

Ask HN: Why do companies not provide good feedback for rejected candidates? - vishalzone2002

I am curious it is a policy or is it too time consuming ?
======
DanielStraight
When you need to cover your ass, providing feedback for rejection is _always_
a bad idea. If you're dealing with a pushy sales person and you give them a
reason why you're saying no, you've given them something to work with. They
can debate whether your reason is legitimate. They can promise to meet that
criteria, then you have no reason to say no. The same can apply in ending or
rejecting a romantic relationship. If you give a reason, it can create an
expectation that when the reason changes, the rejection will change as well.

Put this in a legal context and giving a reason for rejection is just asking
for trouble. First of all, the rejected candidate could argue that your reason
was illegal. Second, they could argue you were misinformed, so the reason is
not legitimate. Finally, they could argue they've changed, so you have to
reconsider them, since your stated reason no longer applies.

In all these cases, it's easiest to provide no reason whatsoever. (See also
Miss Manners, who frequently has advised repeating a meaningless, "No, because
I can't; I can't because I won't be able to" type response until the other
person gives up.) Giving a reason creates a focus for an argument. No reason,
no argument, just the other person incessantly begging for a reason, which is
never going to make them look good.

------
AngeloAnolin
Three things I could think of: 1\. Cost 2\. Time 3\. Hiring Process

Elaborating further: Cost - Providing feedback to each applicant is a costly
process, that would normally entail multiple systems (people, resources) to
provide feedback that is going to be specifically helpful to the individual.

Time - Crafting feedback takes time. An automated process would generally be
regarded as more backward, especially from the person receiving the feedback.

Hiring Process - Given the two reasons above, organizations tend to exclude
this practice (particularly for large organizations who may need to process
hundreds or thousands of applicants for a certain posting).

------
lovelearning
Besides lack of any explicit policy / lack of time / legal risks, how does it
really benefit the interviewers if they give such (probably unsolicited)
feedback?

Most people are incapable of accepting criticism anyway, and nowadays where
everyone blogs, tweets or posts on facebook, there is a risk that the
interviewing company may have its hiring process tarnished just for giving
constructive feedback in good faith. "No good deed goes unpunished".

------
helpfuldev
Neither. They are looking for the best candidate.

It's not their job to provide detailed feedback to 100+ lesser candidates.

If you want feedback, it's best to apply through a recruiter. Then you can ask
the recruiter why you were not selected.

------
wglb
Certainly time consuming, but any comments could end up being fodder for
lawsuits.

