An email template for candidates frustrated with unresponsive employers
blog.landing.jobs
blog.landing.jobs
Update: Proof http://imgur.com/m34rFUX
First, however, MetaMan will need to end the Hollywood accounting practice so better superhero movies can be made... about him!
I can't guarantee you'll get feedback from the employer but I can definitely make sure we'll always insist on your behalf, and that what I just did :)
Let me know if you don't hear back from them until the end of the week!
Pedro
It's sadly safer to just not reject candidates at all. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Are you able to provide any kind of data backing up that claim?
I am strongly in the "don't hate the player, hate the game" camp on this issue.
This is NOT a basic courtesy but a business process that requires a lot of resources to be at least somewhat meaningful. How long do you think it takes to write a rejection letter that provides useful, actionable data for the potential candidate? Multiply that by 10-100 for every position.
Oh, and I've seen much more nasty replies and general insults than thank yous in response to rejection letters.
I would be in support of rejection letters if the process would be mandated by the hiring platform / shared culture / etc.
[0] At Google's scale, some candidates fall through the cracks. But their recruiting process does mandate rejection notifications. It'd be great if a Google recruiter would back me up here :)
Maybe some companies do more personalized responses but I've never seen it and I would think it would often be difficult. As with many other things, say picking talks for conferences, you're usually not so much rejecting as you're picking some other person or thing. And, yes, there are a lot of reasons the typical HR department would have issues with brutal honesty even aside from the effort it would take.
[Edit] Holy shit, I'm old.
I see nothing in the post nor this thread that indicates that's what people are looking for. An obvious form letter would be just fine. The point is that a candidate wants to know that the process is over, instead of being left hanging.
I am strongly in the "that is a shitty excuse perpetuated by people to excuse their crappy behavior on a wide number of things" camp.
(LEGO even sent me a nicely formatted, well-branded letter within 7 business days despite not even making it to the phone screen stage.)
When I applied to a local company the hiring manager kept emailing me about how he was "swamped" or some other variation of the word busy and would get back to me in the next few days. He did that for about two weeks before calling me and finding out I had accepted an offer somewhere else.
Heck when I applied to Google the recruiter (who contacted me first) took 5 months to get back to me after I sent in my CV and transcript, apologized profusely, and told me that the reason it took so long was because who ever was handling my case left abruptly without handing off the cases she was working on.
I know these are anecdotal but I have an extremely hard time believing that HR managers in the US are so worried about triggering a discrimination lawsuit that they choose inaction.
Very little, if anything, supports your claim. A quick search on the topic of why recruiters don't follow up with candidates reveals that the vast majority of people in the industry just have a really hard time with the hiring process. Its just plain broken.
Does your company not get back to candidates because they fear a discrimination lawsuit? Someone else's? I would love to know which companies' HR teams or recruiters have discrimination lawsuits at the top of their "things I'm really scared could happen if I reply to a job seeker" list.
If a company has: a mature HR process, people who know wtf they are doing, and give a crap, they'll do rejection letters. Most lack at least one of those things.
The guy at your SMB example is some jack of all trades, and dealing your resume is a priority-2 in a sea of P1's. He doesn't have a recruiting process. Google does, but even there it's still dependent on a human making a judgement call about what to write.
Also, you don't need to sue. You can file an EEOC or similar complaint to your state/local Human Rights Commission. The process is designed so that you do not need an attorney. You get assigned a hearing officer, they perform some sort of investigation and issues a finding, which can include a variety of remedies.
It's not something to be paranoid about, but when you're a bigger company interviewing alot of people, you want to tie up the loose ends.
I noticed though that my current company sometimes does it. It typically is when you did not do too well on an interview and effectively failed (or passed with flying colors but you are an international student, and they don't want to sponsor ), but they still won't notify in case they can't find anyone better. From my observation they generally never come back to those candidates.
If someone clearly isn't right for the job, you owe it to them to mention why- I'm an engineer, I work in absolutes and "Culture fit" or something so wishy-washy doesn't roll well off my fingers.
But how do you tell people that they lack basic knowledge or experience in certain areas without sounding bitchy or attacking.
Even worse is the ones that interviewed well, or showed significant competence.. yet were not as strong as another candidate.
I agree it's wrong to send nothing- but it can be hard to formulate a pleasant email.. especially if you've interviewed many people. (10-15 at my last employment, I was replacing myself and had limited time to document/check everything).
It frustrates me that you see it this way because it means when I give direct criticism to individuals I'm expected to bring in line via performance reviews, they get upset and take it personally. It also frustrates me because I'm surrounded by people who refuse to give me direct criticism of my work for fear that I will take it personally. Meanwhile, I'm trying to develop professionally...
We would have liked to work with you, but unfortunately we do not feel your skills in $AREA_OF_CONCERN are as strong as we require.
Despite this rejection we wish you a happy job hunt and strongly encourage you to apply to $CORP in the future.
If somebody was better, you say that outright.
If the problem is culture fit? Well I really wouldn't write that in an email (too likely to make you come of as an ass, too likely to make you easy to sue if the person was a member of some minority).
"We received your application as [JOBTITLE] and thank you for your interest in our company. After careful review of the applications for this position, we regret to inform you that we are considering other candidates which match the skills and qualifications of this position more closely. We will keep your application for the next 2 months should the position reopen, if you wish to oppose this please click this link."
That said I completely oppose OP's (satirical) template. If you want news, grab a phone and just make the call. If you can't get an answer after a reasonable time and an active research from your side, is it really a place you want to work at?
That doesn't say anything that can be misconstrued as discriminatory hiring.
Sadly as an employer you are sometimes rewarded for being considerate with an argumentative or nasty reply.
Here are some of my thoughts. If the person doesn't know enough about something tell them something like: I really appreciate your enthusiasm and interest in the job and would love to hire you in the future. Right now though, we have more candidates with more experience in x, y, z. Here are some resources to help you with those areas and I would love to talk to you again once you get more experience in those areas!
If the person isn't the best candidate you could say something like: Thanks for taking the time out to interview and talk to us over here! You are truly a great candidate and would love to hire you in the future once more positions open up. Until then, I recommend you keep building up experience in x, y, z to become the candidate we and everyone else would immediately snatch up!
I believe if you're honest and helpful you'll come off better than a company that never responds or gives a generic response.
If no one knows what they need to do to get a job, how are they going to get better so you'd want to hire them?
To (a small amount of) background research on companies that would fit with your situation. Find out what the open reqs are, and who the hiring manager is for each one. Pre-screen yourself by finding a req that you're qualified for and apply specifically for that job. Write a custom cover letter for each application, even if it's just an informal 4-line email. If possible, get a warm introduction.
If you do all that still don't get a quick response, move on without a second thought. You don't want to work for this company anyway.
If even this fails, you should fire the company - you really don't want to work there. As much as this is a fun read, unless you are applying for a job at The Onion, don't do it.
We regularly post ads for designers, developers and content writers too. Probably every other month I am reviewing resumes, so I have a bit of experience in responding to applicants.
Typically any given job posting gets around 50 to 100 resumes depending on the category. It takes time to read through everything. We use a mix of Craiglist, Indeed, various job boards, LinkedIn and our own website postings. It has worked well for awhile now.
Due to the nature of various job boards, some responses are often automated by clicking a few buttons so it is too easy to apply. With that you get candidates off topic (i.e. wrong skill set) and not putting in any effort (i.e. skipping a cover letter that we want to read). Other times, the cover letter and resume are comically sad in mistakes and grammar, so they do not warrant full attention.
Our biggest gripe is that at least 50% of the applicants never follow our instructions on how to apply correctly. We put very specific steps on how to apply and want it followed (i.e. subject line, cover letter, links to portfolio, PDF resume).
My take on this is if the applicant is not going to take the time to respond correctly, then we are not going to take the time to respond back. Sounds harsh, but kicking out 50 canned replies is tedious work for those who are wasting our time to review. Perhaps we could automate it somehow with scanning emails addresses in the "no" folder and sending out a batch bcc, but it is still extra work.
However, before everyone jumps on us. We do respond to every applicant we interview (phone or in-person). Often we respond with a personal note that helps them out and lets them know where they stand. Sometimes we even try them out on freelance projects in the future.
For every applicant that correctly fills out our application process, or at least made an effort, then we also reach out to them with a more automated message via email. I consider that the least we can do, but we do keep in short and sweet.
Finally, in the future, I am going to probably put our entire application process on our website. This will automate a lot of what we do and require the applicant to fill out set fields that we need answered. Then we could send batch emails back to everyone as needed.
So we would need to reply individually to every single email (i.e. hit reply and cut-paste). 50 emails would probably be 15 minutes of work, but I would rather not waste that time.
The main point is that some of the resumes we get are completely off topic. I wish I could showcase some examples, but alas that would probably get us into trouble. Why should we waste the time in responding to auto posters, people who just attach a resume with no cover letter, or misspell subject lines?
I think our new system would solve all of this, just need time to code it this summer.
We do like the subject line to be a pass/fail test though - especially on jobs that require attention to detail (i.e. bookkeeping or junior developers who are on support/punch lists).
The instructions are pretty clear and if someone cannot follow step one, they are probably not going to be able to follow our internal checklists.
So, count me as a non-fan of these web-based systems.
With such a system, one may expect a quick response, but most of my applications went into a no-reply black hole, except for the submission confirmation provided by the form.
The most annoying one was a phone call from one institution, that I received the first day I started work at a different institution, 6 months after the application was submitted.
On the other side, most of the private sector jobs I have applied to have been very efficient at responding: either a quick rejection after a few days, or moving ahead in the process.
Name, Email, Question 1 - Cover Letter, Question 2 - Some question pertaining the job, and PDF attachment (only PDFs - we hate getting Word docs and other file attachments)
This way we could automate our subject line, track the emails, and the two questions would hopefully weed out some lower end applications.
We may need a CAPTCHA too, to keep out spam.
[Edited for commas as the list did not format correctly]
Was that institution the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, by any chance? (Or possibly another federal entity?) I've heard that story and have reason to believe it several times.
You need to consider the ROI for the applicant before saying "OMG follow instructions."
Too many of your fellow employers ignore applicants (ROI = none), even those they interviewed. No "we received the application," no "here's where you seem to lack," no "here's where you seem to be strong." Even introductory classes with 300-400 students in them provide more feedback to their constituents than employers to candidates.
Hence many of your applicants decrease their investment as much as possible.
I do not have 30-40 minutes to twist and turn words in order for them to fit to your specific job description to let you know that I know the shit out of [insert skill]. Not because I don't care about you but because I already assume, looking at previous experiences, that you don't care about me (both as a candidate and as an employee).
It is your job to accurately spot potential and current skills from a resume and respond to the applicant with a request for more information. (In situations where you do not have a separate HR department for recruitment, then do ask for all information outright, but don't be surprised and judgemental when you do not receive it. If the candidate is of interest, reply back and ask for more information again.)
[1] Oddly enough, my public profile is pretty sparse so a more in depth resume shouldn't really turn anyone off.
I am thinking it should be five minutes or less to apply to our job. 30 to 45 minutes seems like A LOT. I am not sure I would even take that amount of time to apply for a job. I would rather introduce myself personally via email or social networks to the employer than spend that time.
One point is that Indeed.com and other job boards make it too easy to apply. I believe, that within a few clicks and someone can apply to a posting, so often the person may not have read the ad fully.
This is turning more and more into a blog post. I should run the stats on our last posting of craiglist vs. indeed and showcase the data.
Oddly enough, I think our final choice came from indeed. But out of the eight actual interviews, I know the other seven came from craigslist posting (or blog post). Of the other indeed candidates, I remember going on a roll of saying "nope" to about 10 to 15 in a row because they did not meet our needs (no experience, etc). Probably need to add a filter in the job posting.
I also like questions like the above because it lets you know something about your new hire. I've used the question I listed above before, and then followed up by having a pint of their favorite flavor for them and their new team at the end of their first day. For a few bucks per hire, it's neat positive experience that let's the new hire share something, albeit superficial, that they wouldn't normally share until much later.
That said, I feel bad. If anyone has recommendations for candidate tracking software/services that would make it easier for me to make this happen, I'd be interested.
I expect some companies prefer not to officially reject, so they have more applicants to potentially consider for future positions, although many may have taken jobs elsewhere by this point.
Of course, it's also possible that someone did wait in the queue - I've been interviewing for jobs since the beginning of the year, some of which had almost no lag in contact but a fairly long process (multiple phone screens, etc), others had long lag time but a quick process.
In 2007, I interviewed for a professional services position within RedHat. I had a phone screen and then three or four weeks would go by, and then the recruiter would ask me for another phone screen. It eventually ended up with a stay in Chicago for an in-person...series of phone calls and one face-to-face interview.
Another six months(!) went by before they called me to ask me if I would be interested in working with them and started the verbal negotiation process.
Suffice to say, I turned them down (my work situation had changed and I wasn't looking to leave), but, I always remember that process and the length of time that it took to get there when I hear friends talking about applying to RedHat.
And yes, they'll both remain anonymous.
I wonder if there might be a business opportunity here.
Suppose there were some way for both job applicants and employers to publicly commit themselves to offering at least a cursory reply (sort of how LinkedIn guarantees a response to each InMail, even if the response is just a boilerplate "Not interested").
If either party fails to respond within some designated timeframe, the penalty could be as simple as publicly noting the fact that they broke their commitment, which is likely to affect their trustworthiness.
This would be advantageous for both parties.
There might even be some decent money-making potential in being such a commitment clearinghouse. For instance, employers who participate might pay to have their jobs listed on the site, with the expectation that a "reply guaranteed" will be an effective way to bring in applicants.
There's an entire multi-billion dollar industry of executive search and staffing built on this premise.
A commitment clearinghouse would threaten the existing schema of ambiguity. There are always outliers, new information, and change. There in lies the rub.
Was I really not qualified, or did you just not like my tie/cologne/hair? Did I know the material but am the wrong age? My whiteboard coding was great but I spilled my drink at lunch and ate with my mouth open?
I realize that most (all) of these things could get a company in truly hot water (ie. age discrimination) but without some additional information a candidate can be left feeling very confused and unsure how to improve. If I'm really too old then maybe I should get out of the business. If I flubbed the algorithm part of the interview then maybe I can study up and be ready for the next company.
I wish there was a way to give companies a one-time "Get out of jail Free" card and have them tell me exactly why they didn't want me to move on to the next step. :/
And then there is general networking stuff- which is even mentioned in the email! He acknowledges he may one day be a client or partner, and yet still thinks sending this type of "cathartic" email is a good idea.
My career history is journalism (producing TV news). The vast majority of jobs I apply for never reply. Not so much as an automated or form-letter "thank you". Even if they do reply, and we talk a couple of times, they stop replying when they go with someone else.
Back in March, on a lark, I applied to a few tech and game companies. Five days ago one of the game companies sent me a "thank you for applying, but we went with another candidate" email.
I sent her (the HR lady) a letter back thanking her for caring enough to bother. Erica is good people in my book. She's absolutely an outlier.
https://www.manager-tools.com/all-podcasts?field_content_dom...
have excellent advice for situations like these.
It seems to work pretty well so far, but there's a lot more to be done in the job space -- the lack of transparency and information can cause a lot of frustrations for both employers and job seekers.
I'm having the opposite problem. I'm trying desperately to get people to apply for mobile dev positions... and of the FIVE applications I've managed to lure in, none of them replied to my phone calls or emails back.
I was considering asking for an address in the application so I could go wait on applicants' doorsteps, but maybe a letter like this is a less litigable idea.
Obviously, this comment should be taken with a grain of salt since I was not selected (so I'm probably biased), but I felt like Google's hiring process was pretty haphazard. I had actually assumed I wouldn't be interviewing further when they told me about my on-site.