This is only after the phone interview; after I get a "Thanks but no thanks" email I've asked in polite terms why I got passed over. I've heard back only once out of the few times I've done it and I felt that it really was a kind of hard decision for them to make.
Is it impolite? Is it a legal concern? Do they not like me that much? What?
I'm guessing the lack of a response is because:
1. They don't feel they have to justify their decision. 2. They don't want to get into a dispute/nit-pick. 3. They are just bad hirers and don't know how to provide adequate feedback. 4. They are trying to hire someone, not help people they are not hiring.
Conversely, when I have turned down an offer those companies have never asked me why.
- James.
Chances are it's not something you did wrong, it's just that other people who had the same phone interview seemed like better candidates to move to the next level of screening.
If you want feedback on your phone interview, have a friend/colleague sit in the room with you and listen to your side of the conversation - or, more likely to be illegal, record the conversation and have someone you trust listen to it afterwards.
It hurts, but the best thing really is to just take your lumps, and try to detach yourself from the the idea that the rushed, off-the-cuff judgements that utter strangers make of you in the heat of the most awkward of social contexts imaginable has any relation to you as person.
That is to say: do take inventory of what happened, and do try to learn from the situation and do better next time... but please don't take it "inside" you as a person.
Life is just way too short for that.
For instance, if your resume says something like that you want to be CEO within five years, the interviewer could tell you that they can't take you seriously. You will just fix your resume and reapply to some other job. However, all that telling you accomplishes is that there is now a person out there that has completely unrealistic expectations but knows not to put it on his or her resume.
At my (large) company HR only gets involved once a decision to hire has been made. They make sure the background check is performed, vet the offer to make sure it is within guidelines (or the guidelines have been waived by someone In Charge) and then handle the huge volume of paperwork that must be signed in order to formally accept the offer.
Following on-site interviews the hiring manager will collect and sanitize feedback from all the interviewers to give to the candidate. Sometimes the message is something generic, like "not a good fit" or "lacking required experience" because some feedback just can't be sanitized.
If the deficiency is in skills (technical or soft), rather than personality or demeanor, then we generally provide solid feedback. For a candidate that is borderline we will sometimes invite them back (or out for a drink) to ask them how they would address the perceived deficit if we were to hire them. Not only does it give them a chance to recover, it lets us see how they handle critical feedback.
I don't believe there is liability exposure here, unless someone were to refer to gender, race, religion, disability or ethnic background as a reason for not hiring. Since those are never the reason for not hiring, this isn't an issue.
He was fired some time later for messing up too much on the job. [I couldn't imagine that there would be any kind of predictor for that] ... I suppose it just depends on who you ask and when you ask them.
Nobody likes getting passed over for a job, with so much prep work and so much on the line, but it's part of the game of interviewing and working for somebody that you can keep that aspect of nervousness in check. I'm not saying this is you, but if the roles were reversed, and you had 20 candidates for 1 job, and out of the two finalists, one may have higher technical marks but is so nervous during the interview, wondering how they're doing during the interview, even seeking your approval before they even get the job, which one would you hire?
The basic value proposition for working for someone else is that you generate a net positive financial and time outcome for them; if you take weight off their shoulders, you pass. Seeking approval adds weight.
All they have is this fleeting impression of how you "performed" in this one weird, pretentious moment. Which doesn't have much to do with anything, really.
Frankly, interviewing is a game with many unwritten rules - one is if you don't get the gig, you are expected to politely accept the decision and move on. Another is the interviewer will often decide in the first 60 seconds if you're getting hired, so asking for feedback on where you 'went wrong' is a waste of everyone's time.
Remember, when you interview, your potential employer has every intention of hiring you assuming you tick a few boxes. This is also part of the game. Can you figure out what those boxes are? Put yourself in their shoes. What would you like to see in you? As long as you continue to land interviews, don't become disheartened - keep going and you will get hired.
OK. But why 60 seconds? What did I do wrong in that span of time?