Now, everyone gets a form letter, and I don't deviate from that.
A form letter, email, whatever would be better than what I experienced in my last job hunt. It was silence after silence. Was the rec closed/filled? Am I even in the running or was I rejected early on and now I am just waiting for no reason?
A lot of the companies used automated submission systems, which confirmed they received the resume, but they never sent out a notification that the position was filled/closed/rejected. Just a one line email would have been better than nothing. I feel even that common (and super automatable) courtesy has been lost.
Even 2-5 person companies will sometimes receive ~20-30 resumes a day for an open job, and 90% of them will be obviously inappropriate for the job even just from glancing at their resume.
It's a positive feedback loop: People have learned to "shotgun" their resume everywhere, and as a result even small companies have learned to process resumes as "efficiently" as possible (which often includes not sending responses to rejected candidates at that stage). This leads to more shotgunning, etc. etc.
Or at bare minimum, automatically mail them when the position is set to closed?
None of that can be claimed due to efficiency.
1. You're assuming they're using an ATS with that feature, which isn't as common as you'd think. You'd be surprised how many companies track incoming candidates using spreadsheets and email.
2. Part of that "efficiency" is not actually taking the 5 extra seconds to reject candidates, but instead just ignoring rejected candidates.
Think of it as leaving something read in your email inbox vs. choosing to archive it. Imagine you're getting 100 emails a day. Now imagine how many people you know (not necessarily you) who would leave those emails as unread in their inbox and quickly scan for important ones vs. choosing to go through each one and archive them as necessary.
> Or at bare minimum, automatically mail them when the position is set to closed?
Many places will leave positions open for opportunistic hires, e.g. see how many places are constantly hiring for "software engineer". Many job positions never actually close.
This is a good point, and while it's weird and a little frustrating from the outside, it's awesome from the inside:
The right time to hire is not when you're ramping something up or strapped for time and really need someone immediately. The right time to hire is when you've got someone awesome who is really interested in the job.
Keeping the req open gives you a better chance of grabbing that awesome person: whenever they are ready, the position is waiting. If you have to align the stars so that you're looking at the same time they are, you're going to miss some opportunities.
However, in my own hiring I always send a thank you for the candidates time, because I'm old, and manners, etc. but also I consider it the long game. You never know when you will run into someone again and in what context, and the extra effort to email a "thanks for interviewing with us" is tiny compared to potential upside/downside.
> it's not like the candidate can do anything to the interviewing company
It's true to a point. However, when you ghost someone, you've effectively as a company burned your bridges with someone, all for want of a simple and not at all burdensome small amount of courtesy. Even if you're not interviewing them in person, a simple notification that the application will not be considered further means they aren't left hanging on pointlessly.
If you want to hire them in the future, they might just blow you off.
If they pass on their bad experience to others, your reputation has suffered and you'll make it harder to recruit others in their social circle.
You might be immune to the effects of rude behaviour in the short term, but it will come back to bite to some degree later. As an example, after some really rather abrupt telephone interviews with Google, and a really rude on-site interviewer, I told them never to contact me ever again. I have no intention of considering them again in the future.
I think your point about considering the long game is spot on. I had the dilemma of interviewing with two companies and getting two good offers. The company I ended up rejecting were really nice, made a really great effort to sell themselves, and I left with nothing but positive feelings. Nearly a year later, they would still love to have me on their team. Should I need to in the future, I'm fairly certain I could give them a call and start work the next day, all because they did a really good job of building a good relationship.
Phone call with hiring manager or team members? I expect a rejection of some sort.
The irony of the automated hiring process for me is that it is more unlikely than ever that I would ever get a job any other way than through personal contacts.
We interviewed three people and then it was decided to let the manager role go unfilled. So I ended up being the one to call them.
Two of them handled it with grace and professionalism. The third decided to go over my head and call the VP who was in charge of IT at the time and have a surly conversation.
So the moral is - transparency might make you feel like a good person but from a business perspective there are valid reasons not to choose that path.
Also - part of working in HR is that you must deal with the general public - which means people will be unpredictable and you have to take worst-case scenarios into consideration.
The biggest problem is the lack of any response whatsoever is that you cannot simply move on with your job search. Frankly it's just rude and unprofessional, I don't care how commonplace it is.
More detailed feedback is a nice to have, I certainly appreciated it when I got it, but it's a different thing from being ghosted altogether.
I've never given any detailed feedback, but I have made sure that they at least get a "sorry, we can't offer you a job" form letter quickly.
Noone has ever complained, except:
At one job, we did run into a pretty annoying situation. We were recruiting mostly from a particular pool of uni grads, and everyone was communicating via the same particular "forum". (Late 90s/early 00s.)
We interviewed a particular person in depth. He wasn't nervous. He was just not able/smart enough. So, we didn't hire him. We were very polite and friendly through this entire process. Gave him plenty of graceful exits from the problems we posed to him.
We sent him the usual polite email how he unfortunately bla bla.
Later that day, he started a major propaganda campaign against us, in the local forum.
We felt trapped - how could we say (semi-publicly) that we just rejected him because he was well.. not that intelligent? We ended up just ignoring (ghosting) him.
A few smart people there who could have joined us probably took this clown seriously though. :(
(Again: our problem was that we were mostly recruiting from a small, geographically localized online forum.)
People in general are naturally curious about details of what's supposed to be a block box procedure. So they'll be drawn like a moth to flame like to something like this, even if the moth is a crazy person.
Any chance it was Something Awful?
For job interview it should be also easier of you get no and then some reason, deal is off the table.
So maybe if people get feedback they think that something is still there and this has to be communicated as well in bold font "NO THANKS"?
I think it is with people who are not that confident, they try to hold on to a deal? Which also could be people you don't want to hire...
curious why you were giving feedback in person if you expect candidates to not say anything back. what were your expectations during this process?
did you set expectations with the candidates before the call that they are not supposed to question your analysis?
It's a bit like arguing with a potential romantic partner who doesn't want to go on a second date: You might win the argument logically, but you're not getting another date unless there was a comical misunderstanding.
I was asking why gp was doing this ^, seems weird.
This is also why people get ghosted while dating nowadays. Many of the same reasons at play.
But I am asking do ppl respond to this with a phone call detailing the reasons behind their rejection.
Why was OP doing it.
His problem could've been simply solved by setting the expectation that his analysis was not up for debate.
I'm not sure I understand this. I'm under the impression that ghosting people while dating is a newish phenomenon. Is requesting justifications a similarly newish thing? If one didn't change, why would the other? It doesn't seem like we've gotten to the root of the matter.