How to reject a job candidate without being an asshole
nathanmarz.com
nathanmarz.com
There are so many things you can't say or ask in an interview, that a lot of companies that are big enough to have an HR person or department will require a very generic rejection letter just to be sure they don't provide grounds for a lawsuit.
1. I don't reject candidates -- I choose a different candidate.
2. The more they went through the process, the longer (and better) the letter. Rejected application, short thank you for applying. If you came for two interviews, but then we went with someone else -- I write a longer letter with references to the meetings.
3. Good candidates that we didn't hire (because another was better) are invited into my personal network. I recommend them to others, I invite them to dev events, etc. I give non-specific-to-our-interview job hunting advice. We'll have openings at some point.
4. I do the same for candidates that are just not a fit (they do X, we need Y). I might never hire them, but I have a personal goal to know every good developer within commute distance of my company (we live in a low population area).
If candidates know this is how you conduct the interview process, it seems very positive and always keeps the door open.
In other words, your signature does not provide a lot of legal security
When I worked for "MegaCorp" we didn't give any feedback voluntarily but if a candidate asked me directly I would let them know. I frequently hired junior engineers* and felt almost a responsibility to give them some input, particularly if their issue was technical. If they were just an ass, I'd likely stick to the company line and not say anything.
* I found most senior engineers are pretty well aware of their deficiencies and almost never would ask for feedback.
If you could (and it was binding), HR departments would try to require such waivers.
If you haven't read it, I really recommend spending a few minutes reading it. It doesn't just apply to the hiring process and there are cases for drug use, religious accommodations, acting on genetic information (really), etc.
I can certainly understand why people would prefer to send a generic rejection letter rather than list reasons, any of which may or may not trigger some clause in one of the relevant laws.
Back in the days of unrestrained freedom of association, employers could afford to be direct about their reasons for hiring decisions. A rejection (or any other employment-related decision) could be based on race, sex, age, ethnicity, disability, or even just disliking someone for no good reason. This changed with the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made it illegal to make employment decisions based on any one of several prohibited bases, including race and sex. The effect of that Act and its progeny throughout the United States was to curtail freedom of association by declaring that public policy made it repugnant to allow individuals to engage in invidious discrimination against discrete and insular minorities who needed special protection to prevent their being abused. While this curtailed a form of unrestricted freedom that had theretofore prevailed in society, only a very few opposed it or saw it as anything other than a great social advancement.
Once the law began to govern such relations, however, formality inevitably took hold and never let go. Without formality, (a) people could say the wrong things, (b) people could say innocent things that could be twisted into seemingly wrong things, (c) people (following casual exchanges) could make things up about what was said, even if employer representatives had in fact acquitted themselves properly, (d) people could compile statistics and find discrimination in any form of pattern or practice used by an employer even in the absence of overt discriminatory intent by the employer's agents, making it perilous to document explicit reasons too explicitly as a matter of routine practice (e) and people could do wrong things in spite of company policies to the contrary and against the wishes of company management just because, people being people, they can do unpredictable things.
In addition to discrimination, the law expanded to further curtail the grounds upon which an employer could choose not to associate with any prospective employee. If an employer adopted policies that were deemed "against public policy" for any reason, or if an employer permitted its employees to sexually harass others, or to retaliate against a person who had complained of company wrongdoing, liability lay in wait for the unsuspecting employer.
Now take all this and throw it into a mix that depends on a standard of proof that something was "more likely than not" to have occurred, and leave it to a jury to weigh conflicting testimony and other evidence - a jury that may well have it out for big company defendants - and you are left with an existential mess for any employers who don't immediately and completely take serious control over employment procedures in their company. Throw in liability exposure arising out of class action as a vehicle for redress (also new to the mix since the 1960s), and you liability risks become paramount over all else. And so everything gets assigned over to HR, leaving it entirely impersonal and sanitized: all in writing, all vague or non-committal, all positively de-humanizing.
But what is a modern employer to do? Or at least a big company employer that cannot rely on the discretion of many hundreds or even thousands of individuals to know all the rules, to apply them consistently and correctly, and to avoid being set up legally by some who would attempt to ensnare them?
Society has gained greatly from its laws against invidious discrimination but such laws have come at a cost, and the cost is precisely that identified by the author of this piece. People no longer can just be themselves in relating to one another in many parts of the workplace but need instead to be hyper-cautious and impersonal. Whatever good may have come from the positive side of these laws (and this has been considerable), this is a real price to pay on the downside.
Fortunately, in most small company situations, people can afford to exercise much more discretion than they can in large corporations. I think this is where the author is coming from and I too commend him for it. Directness and transparency are outstanding qualities. If the situation is small and controlled, and the people involved have the wits and discretion to avoid obvious legal wrongs and traps, there is much to be gained in building the sort of goodwill that you do by treating people decently even as you might be rejecting them as part of the interview process.
Recently I quit my job and put myself out there again. One company employs headhunters and has a very well-known developer in their employ. So at the time I was pretty chuffed to line up an interview, figuring I had no risk of "slamming into the ceiling" at all. I already had two offers in front of me, but I figured it was worth pursuing.
The best way I could describe the interview is if you were walking about as a child and saw an action movie hero that your admired -- and watched him punch out a six year old that happened to be in his way. Before he interviewed me the group manager asked what blogs I read, and I rifled them off with my thoughts on them. One I had mentioned that I didn't read, but that I was aware that he was attempting to make a name for himself by making more complex topics accessible to Joe average. Before the manager left he sternly warned me that if I were to mention that name in front of this individual, the interview would end immediately.
The fellow himself was abrupt, intimidating, and rather smug. I've interviewed hundreds of people, so I can sympathize to an extent regarding the monotony of asking the same questions over and over, but I was able to gauge from other team members that he simply wasn't having a bad day, but that's how he is to folks outside of his circle.
The recruiter had me come back in person to say that I was considered brilliant technically, but they would pass. She couldn't figure out why, so I mentioned that he gave pretty clear feedback on twitter, and it's not the first time he's done it. I pulled out my phone to prove it.
The recruiter was a superbly nice person, the type that worries about and tries to take care of everyone. She was shocked to the verge of tears -- an opportunity she sells as manna from heaven, and those were the kinds of comments he'd pass on to thousands of people as opposed to delivering directly to the individual. I didn't consider his criticism harsh, as it was valid to pass on someone who wasn't a very assertive and confident Type A personality when your organization has invested decades in building up that specific culture. Not to mention it's difficult to seem eager when considering the prospect of working with an outright bully. She was upset enough that she had to leave the room, and the account manager and I spent the next hour dissecting the organization's culture.
I think that's the only time I can ever really consider a rejection to not be kosher. Fortunately, the universe has a way of balancing these things out. His group is now one of my clients. I can't wait to see the look on his face when I pop into the room.
But it was confusing to read because it took me a long time and a lot of puzzling to figure out all the antecedents. It might be more accessible if you made up names for people instead of saying "this individual" and so on. Also, I would be interested in quotes or paraphrases from this guy's Twitter comments about you - do you remember any of them?
I hope that eventually he'll learn that sort of behavior is counterproductive and simply not kosher. He's brilliant, just needs to go about sharing his knowledge in a more constructive manner. He'd benefit greatly in the long run.
As it happened, this letter that they sent out contained both a spelling error and a grammatical error. In retrospect, this was perhaps a little too snarky, but I wrote back to them and pointed this out. They contacted me again, asking if I would be interested in another position they had available.
At least such a letter would alert the candidate to those errors, information that would be useful for future application.
Most companies in the land of the lawyer don't even send rejection letters, just in case the candidate decides that it contains some grounds to sue you over.
It doesn't even have to be good grounds - they just need a sleazy enough lawyer. The more info you give them the more ammo they have.
Yes it sucks to simply not hear from a company, and it leads to negative recomendations about them to friends /colleagues /potential other recruits. You can still be friendly in the letter but I would be careful about telling someone why they aren't hired.
There are so many reasons I am glad I don't live in the usa anymore.
It's easy to not get hired, it's easy to get fired ... which also means it's easy to get hired.
(It's worth saying that the developers I interviewed with were really outstanding. They were in the Dev Tools group (CLR, Visual Studio, etc.) and were really sharp).
Anyway, I got pulled out, and the woman gave me "the bad news," and the typical HR lines about "not a good fit at this time," and, "we encourage you to apply again later." And then, out of nowhere, she throws out "And you should definitely take a close look at yourself to figure out how you could be better."
The reason I tell this story is to point out that "helpful feedback" is absolutely useless when not actually helpful. Having an HR person (who had, up to that point, been totally disconnected from the whole process), come and give me some "helpful tips" wasted her time and mine.
I also interviewed with Meebo (which was actually a pretty interesting interview, and the people there were pretty cool). I met with the HR guy at the end of the day, and he tried to talk me into doing an internship instead, because I'd be competing with people with "years of experience." I told him I already had some offers and I wasn't interested in an internship. Later, when he emailed to "give me the bad news," he said "we're going with another candidate, but enjoy your summer at Company X!" I'd say this loosely qualifies as rejecting me like an asshole.
I ended up with offers from Facebook and Google though, so life goes on :)
Really? Wow. I'd have interpreted that as an attempt at being "friendly", showing at least some personal interest and wishing you well.
I guess that goes to show it's difficult to predict how other people will interpret things. :)
All the implications seem insulting to me, based on the story as told (that the guy wasn't interested in an internship).
So - please do this. Unless you don't care about my opinion of you. You may not.
And each of them tell all their friends that you are an a-hole, then when every potential hire in Cambridge/ NYC/ Stanford etc has heard that XYZ software are a-holes you are going to have one hell of a job hiring.
If you are a small startup in a high tech hub trying to attract people, and especially if you are in a market where the programers you reject might be future customers then you're risk is different.
Companies often forget that the people they reject don't disappear. It used to be a big thing in merchant banks in the last boom to really grind and humiliate candidates - you aren't smart enough to work here etc. What they forgot is that those people went to work for companies that might need a merchant bank and that the victim is suddenly the customer.
Plus, if the 1 developer you DO hire continuously tells people it's a great company working on cool stuff, that would outweigh the negative comments from the other 99.
If this process makes it more likely that good candidates got in touch with you, you might actually save money.
One of the things I hate most about the current interview process is that I take time off from work to do phone screens, maybe a whole day to do an onsite, and in the end I get these empty letters.
I'm always trying to improve myself, so having no feedback leaves me feeling bewildered. To be honest I don't know if I bombed the coding question. I came to an answer, maybe I had a couple hints - but was that it?
For instance if you complain about hygiene and the person has a medical condition that causes them to stink (don't laugh, this happens), you can be sued for discrimination. If the person had a thick accent and you didn't want to hire because of the communication issue (I've seen candidates rejected for this reason), they could decide that you're racist and sue you. If the candidate is older and you say a wide variety of things (that they are over-qualified, their skillset is dated, poor cultural fit, etc), you can be sued for ageism.
The upshot is that it is virtually impossible to figure out what comment will hit a hot button. And there are a lot of legitimate reasons to reject someone, which aren't illegal, that they can take as evidence of discrimination.
Even if it is an open and shut case that you're going to win, they can still make it cost a substantial amount of lawyer's fees. And you, personally, don't benefit from telling them this, so there is no percentage in going there.
Or so every HR department in the USA will tell you. And every lawyer they get advice from.
I've had this happen to me three times in the last five years -- mostly for positions within a marketing department, where you would think communication would matter.
Unfortunately, fear of retaliation or blacklisting keeps applicants like myself from disclosing specific company or hiring manager names...I feel it's disrespectful to not at least send an FOD note of 10 words or less if you've spent hours with them.
Otherwise, it's quite ok. Make it short, who wants to read ton of shit just to hear no? If you can list one (or more) serious reason (lack of experience, education, whatever, once, I was told that I was simply too pesimistic, but that was on phone), fine, but still, keep it short. And well, don't expect much feedback.
For a phone interview, I'd probably think you're a bigger asshole if you went into details about how I failed the interview, what's wrong with me, why I'm unqualified, and how I can go about improving myself. Imagine someone going into the details about why we won't be going out on a second date.
It's one of the big advantages of technical interviews. You don't have to rely purely on subjective human judgement.
And yet (aside from mega deal-breakers, like clearly overstating competence in some category) that's pretty much what hiring decisions come down to: "Are they for real? Can I rely on them? Will I get along with them?" -- the battery of contrived, essentially "objective" assessment that get thrown at candidates notwithstanding.
I've interviewed in several foreign big companies in Japan. After enduring multiple interviews spanning 2 to 4 months (compared to 2~4 weeks in Japanese companies), not once did I get any specific feedback. In one particular case, during the process, I asked HR for the contact details of 2 of the technical interviewers and they refused; I had to send my questions via HR.
A company I turned down a job offer for has been contacting me every about every three months asking if I had changed my mind.
I just recently told them to please stop contacting me and I'll contact them if I change my mind in the future.
It felt a bit assholish asking them to stop contacting me like that, but I can't decide if that's just my personality having difficulty with it or if there was a better of way of telling them "No".
Really, you're above average if you bother to contact the person at all once you've decided not to hire.
A lot of people are pointing out liability issues with this approach, and sadly, they're probably right. But I bet there are constructive things you could tell rejected applicants that would be still be safe from lawsuit.
The reality is that you have to look at someone's personality and whether they'll mesh with your team as much as their skills. That's a fact, and nobody -- repeat NOBODY -- wants to hear that they come off arrogant, ageist, misogynist, etc.