5 ms·

The hidden beauty of recruiting

18 points by darrellsilver 14y ago

hcho 14y ago
>If you talk to hiring managers you’ll hear that they wish there was a way to provide feedback to rejected job applicants No, million times no. Providing feedback to a rejected applicant may open a huge can of worms. If these hiring managers really exist they are putting their employers in a very risky situation.
- darrellsilver 14y ago
  Exactly! They wish there was a way to do it, but know doing so would open a huge can of worms. Hirers want nothing more than increase the quality of candidates they interview, which is why providing a safe way to gather this feedback is so valuable.
- MattRogish 14y ago
  This! Yes, I'd love to give feedback on what wasn't there. But, legally/risk-wise, it's just not worth it. Who knows if the fact that they couldn't write a line of Ruby for a Ruby-on-Rails position could be some reason to sue? Not that they'd win but just the possibility keeps employers from giving even a peep of feedback. Never, ever gonna happen.
  - darrellsilver 14y ago
    Agreed. We hear this a lot. Maybe I should revise the post to be more clear on this point... everyone wants to give this feedback, but it's an HR minefield.
    - fecak 14y ago
      Recruiter here. I think managers do have a careful balance between helping candidates (providing full disclosure as to why they rejected) and potential exposure (being sued or coming across the wrong way), so they tend to err on the side of caution. But having dealt with many managers, they too are in a time crunch, especially if they are being fed lots of unqualified or unvetted candidates (the numbers game you allude to) and also fear the risk. This is more prevalent in the contingency recruiting market. The manager should have the incentive to provide great feedback to the recruiter, as the recruiter will hopefully hit the target better on future candidates if they are aware why their candidates are being rejected. The recruiter has little incentive to share that feedback with candidates other than goodwill and keeping the relationship strong with the candidate. I always try to get feedback from managers for my own purposes and for helping my candidates improve, but it isn't always as easy as you'd think.
      - darrellsilver 14y ago
        Thanks for the insight. I'd definitely love to learn more. Frankly, I'd like to hear a thorough challenge to my central thesis in this essay that "The recruiter has little incentive to share that feedback with candidates other than goodwill and keeping the relationship strong with the candidate." I continue to find that employers want a way to provide more feedback, though are currently prevented from doing so. Someone with more insight into being a successful recruiter surely has a deeper understanding than mine, on this and other issues like the "numbers game" element.
        fecak 14y ago
        I'm happy to provide more insight, but not sure exactly what you are referring to in asking for a challenge to your thesis but then using my quote as your thesis? I may have missed something, clarify and I'm happy to respond. I find it interesting that you find employers want to provide more feedback. A mere 30 seconds before writing this reply to your comment, I received an email from a client saying "We looked at the resume and don't think he is a fit for our team". That's it. If this manager wanted to help the candidate, he could mention what skills are missing. If the manager felt there was a problem with the resume, he could have mentioned that. If the manager wanted to help me hit the target better next time, he could have mentioned what was missing. I think what you are referring to is feedback after interviews mainly, but this very bland, 'not a fit' feedback is exactly what is most commonly provided to recruiters. If given ample free time, managers will provide more detailed feedback, but that usually isn't the case (particularly in the start-up world). I do have clients that are more willing to write a few sentences, but I can tell you that the norm is 'not a fit'. I don't find managers are in any hurry to help candidates do better next time, which does little to improve the overall ecosystem. If a candidate missed questions on a specific area in programming or a concept, that would be helpful for the candidate to know. I wish more managers wanted to provide more feedback, but for now it is a minority.
        darrellsilver 14y ago
        I think we see more engagement from hirers (both the hiring manager and potential colleagues) because we're coming at the process as educators. I've certainly seen some share of "not a fit", but that rate goes down once there's an interview, or even a phone screen.
  - GotAnyMegadeth 14y ago
    Wow, I never realised that feedback could be a case for a law suit... Is this just in the USA or in the UK as well?
    - darrellsilver 14y ago
      Good question. I don't know off hand, but will keep an eye out as we work with more UK employers. If you want to follow up email me at darrell [at] thinkful.com.
- Swizec 14y ago
  As a sometimes job seeker: Screw hiring managers who don't give feedback. I want to know what I did wrong so I can improve. Not giving feedback when people fail is a sure-fire way to make the whole ecosystem worse. In any situation.
  - hcho 14y ago
    If the problem is technical, the candidates get their feedback immediately. Either they themselves know they botched up the question, or they are given the clue via absence of a follow up question. The best thing you could due to salvage such situations is to ask what the right answer is. That not only serves as feedback but also signals that you are willing to know. The feedback you don't get, is almost always about personality. There's no litigation-safe way of saying "Man, you come across as a total douche, I'll pass"
    - dfriedmn 14y ago
      Right, and it's one thing if the problem is, "you're a douche," which frankly requires more than interview feedback to fix. But if the problem is, "you came across as timid," and the problem is strictly about speaking with more confidence, that's a highly fixable problem that you can improve with a reasonable amount of practice.
  - colmvp 14y ago
    Exactly. How is a rejected applicant supposed to improve if they don't have any feedback?
    - droithomme 14y ago
      Here are how the rejected applicants can improve: 1. Stop lying on the CV, about past experience, and about skills. 2. Stop being a jerk, learn some social skills. 3. Stop being incompetent, learn to actually build quality products. No one that has a problem with any of those is interested in fixing it though, and in general being a liar, a jerk and incompetent isn't something that can be fixed anyway, so feedback won't do any good. If you are competent, truthful and not a jerk, you'll be getting job offers. If you aren't, you know what the problem is and how to fix it.
- protonfish 14y ago
  What can of worms are you talking about? The one where the hiring manager admits on record that he or she rejected a candidate for unethical or illegal reasons opening the company to a lawsuit? Or is it the one where your external recruiter uses that feedback to coach the next applicant to trick you into hiring an incompetent?
  - hcho 14y ago
    Former. The latter is quite easy to spot and deal with.
  - dfriedmn 14y ago
    Coaching is less likely to mask incompetence than reveal competence.
- viscanti 14y ago
  There's a difference between wishing and doing. They wish there was a way to give feedback while avoiding the trouble you're pointing out. Since there's not, they're just left wishing instead of doing. Hiring managers work in a very human field. They often run into the same issues with candidates, and wish that they could just give a bit of human input, to help someone else. The candidate might not be a good fit for that job, but if he/she is unknowingly self-sabotaging in interviews, it would be great to be able to point that out. Since the potential trouble outweighs the benefits, they're left only wishing.
  - darrellsilver 14y ago
    Definitely – This is exactly what we're seeing. I think people are more open to feedback when working with Thinkful because we're educators not recruiters.
- fecak 14y ago
  Recruiter here, came to say this. About 90% of hiring managers will tell recruiters 'good candidate but not a fit at this time' and nothing more, as any additional information could lead to all kinds of problems (cries of ageism is a current favorite). I'll always ask for more feedback from my clients, and most of them will go into more detail (I refuse to work with clients that are not willing to provide at least some info on rejections), but there is little incentive for hiring managers to provide full details on their reasoning.
arbuge 14y ago
"...hiring managers are by definition experts at hiring" Ummm, I don't think so. Many if not most companies suck at hiring. If you get hiring right, you just nailed the most important factor* to building a great company, and great companies are the exception, not the rule. *arguably, the only factor. The rest is what the people you hired do.
- bunderbunder 14y ago
  They may not be experts at making the best hiring decisions. Whether they are or not isn't really important. What's important is that when it comes to knowing what hiring managers do and do not like to see in an applicant, they're it. And that's exactly what someone who's job hunting wants to know. They're not out to meet some Platonic ideal for the best possible candidate for XYZ position. They're just looking to get a job.

18 points by darrellsilver 14y ago

hcho 14y ago

>If you talk to hiring managers you’ll hear that they wish there was a way to provide feedback to rejected job applicants No, million times no. Providing feedback to a rejected applicant may open a huge can of worms. If these hiring managers really exist they are putting their employers in a very risky situation.

darrellsilver 14y ago
Exactly! They wish there was a way to do it, but know doing so would open a huge can of worms. Hirers want nothing more than increase the quality of candidates they interview, which is why providing a safe way to gather this feedback is so valuable.
MattRogish 14y ago
This! Yes, I'd love to give feedback on what wasn't there. But, legally/risk-wise, it's just not worth it. Who knows if the fact that they couldn't write a line of Ruby for a Ruby-on-Rails position could be some reason to sue? Not that they'd win but just the possibility keeps employers from giving even a peep of feedback. Never, ever gonna happen.
- darrellsilver 14y ago
  Agreed. We hear this a lot. Maybe I should revise the post to be more clear on this point... everyone wants to give this feedback, but it's an HR minefield.
  - fecak 14y ago
    Recruiter here. I think managers do have a careful balance between helping candidates (providing full disclosure as to why they rejected) and potential exposure (being sued or coming across the wrong way), so they tend to err on the side of caution. But having dealt with many managers, they too are in a time crunch, especially if they are being fed lots of unqualified or unvetted candidates (the numbers game you allude to) and also fear the risk. This is more prevalent in the contingency recruiting market. The manager should have the incentive to provide great feedback to the recruiter, as the recruiter will hopefully hit the target better on future candidates if they are aware why their candidates are being rejected. The recruiter has little incentive to share that feedback with candidates other than goodwill and keeping the relationship strong with the candidate. I always try to get feedback from managers for my own purposes and for helping my candidates improve, but it isn't always as easy as you'd think.
    - darrellsilver 14y ago
      Thanks for the insight. I'd definitely love to learn more. Frankly, I'd like to hear a thorough challenge to my central thesis in this essay that "The recruiter has little incentive to share that feedback with candidates other than goodwill and keeping the relationship strong with the candidate." I continue to find that employers want a way to provide more feedback, though are currently prevented from doing so. Someone with more insight into being a successful recruiter surely has a deeper understanding than mine, on this and other issues like the "numbers game" element.
      - fecak 14y ago
        I'm happy to provide more insight, but not sure exactly what you are referring to in asking for a challenge to your thesis but then using my quote as your thesis? I may have missed something, clarify and I'm happy to respond. I find it interesting that you find employers want to provide more feedback. A mere 30 seconds before writing this reply to your comment, I received an email from a client saying "We looked at the resume and don't think he is a fit for our team". That's it. If this manager wanted to help the candidate, he could mention what skills are missing. If the manager felt there was a problem with the resume, he could have mentioned that. If the manager wanted to help me hit the target better next time, he could have mentioned what was missing. I think what you are referring to is feedback after interviews mainly, but this very bland, 'not a fit' feedback is exactly what is most commonly provided to recruiters. If given ample free time, managers will provide more detailed feedback, but that usually isn't the case (particularly in the start-up world). I do have clients that are more willing to write a few sentences, but I can tell you that the norm is 'not a fit'. I don't find managers are in any hurry to help candidates do better next time, which does little to improve the overall ecosystem. If a candidate missed questions on a specific area in programming or a concept, that would be helpful for the candidate to know. I wish more managers wanted to provide more feedback, but for now it is a minority.
        darrellsilver 14y ago
        I think we see more engagement from hirers (both the hiring manager and potential colleagues) because we're coming at the process as educators. I've certainly seen some share of "not a fit", but that rate goes down once there's an interview, or even a phone screen.
- GotAnyMegadeth 14y ago
  Wow, I never realised that feedback could be a case for a law suit... Is this just in the USA or in the UK as well?
  - darrellsilver 14y ago
    Good question. I don't know off hand, but will keep an eye out as we work with more UK employers. If you want to follow up email me at darrell [at] thinkful.com.
Swizec 14y ago
As a sometimes job seeker: Screw hiring managers who don't give feedback. I want to know what I did wrong so I can improve. Not giving feedback when people fail is a sure-fire way to make the whole ecosystem worse. In any situation.
- hcho 14y ago
  If the problem is technical, the candidates get their feedback immediately. Either they themselves know they botched up the question, or they are given the clue via absence of a follow up question. The best thing you could due to salvage such situations is to ask what the right answer is. That not only serves as feedback but also signals that you are willing to know. The feedback you don't get, is almost always about personality. There's no litigation-safe way of saying "Man, you come across as a total douche, I'll pass"
  - dfriedmn 14y ago
    Right, and it's one thing if the problem is, "you're a douche," which frankly requires more than interview feedback to fix. But if the problem is, "you came across as timid," and the problem is strictly about speaking with more confidence, that's a highly fixable problem that you can improve with a reasonable amount of practice.
- colmvp 14y ago
  Exactly. How is a rejected applicant supposed to improve if they don't have any feedback?
  - droithomme 14y ago
    Here are how the rejected applicants can improve: 1. Stop lying on the CV, about past experience, and about skills. 2. Stop being a jerk, learn some social skills. 3. Stop being incompetent, learn to actually build quality products. No one that has a problem with any of those is interested in fixing it though, and in general being a liar, a jerk and incompetent isn't something that can be fixed anyway, so feedback won't do any good. If you are competent, truthful and not a jerk, you'll be getting job offers. If you aren't, you know what the problem is and how to fix it.
protonfish 14y ago
What can of worms are you talking about? The one where the hiring manager admits on record that he or she rejected a candidate for unethical or illegal reasons opening the company to a lawsuit? Or is it the one where your external recruiter uses that feedback to coach the next applicant to trick you into hiring an incompetent?
- hcho 14y ago
  Former. The latter is quite easy to spot and deal with.
- dfriedmn 14y ago
  Coaching is less likely to mask incompetence than reveal competence.
viscanti 14y ago
There's a difference between wishing and doing. They wish there was a way to give feedback while avoiding the trouble you're pointing out. Since there's not, they're just left wishing instead of doing. Hiring managers work in a very human field. They often run into the same issues with candidates, and wish that they could just give a bit of human input, to help someone else. The candidate might not be a good fit for that job, but if he/she is unknowingly self-sabotaging in interviews, it would be great to be able to point that out. Since the potential trouble outweighs the benefits, they're left only wishing.
- darrellsilver 14y ago
  Definitely – This is exactly what we're seeing. I think people are more open to feedback when working with Thinkful because we're educators not recruiters.
fecak 14y ago
Recruiter here, came to say this. About 90% of hiring managers will tell recruiters 'good candidate but not a fit at this time' and nothing more, as any additional information could lead to all kinds of problems (cries of ageism is a current favorite). I'll always ask for more feedback from my clients, and most of them will go into more detail (I refuse to work with clients that are not willing to provide at least some info on rejections), but there is little incentive for hiring managers to provide full details on their reasoning.

arbuge 14y ago

"...hiring managers are by definition experts at hiring" Ummm, I don't think so. Many if not most companies suck at hiring. If you get hiring right, you just nailed the most important factor* to building a great company, and great companies are the exception, not the rule. *arguably, the only factor. The rest is what the people you hired do.

bunderbunder 14y ago
They may not be experts at making the best hiring decisions. Whether they are or not isn't really important. What's important is that when it comes to knowing what hiring managers do and do not like to see in an applicant, they're it. And that's exactly what someone who's job hunting wants to know. They're not out to meet some Platonic ideal for the best possible candidate for XYZ position. They're just looking to get a job.