undefined | Better HN

0 pointsRiderOfGiraffes15y ago0 comments

  > Bottomline: I hate your easy way out, giving no
                valueable feedback at all/in general.

Yes, laws differ, and there are no doubt countries, and perhaps places within countries, where giving constructive feedback would not result in any problems. Then I fall back on - I simply don't have the time.

Besides, you're arguing with the wrong person. You may hate the situation. I hate the situation. As I said, I'd really like to take some of the unsuccessful candidates for a coffee and tell them how they could improve their chances. I'd even consider running a one-off, one hour "seminar" to show people what they did wrong, and why their existing skills didn't match.

But I can't do that on my company's time, and I sure as hell would feel uncomfortable charging people I've just rejected for an hour of time. They're unemployed! (usually)

So it's not going to happen. The market doesn't allow for it - these days you're often lucky even to get a rejection letter at all. I watched my wife send out over a thousand job applications and get perhaps 10 responses. Companies are, almost by definition, sociopaths. It does them no good at all to spend time or money helping people they've just rejected.

The individuals in the company may, and often do, feel bad about it, but that's simply the way it is.

Bottom line: This is how things are now, and if you don't like it, find some way to change it.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

darklajid15y ago· 1 in thread

First of all: I'm not sure if my "I hate your .. way" was taken as a personal accusation of some sorts. It wasn't meant to be one.

Were these 10 responses valuable for your wife, or "We're sorry to inform you.." useless types that didn't help at all?

Not providing feedback on company time is an shady argument from my point of view as well. The decisions to hire someone that involved me (granted, maybe roundabout a dozen hires only, I don't claim to be any kind of expert here) meant that we interviewed them and usually talked about the candidates directly afterwards. Most rejects were done right there, while we discussed the very reasons, on company time anyway and by definition.

Writing them down and sending an email if you are in that situation doesn't cost your company a lot of time (Cue the "Did you sent the mail" questions: No. I never had the contact details/access to the resume and was just a code monkey involved in questioning the candidate). That's - sad.

RiderOfGiraffesOP15y ago

  > ... not sure if ... was taken as a personal accusation
  > of some sorts. It wasn't meant to be one.

None taken.

  > Were these 10 responses valuable for your wife,
  > or "We're sorry to inform you.." useless types

All useless. She also got about 5 or 8 interviews, which resulted in exactly 2 rejection letters, and the remainder gave neither reply nor feedback.

  > Not providing feedback on company time is a shady
  > argument ... we discussed the very reasons, on
  > company time anyway and by definition.
  > ...
  > Writing them down and sending an email if you are
  > in that situation doesn't cost your company a lot
  > of time

If you're blunt, honest and open, maybe not. But being careful, constructive, and defensive against counter-attack then it can be time-consuming. The argument goes "We've had the discussion, we're not going to employ them, why should we spent 30 minutes documenting the reasons, only to open ourselves thereby to the potential of a lengthy, drawn-out process of arbitration or agrument? Better to just ignore them from now on."

I don't do that, and my co-directors know that I won't. I always provide some feedback, but I'm always ultra-careful in what I say. Even then I've had stand-up knock-down arguments about opening the company to the potential for undesirable consequences.

stcredzero15y ago

But I can't do that on my company's time, and I sure as hell would feel uncomfortable charging people I've just rejected for an hour of time. They're unemployed! (usually)

This actually sounds like a place where the government could do some good by somewhat reducing information asymmetries and helping the market function better. I'm not think of regulations. I don't think those would be necessarily positive. Instead, I think there would be tremendous benefit in funding such seminars, recording them, doing some in-depth journalism, and publishing the results.

Where could I apply for a grant?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse