3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.