5 ms·

"So, here is my answer to the question, “What do we owe the people who we do not hire?” 1. Information on where they stand. 2. An explanation of what t

"So, here is my answer to the question, “What do we owe the people who we do not hire?” 1. Information on where they stand. 2. An explanation of what they are doing wrong. 3. Help improving." Nope! You don't owe them those things. Good for the author that they tried it and it worked out, but it's not a general rule. Everything works smoother in lots of different parts of life if all parties understand the concept of a Clean No. Not "You can say No but then you still owe me such and such". Just "No." Anything beyond that is a gift.

slagfart 12y ago
Works out smoother for who? The candidate? Hardly. You've short-changed them after you've wasted their time. Works out smoother for you? I think you're losing a great chance to build networks and keep potentially great resources in touch. I don't think that a modern hiring manager can afford to think this way, especially when tech wages are so high.
- seagreen 12y ago
  Man, I wish we had better discussion tools than pure text:( The author (1) took an action in a specific situation, and (2) generalized that action out to a broader rule covering hiring in general. The author's actions in (1) were absolutely correct (especially after giving the applicants a three week course!). The author's generalization (2) is just wrong.
blazespin 12y ago
Legally, yes, morally no.
protl 12y ago
You've spent the time evaluating a candidate enough to make a decision not to hire them, you know why you aren't going to hire them, the only extra work is passing that information on to them.
- bbcbasic 12y ago
  What about the great candidate that you couldn't hire because you only have X positions? If you help those candidate by referring them to a job at another company then both the candidates and the other company will love you. Months or years down the track, when you need to hire more, you will have a list of good candidates, and companies that may refer candidates back to you.
  - smacktoward 12y ago
    > What about the great candidate that you couldn't hire because you only have X positions? Life's tough all over, you know? I mean, if you know of an opening they would be good for off the top of your head, sure, go ahead and refer them. But you're not obligated to go find them that opening.
    - bbcbasic 12y ago
      Of course you are not obligated. However if I ran a company I would have an eye on both the short term and the long term. It is good for the long term interests of the company to be loved (by customers, employees and the community). Doing very cool things for people, especially when it takes little effort or money, is a great investment to create goodwill in the future.
      - eropple 12y ago
        Agreed. Heck, you know what I do in interviews when I don't want a job? "I don't think I'm the right fit, but here's somebody I know who might be." Or even, if I don't have anyone offhand, "here's the name and number of a recruiter I personally trust who I think can feed you applicants." I've called around, too, when I didn't think somebody was the right fit for me but was obviously worth hiring somewhere. I didn't go for "low-hanging fruit," I decided that, yes, the world needs this person working in an excellent and rewarding job, and I made it happen. Being good to people is just so easy, but so many people hide behind "business transactions" as if that's a reason to turn their back on somebody. Be a fuckin' person, would you, guys?
computerjunkie 12y ago
Lets talk about a simple example. You apply for a visa to X country for a special occasion (eg; brothers wedding, graduation ceremony et.al). Two weeks later, you get a response saying "No", just no. Will you be satisfied that you never got any feedback to why it was refused, what you did wrong and what to do to fix it? Feedback, be it good or bad is crucial. I, myself appreciate this feedback, especially in this scenario the author is talking about. How am I supposed to improve my self when I don't even know what I am doing wrong?
- seagreen 12y ago
  Feedback is extremely important. So important, in fact, that you shouldn't rely on _deeply_ compromised sources for it. People who have just rejected you will never be reliable sources for feedback (on average). That's what friends, confidants, and inside sources are for.
- math0ne 12y ago
  Funny enough thats how visa work in the US, you only get to know why they said no if you appeal...
codyb 12y ago
To be fair, a clean no is a little easier when people haven't invested three weeks of their lives into learning and developing solutions to problems you've given them. I have a feeling this worked out for all parties because who knows how they would have chosen hires otherwise? In this way, as the article states, they got literally the cream of the crop as basically elected by the crop. That's pretty sweet. And in return, for the crops contributions, they got some free advertisement for their work by being a part of the groups, learning new languages, solutions, and theories. Had their interview process been less intense then I believe a clean no would certainly have been appropriate. My one buddy, this is anecdotal of course, has a biology (or some sort of major like that) B.S. and can't get a job at all. I remember him telling me one time that after sending out so many questionnaires and e-mails and making so many phone calls that very often people wouldn't even reply. He told me that one time he got a response that said "We're sorry but we're considering other people" and he actually responded "Thank you so much for the closure." In that case, it might seem that you owe people at least the clean no!
smacktoward 12y ago
I would say you absolutely do owe them #1 -- since you've asked them to give up their time working with you to see if they're appropriate, you owe it to them to not waste that time by stringing them along with endless irrelevant meetings and document requests and "we're still working on it" non-responses. Respect their time: evaluate them, make your decision, and move on. #2 is more discretionary. Letting someone exactly why you chose not to hire them is a nice thing to do, since it helps them sharpen their prospects for the next gig they go after. But the bottom line of what they're looking for from you is (as you state) a "yes" or "no," not a comprehensive review of their life choices to date. #3 is even more discretionary, to the point where (to be blunt) I find it completely baffling. Interviewing a job applicant is entering into a very specific business transaction with them -- they agree to present their qualifications and answer your questions, you agree to review them and decide if they meet the needs of the open position. They're not entitled to anything beyond that from you, and I doubt any reasonable person would expect anything beyond that from you. At this point you're just creating work for yourself.
- midnightclubbed 12y ago
  Yes yes and yes. On #2 if a candidate gets to a technical interview they are fairly likely to know if they crashed and burned or not. If they are not right for some other issue (they didn't communicate clearly, were rude, dwelt on negatives about previous employers) then there is not always a professional way to say it other than a straight NO. A decent candidate will learn from difficult questions and things they tripped up on. If you are acting professionally, asking pertinent questions and responding to the candidates answers then you are providing all the help they should need to nail their next opportunity.
  - namelezz 12y ago
    "providing all the help they should need to nail their next opportunity". Too bad most interviewers do not care that much to go that far due to legal risks, especially here in US.
    - midnightclubbed 12y ago

slagfart 12y ago

Works out smoother for who? The candidate? Hardly. You've short-changed them after you've wasted their time. Works out smoother for you? I think you're losing a great chance to build networks and keep potentially great resources in touch. I don't think that a modern hiring manager can afford to think this way, especially when tech wages are so high.

seagreen 12y ago
Man, I wish we had better discussion tools than pure text:( The author (1) took an action in a specific situation, and (2) generalized that action out to a broader rule covering hiring in general. The author's actions in (1) were absolutely correct (especially after giving the applicants a three week course!). The author's generalization (2) is just wrong.

blazespin 12y ago

Legally, yes, morally no.

protl 12y ago

You've spent the time evaluating a candidate enough to make a decision not to hire them, you know why you aren't going to hire them, the only extra work is passing that information on to them.

bbcbasic 12y ago
What about the great candidate that you couldn't hire because you only have X positions? If you help those candidate by referring them to a job at another company then both the candidates and the other company will love you. Months or years down the track, when you need to hire more, you will have a list of good candidates, and companies that may refer candidates back to you.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  > What about the great candidate that you couldn't hire because you only have X positions? Life's tough all over, you know? I mean, if you know of an opening they would be good for off the top of your head, sure, go ahead and refer them. But you're not obligated to go find them that opening.
  - bbcbasic 12y ago
    Of course you are not obligated. However if I ran a company I would have an eye on both the short term and the long term. It is good for the long term interests of the company to be loved (by customers, employees and the community). Doing very cool things for people, especially when it takes little effort or money, is a great investment to create goodwill in the future.
    - eropple 12y ago
      Agreed. Heck, you know what I do in interviews when I don't want a job? "I don't think I'm the right fit, but here's somebody I know who might be." Or even, if I don't have anyone offhand, "here's the name and number of a recruiter I personally trust who I think can feed you applicants." I've called around, too, when I didn't think somebody was the right fit for me but was obviously worth hiring somewhere. I didn't go for "low-hanging fruit," I decided that, yes, the world needs this person working in an excellent and rewarding job, and I made it happen. Being good to people is just so easy, but so many people hide behind "business transactions" as if that's a reason to turn their back on somebody. Be a fuckin' person, would you, guys?

computerjunkie 12y ago

Lets talk about a simple example. You apply for a visa to X country for a special occasion (eg; brothers wedding, graduation ceremony et.al). Two weeks later, you get a response saying "No", just no. Will you be satisfied that you never got any feedback to why it was refused, what you did wrong and what to do to fix it? Feedback, be it good or bad is crucial. I, myself appreciate this feedback, especially in this scenario the author is talking about. How am I supposed to improve my self when I don't even know what I am doing wrong?

seagreen 12y ago
Feedback is extremely important. So important, in fact, that you shouldn't rely on _deeply_ compromised sources for it. People who have just rejected you will never be reliable sources for feedback (on average). That's what friends, confidants, and inside sources are for.
math0ne 12y ago
Funny enough thats how visa work in the US, you only get to know why they said no if you appeal...

codyb 12y ago

To be fair, a clean no is a little easier when people haven't invested three weeks of their lives into learning and developing solutions to problems you've given them. I have a feeling this worked out for all parties because who knows how they would have chosen hires otherwise? In this way, as the article states, they got literally the cream of the crop as basically elected by the crop. That's pretty sweet. And in return, for the crops contributions, they got some free advertisement for their work by being a part of the groups, learning new languages, solutions, and theories. Had their interview process been less intense then I believe a clean no would certainly have been appropriate. My one buddy, this is anecdotal of course, has a biology (or some sort of major like that) B.S. and can't get a job at all. I remember him telling me one time that after sending out so many questionnaires and e-mails and making so many phone calls that very often people wouldn't even reply. He told me that one time he got a response that said "We're sorry but we're considering other people" and he actually responded "Thank you so much for the closure." In that case, it might seem that you owe people at least the clean no!

smacktoward 12y ago

I would say you absolutely do owe them #1 -- since you've asked them to give up their time working with you to see if they're appropriate, you owe it to them to not waste that time by stringing them along with endless irrelevant meetings and document requests and "we're still working on it" non-responses. Respect their time: evaluate them, make your decision, and move on. #2 is more discretionary. Letting someone exactly why you chose not to hire them is a nice thing to do, since it helps them sharpen their prospects for the next gig they go after. But the bottom line of what they're looking for from you is (as you state) a "yes" or "no," not a comprehensive review of their life choices to date. #3 is even more discretionary, to the point where (to be blunt) I find it completely baffling. Interviewing a job applicant is entering into a very specific business transaction with them -- they agree to present their qualifications and answer your questions, you agree to review them and decide if they meet the needs of the open position. They're not entitled to anything beyond that from you, and I doubt any reasonable person would expect anything beyond that from you. At this point you're just creating work for yourself.

midnightclubbed 12y ago
Yes yes and yes. On #2 if a candidate gets to a technical interview they are fairly likely to know if they crashed and burned or not. If they are not right for some other issue (they didn't communicate clearly, were rude, dwelt on negatives about previous employers) then there is not always a professional way to say it other than a straight NO. A decent candidate will learn from difficult questions and things they tripped up on. If you are acting professionally, asking pertinent questions and responding to the candidates answers then you are providing all the help they should need to nail their next opportunity.
- namelezz 12y ago
  "providing all the help they should need to nail their next opportunity". Too bad most interviewers do not care that much to go that far due to legal risks, especially here in US.
  - midnightclubbed 12y ago