3y ago
    The effort was zero - I copy-pasted an e-mail template from the internet and volia. Yes, this is in Europe. I think I learned quite a lot, namely: - why I failed the interview (I struggled to produce correct code, the code wasn't very robust and I said it's ok to put it into production) - why I haven't failed the interview (ex. no mention of my English language skills) - which was more valuable for me than the "why I failed" - a fairly good confidence that there's little details omitted - when they submit you a voluntary feedback they may give just the most obvious information. Ofc I didn't get the data about what was said on internal meetings. - some insight into their internal structure, opinions of individual interviews about me etc. I probably burned bridges with that company but after the interview neither party was interested in cooperation so I decided to give it a shot and see what happens. I had to wait exactly 30 (or 14?) days (GDPR deadline) for the feedback to get to my mailbox.
cooperadymas 3y ago
Personally, I hate this too. I once spent over 20 hours interviewing and testing with a popular personal financial tool. Out of over 500 applicants I was one of the final 3. Even that wasn't enough to merit anything beyond a templatized rejection letter, and radio silence when I asked for any information. Professionally, I still hate it, but to some degree I understand it. Forgetting even the matter of additional business spent personalizing rejections, the truth is that most of the time the rejection will be taken personally, feelings will be hurt, and any feedback given won't be actionable anyway. "Sorry, you look good on paper, but your solution to the challenge you was buggy, and you misunderstood the requirements. Go become a better developer." "Sorry, your code was good, but you struggled to convey information to us. It appears you're a terrible communicator and that would cause problems on our team. Maybe some books on the topic would help, but I doubt it." "Sorry, you aren't a good fit for our culture. You're abrasive and rude, and talked to the interviewer like you knew better than them. Quit being a narcissistic jerk." If you're talking about being rejected at the application stage, IME it probably means you didn't follow the instructions completely, you don't actually meet the requirements (remember, it's probably HR or someone non-technical doing the first stage of rejections; they're just driving by checklist, so simple things sometimes get triggered here; if the requirements say "5 years JavaScript experience" and you list "5 years React experience" that might not make it through their filter), or your resume/application needs revising.
- bux93 3y ago
  Your examples presume that the interviewer actually has actionable feedback for you. Many people who interview candidates have no clue what they're doing. I also started out winging it. And I don't see much training being given to new interviewers, apart from being interviewees. The chief mistake is interviewers not giving feedback on the spot to check their assumptions/conclusions. Following procedure, but not actually collaborating with the candidate on their shared objective; finding out whether there's a good fit. On both sides of the table, my advice would be to ensure that the conclusions you're reaching are openly and explicitly put on the table for discussion right there and then.
gregsadetsky 3y ago
I'm not affiliated with them, but it seems like paying for a one time consultation/mock interview through https://interviewing.io/ https://interviewing.io/ might help uncover something useful. It does suck that you have to pay to hear the "other side" i.e. a sort of "Honesty as a Service"... Also, for what it's worth, feel free to reach out (email in profile). I haven't interviewed millions of people, but maybe I can help. And it's always more fun to commiserate with someone.
SamuelAdams 3y ago
The best way I got better at interviewing is being on the other side of the table trying to fill a professional position. The number of resumes you get that just are not a good fit is crazy. The tech stack doesn’t match, the experience is totally different, etc. and then the ones that DO get an interview have wildly different experience because they embellish their resume. If you ever do get a handful of candidates that are all actually good matches, it usually comes down to price and likability. If you’re asking for too high of a salary, it’s not impossible but it is a tough sell if there really are equal candidates. Even if you are a good match it is entirely possible that a team simply liked someone else’s personality and culture fit more.
lelima 3y ago
are they calling you? many companies have an automatic filter for CVs(one person won't read 200+ CV's), I was in the same boat till I used a CV parser, it digest your CV so programs can read it perfectly. Then I was having almost 90% of call backs after sending the CV, I used this one https://www.open-resume.com/ https://www.open-resume.com/

stronglikedan 3y ago

In my case, HR tells me that I'm not allowed to tell applicants why they were rejected. Nothing personal, but my job is more important to me that someone's feelings.

lfowles 3y ago
It's not feelings, it's the lack of feedback loop.
tayo42 3y ago
I'm starting to think hr is just filled with the dumbest people with no ability to think overall. Fwiw, Microsoft rejected me, annoying..., but, the recruiter actually spent like an entire 30 min call going over the feed back they gave. Somehow they can do it, but other companies can't?
- bombcar 3y ago
  A recruiter is a third party and has a monetary reason to work with you to get you placed elsewhere. Microsoft HR has no reason to expose themselves to anything that could possibly maybe someday involve a discrimination lawsuit. So why would they allow it?
  - tayo42 3y ago
    What? Companies like Microsoft have their own recruiters.
    - Eumenes 3y ago
      Microsoft uses 100s of third party recruiters/agencies.
  - Roark66 3y ago
    The parent likely meant an internal recruiter, a role distinct from HR (probably much better paid too). It is the job of such people to make you feel OK in hope you apply again for another position with the same company. I worked for few companies that had internal recruiters.
- richiebful1 3y ago
  Microsoft is so big, they might have an opening somewhere else you can fill. By providing feedback, they're building goodwill
  - tayo42 3y ago
    Yeah that's how it went, you would think most companies want people to view them positively. Except laziness and lack of critical thinking skills leads to useless policies. Here I am on, on a public forum, giving a shout out to MS. How many companies am I shit talking with my friends during their work search too? Like datadog giving me three! leetcode screen questions, then rejecting me without useful feedback. Or the various companies giving multihour take home assignments then giving generic rejections. When the market turns around (or if? it'll turn around right guys?), all those companies that just left a bad impression need workers, which ones will get considered?
    - rglullis 3y ago
      Would you like to take a look at http://cupid.careers http://cupid.careers and go through the quiz? I'd like to know if people in your situation could benefit from the matching score.
      - tayo42 3y ago
        Sure just promise to not doxx me when you get my real name. Hah
highwaylights 3y ago
Sadly this is interviews now. Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done. Same for references. The best you can realistically hope for now is written confirmation of dates you worked somewhere, your job title, and at a push (maybe) your salary, although I've never once found it's in the prospective employee's best interest to disclose previous salaries. (Depending on where you are in the world your new employer may just be able to get this info from the government anyway or ask for your last payslip).
- conjectures 3y ago
  Yeah the previous salary thing is a tough one. It's also tough when it's reframed in terms of 'what are your expectations'. I was wondering what the best way to field those questions is.
- rilindo 3y ago
  > Someone realised that if they just don't give feedback for interviews then they can't say something incriminating that could prove they violated labor laws, then everyone started doing it and now it's just the thing that's done. (Note: I am assuming this is true in the US. This is may not be true in other countries) Job seeking is inherently a confidential activity for many people, as the interviewee want to make sure that their current job is safe before leaving for a new role. To sue a company because they didn't get the role is to put their current role at risk. In addition, the company has a lot more power and resources than the interviewee. They can drag the process out to the point where the interviewee withdraws, runs out of money or settle. Given that, the interviewee has to have significant proof as well as resources and privilege to able to successfully sue the company. All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound.
  - _jal 3y ago
    > All things considering, I don't think the idea of not providing feedback because of legal liabilities is sound. Imagine you are GC and think about it from a risk/reward standpoint. If you let people give feedback, given enough hires, some hiring manager will likely say something that draws a lawsuit. Doesn't matter if it is a reasonable case, that's still time, money and distraction. And what does the company get in return? People who they didn't hire might think slightly better of it. When you model it in terms of corporate incentives, the decision almost makes itself.
SanjayMehta 3y ago
I remember when there were no HR departments. They used to be called Personnel and their job was to pay salaries, keep track of vacation time, medical reimbursements and the like. Actual work. Good times.
- hirundo 3y ago
  Want to travel back in time? Go work for a small company. Our two dozen souls are human resourced by the COO, who hires and fires, and a manager of the basic paperwork. There are no layers to fight through, you just call the boss, and he's refreshingly blunt. But warning, there are fewer places to hide at SmallCo.
- KineticLensman 3y ago
  > They used to be called Personnel Although back in the day I remember them also being referred to as the Anti-Personnel department.
iteria 3y ago
HR has a reason for that. Yes, possibly lawsuits, but also there is a small minority of absolutely crazy people. It's a very small amount of people, but high enough that if you do a decent amount interviews, you will run into these people. When you give these people a reason why you rejected them, they will hound and harass the company in order to "prove" the company is incorrect in their assessment. They're why we can't have nice things.

alexfromapex 3y ago

I used to get mad because I was taking it personally. However, over time, it's become abundantly clear that I'm either overqualified and the interviewers are just not that great or there's a major shortcoming in the interview process. It's sad that it happens so often, but for some reason like many things in the world the interview process is optimizing for the wrong things.

BurningFrog 3y ago

I assume the legal risk is too big. I once got told why over a phone call, and I suspect that's because in California, recording the phone call without consent is not legal. So it would not be allowed as evidence. Needless to say, I am not a lawyer.

Roark66 3y ago

Wow, is that a local/US thing? Having worked for the majority of my career in the UK (and now in Central Europe) I didn't experience many rejections after an interview, but these few I did have I was always told why. Unless you mean, they don't tell you why, when they don't even invite you for an interview. That I found very common, but I think it can be a number of things. From stuff that is completely irrelevant to your suitability as a candidate (they already found someone, but they are unsure that person is going to cut it - it's in their interest to not respond and keep you in suspense for a bit, if the other person quits after a week, they might get back to you), or they currently have approval for one new employee, but they're hoping to get another job approved any day..., there are also recruiters and middle men that just want to build up their candidate DBs. I see lots of the same ads from such companies. Then there are all the "we have a great project paying $5xTheUsual, immediate start", but when you talk to them you find you have to help them win that business first... Such companies profit from just having lots of cvs on file to be able to tell a potential customer: we have 20 people with that skill you need. So, unfortunately not getting a reason for rejection prior to an interview stage is pretty normal.

pikrzyszto 3y ago

I once asked for a feedback, was told that they won't give any. Filed a GDPR request and got all of their e-mails and internal tickets about me and my application. Funnily, they printed this data, scanned to PDF and sent the PDF via e-mail.

sircastor 3y ago
Was it insightful? Did it help?
gregsadetsky 3y ago
absolutely brilliant! like a mini personal FOIA[0] request. wow. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(Un...
MPSimmons 3y ago
oh wow, that's interesting. I am assuming it was European. Do you think what you learned made it worth the effort?
- pikrzyszto 3y ago
  The effort was zero - I copy-pasted an e-mail template from the internet and volia. Yes, this is in Europe. I think I learned quite a lot, namely: - why I failed the interview (I struggled to produce correct code, the code wasn't very robust and I said it's ok to put it into production) - why I haven't failed the interview (ex. no mention of my English language skills) - which was more valuable for me than the "why I failed" - a fairly good confidence that there's little details omitted - when they submit you a voluntary feedback they may give just the most obvious information. Ofc I didn't get the data about what was said on internal meetings. - some insight into their internal structure, opinions of individual interviews about me etc. I probably burned bridges with that company but after the interview neither party was interested in cooperation so I decided to give it a shot and see what happens. I had to wait exactly 30 (or 14?) days (GDPR deadline) for the feedback to get to my mailbox.

cooperadymas 3y ago

Personally, I hate this too. I once spent over 20 hours interviewing and testing with a popular personal financial tool. Out of over 500 applicants I was one of the final 3. Even that wasn't enough to merit anything beyond a templatized rejection letter, and radio silence when I asked for any information. Professionally, I still hate it, but to some degree I understand it. Forgetting even the matter of additional business spent personalizing rejections, the truth is that most of the time the rejection will be taken personally, feelings will be hurt, and any feedback given won't be actionable anyway. "Sorry, you look good on paper, but your solution to the challenge you was buggy, and you misunderstood the requirements. Go become a better developer." "Sorry, your code was good, but you struggled to convey information to us. It appears you're a terrible communicator and that would cause problems on our team. Maybe some books on the topic would help, but I doubt it." "Sorry, you aren't a good fit for our culture. You're abrasive and rude, and talked to the interviewer like you knew better than them. Quit being a narcissistic jerk." If you're talking about being rejected at the application stage, IME it probably means you didn't follow the instructions completely, you don't actually meet the requirements (remember, it's probably HR or someone non-technical doing the first stage of rejections; they're just driving by checklist, so simple things sometimes get triggered here; if the requirements say "5 years JavaScript experience" and you list "5 years React experience" that might not make it through their filter), or your resume/application needs revising.

bux93 3y ago
Your examples presume that the interviewer actually has actionable feedback for you. Many people who interview candidates have no clue what they're doing. I also started out winging it. And I don't see much training being given to new interviewers, apart from being interviewees. The chief mistake is interviewers not giving feedback on the spot to check their assumptions/conclusions. Following procedure, but not actually collaborating with the candidate on their shared objective; finding out whether there's a good fit. On both sides of the table, my advice would be to ensure that the conclusions you're reaching are openly and explicitly put on the table for discussion right there and then.

gregsadetsky 3y ago

I'm not affiliated with them, but it seems like paying for a one time consultation/mock interview through https://interviewing.io/ https://interviewing.io/ might help uncover something useful. It does suck that you have to pay to hear the "other side" i.e. a sort of "Honesty as a Service"... Also, for what it's worth, feel free to reach out (email in profile). I haven't interviewed millions of people, but maybe I can help. And it's always more fun to commiserate with someone.

SamuelAdams 3y ago

The best way I got better at interviewing is being on the other side of the table trying to fill a professional position. The number of resumes you get that just are not a good fit is crazy. The tech stack doesn’t match, the experience is totally different, etc. and then the ones that DO get an interview have wildly different experience because they embellish their resume. If you ever do get a handful of candidates that are all actually good matches, it usually comes down to price and likability. If you’re asking for too high of a salary, it’s not impossible but it is a tough sell if there really are equal candidates. Even if you are a good match it is entirely possible that a team simply liked someone else’s personality and culture fit more.

lelima 3y ago

are they calling you? many companies have an automatic filter for CVs(one person won't read 200+ CV's), I was in the same boat till I used a CV parser, it digest your CV so programs can read it perfectly. Then I was having almost 90% of call backs after sending the CV, I used this one https://www.open-resume.com/ https://www.open-resume.com/