Hacker News Reader

Comment by blaser-waffle | Hacker News Reader

Bingo.

After the interview is done and the answer is a solid NO, as a company we have NO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP with you. Any iota of effort we put towards you is essentially wasted effort, even if very minor.

What changes that discussion further is that there is a small, but still quite real, possibility of lawsuit, social media rant (as another comment mentioned), or even a disgruntled applicant shooting up the place.

(I believe Pres. William McKinley was shot by a disgruntled would-be bureaucrat who didn't get a job...)

A perfunctory if generic rejection is a safer choice. Short-list candidates who made it to a 3rd interview, or folks who we reached out and headhunted (but didn't choose) may be a different story, but those are rare edge cases.

View on HN

In a vacuum that might be true, but software engineers know other software engineers, and there are plenty of forums for discussing hiring experiences, including HN. If a company systematically treats people they don't intend to go further with like crap, their reputation with other candidates will suffer. You'd like failed candidates to not talk shit about your company when their friend considers applying.

Not giving feedback though is not "treating them like crap" in fact the opposite is far more likely to be true (as interpreted by the non-hired candidate). You literally can't go wrong doing nothing.

You can do wrong - I do not reinterview with startups that do not give feedback at the end of the interview process. So, if you're a startup that's struggling to hire - good luck getting that candidate to come back in 6 months to a year when you're struggling. (Plenty of companies flip-flop on hire/no-hire as time goes on)

That's not doing wrong as far as the company is concerned, though. Harsh as it may sound, this is just another version of a customer going "I will take my business elsewhere!" and walking out of a store: the store couldn't care less, because your business is irrelevant. In the same way, "your" interviewing is entirely irrelevant, the only thing the company cares about is that they get applications from qualified folks, whether that's repeat applications or not. You not coming back in 6 months doesn't stop them from getting new applications from other folks with just as good a skill set as you.

Of course for you, personally, it sucks and you want to know how to improve, but for the company the very act of talking to you after your temporary relationship is over does come with the potential for incredible harm. It's unlikely, but a liability they have zero responsibility to take on. As far as companies are concerned, not interacting with anyone they don't have a business relationship with is solid business practice, and while applying, you're just an application; you're not someone whose education and growth path they are responsible for. You would be, if you got hired, but until then you are not their responsibility in the slightest and any unpaid, no-contract interaction between them and you is a liability to them.

Doing nothing is by far the smartest thing the company can insist on. Even if it sucks for us applicants.

It's mostly about risk/reward and effort.

Giving detailed feedback takes more time, and is inherently more risky than a timely, somewhat bland rejection letter. Candidates are much more likely to feel slighted when they are given specific criticism, which they may or may not agree with.

Except, that's the norm. Word isn't going to spread that a company is normal.

Norms change. In tech especially quickly.

> as a company we have NO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP with you

I think this could be phrased as "we have the choice to have no business relationship with you." But it's not a good idea to straight up cut off candidates. We've had plenty of cases where we just didn't think we had the capacity to help a candidate get up to speed and thought if they worked somewhere else that could provide that to them then we could hire them 6 months to a year down the line. It's not the standard, but it's happened before.

You have a business relationship with everyone you have a relationship with - you're a business. You're burning bridges with people in your industry - why?

> After the interview is done and the answer is a solid NO, as a company we have NO BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP with you.

And plenty of companies don't even feel a candidate is owed that answer after they've made their determination. Of course it's a two way street and candidates will - and have been - doing the same thing to companies.

Harvey Milk was assassinated by Dan White, a former city supervisor who wanted his prior job (as city supervisor) back.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com