4 ms·

It is absolutely not the same in Europe. Maybe it depends on the country. In Germany, you are expected to give honest (and sometimes brutal) feedback, but alway

It is absolutely not the same in Europe. Maybe it depends on the country. In Germany, you are expected to give honest (and sometimes brutal) feedback, but always with a way to improve in mind. But the idea of taking a company to court for something like this in Germany is laughable.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>It is absolutely not the same in Europe. It is my experience across 4 EU countries and 30+ interviews. If it doesn't match your own experience there's nothing I can do about it. >In Germany, you are expected to give honest (and sometimes brutal) feedback, but always with a way to improve in mind. You are expected by ... law? In which case it's a legal requirement and not an expectation. Or expected by ... candidates? Also, the devil is in the details as German culture and language is often designed to cleverly camouflage negative feedback as neutral or positive to avoid lawsuits, so you can definitely have generic cookie cutter rejection messages that legally qualify as "honest" like for example in your Arbeitszeugnis. How would you legally challenge that if otherwise? Do you sue the company because you feel like their feedback wasn't brutally honest as per your expectations as it was too generic and "nice sounding" and had nothing bad to say about you? IMHO you choose a bad example as German corporate culture is not as "brutally honest" as you portray it to be, quite the opposite, it's just very good at pretending to be honest. From my personal experience across several countries, I've noticed the more difficult it is to fire someone and the more anti-discrimination laws exist in that country, then the less honest and more generic your feedback will be, if you get any feedback at all and it's not a generic automated rejection.
- aestetix 3y ago
  I chose the example I have experience with. I don't have experience with other EU countries, so I can't comment on those. I also don't have experience with massive large companies, so maybe this is a problem of scale rather than culture. Although it does seem like smaller American companies have the same problems.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    It's not that complicated. In no countries do companies want to spend staff time and effort and risk lability by giving tailored feedback to people they won't hire anyway. In short, it's not worth it for them, it's that simple. Sometimes they do, but that's very rare nowadays. I think companies were more willing in the past, but all it takes is one angry rejected candidate with a chip on his shoulder and a lawyer on speed-dial, to change that company's culture on "honest feedback" forever. It's why we can't have nice things, there will always be someone to abuse the system and take it down with him.
    - aestetix 3y ago
      > In no countries do companies want to spend staff time and effort and risk lability by giving tailored feedback to people they won't hire anyway. Actually, it's not that hard. Provided you have had a discussion with your team on why not to hire the candate, it's easy to send them a short summary without revealing too much information. I should clarify, I don't mean this for every candidate. Just for those who have gotten pretty far into the process.
      - andsoitis 3y ago
        There is still the calculus of why bother? There are legitimate reasons (you want rejected candidates to still have a good impression of the company, you think the feedback could help them improve and want them to interview again in the future, you want to include them in your professional network, etc.) but I think it is best if that is an intentional choice.
      - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        >Actually, it's not that hard. You underestimate how lazy some companies are when it comes to non-billable hours/tasks. The question on their end is "why bother, what's in it for us?". >Provided you have had a discussion with your team on why not to hire the candidate, it's easy to send them a short summary without revealing too much information. That's the problem, it's NOT easy to send feedback that's truthful yet at the same time is 100% iron clad against any potential expressions that might be interpreted as discriminatory. Engineers are not good at formulating such things and their bluntness is a liability. Which is why engineers are left with the technical part, and the final candidate-feedback communication and rejection is left to the HR who's main job is eliminating employee/candidate liability for the company, so they usually take the route that makes their job easier and send the same generic message to everyone, especially that in many companies HR is understaffed.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>It is absolutely not the same in Europe. It is my experience across 4 EU countries and 30+ interviews. If it doesn't match your own experience there's nothing I can do about it. >In Germany, you are expected to give honest (and sometimes brutal) feedback, but always with a way to improve in mind. You are expected by ... law? In which case it's a legal requirement and not an expectation. Or expected by ... candidates? Also, the devil is in the details as German culture and language is often designed to cleverly camouflage negative feedback as neutral or positive to avoid lawsuits, so you can definitely have generic cookie cutter rejection messages that legally qualify as "honest" like for example in your Arbeitszeugnis. How would you legally challenge that if otherwise? Do you sue the company because you feel like their feedback wasn't brutally honest as per your expectations as it was too generic and "nice sounding" and had nothing bad to say about you? IMHO you choose a bad example as German corporate culture is not as "brutally honest" as you portray it to be, quite the opposite, it's just very good at pretending to be honest. From my personal experience across several countries, I've noticed the more difficult it is to fire someone and the more anti-discrimination laws exist in that country, then the less honest and more generic your feedback will be, if you get any feedback at all and it's not a generic automated rejection.

aestetix 3y ago
I chose the example I have experience with. I don't have experience with other EU countries, so I can't comment on those. I also don't have experience with massive large companies, so maybe this is a problem of scale rather than culture. Although it does seem like smaller American companies have the same problems.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  It's not that complicated. In no countries do companies want to spend staff time and effort and risk lability by giving tailored feedback to people they won't hire anyway. In short, it's not worth it for them, it's that simple. Sometimes they do, but that's very rare nowadays. I think companies were more willing in the past, but all it takes is one angry rejected candidate with a chip on his shoulder and a lawyer on speed-dial, to change that company's culture on "honest feedback" forever. It's why we can't have nice things, there will always be someone to abuse the system and take it down with him.
  - aestetix 3y ago
    > In no countries do companies want to spend staff time and effort and risk lability by giving tailored feedback to people they won't hire anyway. Actually, it's not that hard. Provided you have had a discussion with your team on why not to hire the candate, it's easy to send them a short summary without revealing too much information. I should clarify, I don't mean this for every candidate. Just for those who have gotten pretty far into the process.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      There is still the calculus of why bother? There are legitimate reasons (you want rejected candidates to still have a good impression of the company, you think the feedback could help them improve and want them to interview again in the future, you want to include them in your professional network, etc.) but I think it is best if that is an intentional choice.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >Actually, it's not that hard. You underestimate how lazy some companies are when it comes to non-billable hours/tasks. The question on their end is "why bother, what's in it for us?". >Provided you have had a discussion with your team on why not to hire the candidate, it's easy to send them a short summary without revealing too much information. That's the problem, it's NOT easy to send feedback that's truthful yet at the same time is 100% iron clad against any potential expressions that might be interpreted as discriminatory. Engineers are not good at formulating such things and their bluntness is a liability. Which is why engineers are left with the technical part, and the final candidate-feedback communication and rejection is left to the HR who's main job is eliminating employee/candidate liability for the company, so they usually take the route that makes their job easier and send the same generic message to everyone, especially that in many companies HR is understaffed.