This post is in honor of
the multitude of job seekers who go on interviews either through recruiters,
networking or job boards and are incredulous that they cannot get feedback on
their interviews. All too often, the interview ends positively with a promise of further meetings, but the candidate then
hears nothing. The experience just goes into a black hole.
I cannot speak about other industries, but in advertising, this situation is all too prevalent.
I cannot speak about other industries, but in advertising, this situation is all too prevalent.
One of my pet peeves –
actually all recruiters and HR professionals – is not
receiving feedback after a candidate interviews. Some companies look
at
giving feedback as a nuisance. I once actually had a client tell me that
the trouble with recruiters is that they want feedback. What she
didn't realize is that in failing to provide
this information, she ended up costing herself more interview time as
well as leaving candidates with a poor opinion of the company. This is especially important when the jobs
specs are vague, which is often.
Sometimes when we get
feedback it is unspecific. This is also useless. We recently got an email after a candidate
had had multiple interviews, saying that the company was “lukewarm” on the
candidate. I
had no idea what that meant or how to interpret it, especially since he
had been through a couple of interviews. That kind of non-specific
comment doesn’t help us, the company or the candidate.
When professionals are told
that a candidate has too much of this and too little of that, we are able to
look more efficiently and effectively for additional candidates. (I have cancelled future interviews of
candidates when I have discovered that they would be wrong for a job based on
feedback from someone's previous interview. Sending them would be a waste
of their time and the company’s time.) Feedback
also gives us additional insight into candidates; after all, another opinion of
a person is a good thing for us to have.
So why don’t people give
feedback?
I am guessing that very
often, the first level of hiring manager or human resources schedules multiple
interviews and decides to wait until all people are seen. They would prefer to
give simple feedback, like, “Let’s proceed with candidates number 1 and 3.” But that provides no insight or direction
into what is right about the two chosen candidates or what was wrong with
number 2; it may well be that the HR professional or a recruiter has other
candidates and some may be better qualified, but without the feedback and comparison to the
other interviewees (even if we don't know them), it gives us no concrete direction and doesn’t allow us to
move forward on their behalf. Sadly, the manager thinks
that he or she is being more efficient.
Another reason people don’t
give feedback is that they are so busy that they cannot or will not spend the
few minutes to provide insight into their interviews. And if there is no HR
person or other middleman involved who can push them into being specific, the
interview may just go into a black hole.
They just don’t want to spend the time.
Of course as a result of that, candidates spread the bad word that the
company or the person is rude. Every
interviewer’s job is to create positive public relations for their firm.
Getting no results after an interview drives candidates crazy.
A third reason hiring
managers may not give feedback, is that they are not trained interviewers and
simply don’t know what to say. They will interview until their gut tells them a
candidate is right and simply accept that candidate, forgetting about the
others. To avoid this problem, all
companies should teach their people how to interview (I have given many
seminars on this subject). I would also recommend that a company create a
feedback form which should be sent back to HR and passed back to recruiters, if
appropriate. It could make the process
actually go faster and smoother.
There is a fourth reason. Sometimes candidates screw up interviews. But without telling us or them, whatever the problem is or was, we cannot help unless we can identify the problem. I have never understood why companies are reluctant to give their recruiters bad news. (I once lost a candidate because he misspelled something on a thank you note after what would have been his final interview. It took me three weeks before I finally got the HR person to tell me what happened.)
There is a fourth reason. Sometimes candidates screw up interviews. But without telling us or them, whatever the problem is or was, we cannot help unless we can identify the problem. I have never understood why companies are reluctant to give their recruiters bad news. (I once lost a candidate because he misspelled something on a thank you note after what would have been his final interview. It took me three weeks before I finally got the HR person to tell me what happened.)
As mentioned, one of the
jobs of a recruiter is to create positive public relations for their clients. Mostly,
when I can tell my candidates the feedback, they agree with the truth. And since I believe in telling my candidates
the truth, they are appreciative. That
is far better PR than when we hear nothing.
Sometimes we hear nothing
because the human resources person we are dealing with has been unable to
obtain feedback from the person who did the interviewing. When that happens, it is better to tell us or
the candidate. At least it is something.
Everyone who spends time
interviewing can and should be able to learn from the experience.
I think there's another reason related to item one above: if you are a candidate in "Tier 2" (they probably don't want to hire you, but you were ok), employers like to keep you strung along in the event they need to unexpectedly proceed with your candidacy. Maybe the ideal candidate drops out and the second in line bombs the next round. You never know. Companies want to maintain as many options as possible...to the detriment of job seekers who are just looking to understand the reality of the situation.
ReplyDeleteWell, Harry, my opinion is that you are partially right. Often, HR withholds giving feedback for that reason, but that is a bad tactic. There is no reason why a candidate cannot be told that he or she was liked very much. And that we are still seeing a number of candidates. The person must then be given full feedback once a finalist person has accepted. To not give any feedback at all (it takes discipline) shows a lack of professionalism and is rude.
DeleteI completely agree. There is always a way to handle things with empathy and candor. As someone who is currently job searching, I continue to be amazed by the lack of both, particularly among agencies.
DeleteRecently, I was scheduled to have a second phone interview with the head of recruiting at an agency. He requested the second meeting because the first 30 minute call was, "just to get a sense of the role, and then in the second call we'll talk more about you."
At the time of the appointment, which required great pains to accommodate, I received no call. I tried to reach him that day, and then in subsequent days. I never received a response. This man requested a meeting, and then just disappeared. He didn't even think it worth the courtesy to provide an explanation.
Ouch!
DeleteI feel so sorry for today’s young job seekers. There was a time when you could simply write a letter of introduction (with resume) to somebody hiring; follow up with a phone call or two (or ten); and maybe get an interview. Now it’s all about digital algorithms and key words submitted on job boards. Which is to say, NOBODY gets anywhere with USPS First Class mail; phone calls; e-mails; or “headhunters” unless the COMPUTER says so. As for feedback if you ever actually get an interview … Don’t hold your breath and keep moving forward.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, you are right. Thanks for your thoughts.
Delete