

Tell me why I suck - injekt
http://injekt.net/blog/tell-me-why-i-suck

======
RiderOfGiraffes
Companies won't do it because they fear being taken to court for
discrimination. When hiring we were specifically advised by our legal team
_not_ to tell people why they were unsuccessful. It doesn't matter how careful
you are, anything you say can be leapt upon by an unsuccessful candidate and
used as an excuse to drag you to court claiming that they were discriminated
against. This is especially true in these days of "No Win, No Fee" lawyers.

Sometimes, of course, the prospective candidate really has no skills at all in
the required areas. I'm reminded of the Tom Lehrer quotation:

    
    
      " ... one of the many fine things one has to admit
        is the way that the army has carried the American
        democratic ideal to its logical conclusion in the
        sense that not only do they prohibit discrimination
        on the grounds of race, creed, and color, but also
        on the grounds of ability. "
    

But I'd love to tell people why they were unsuccessful. I'd love to give them
the opportunity to learn, to grow, to improve, or in some cases simply to say
"Well, I guess we weren't a good fit."

However, the age of litigation prevents me from doing that. And I'm not
allowed to say "Sorry" either, because that could be taken as an admission of
culpability.

(edited to add the Lehrer quotation)

~~~
petervandijck
Also, for real, about 8 out of 10 people take it badly. I've tried it. It just
doesn't work.

Why don't you ask for it though? A quick reply: "I'd love to hear why I was
rejected, won't take it badly, but as an opportunity to learn". Don't make
them do all the work.

~~~
stop
Good point but I would say don't bother asking. The answer will be useless to
you because you can't trust its authenticity. Only people inside the company
will know the real reason and perhaps not even there.

~~~
petervandijck
If someone would ask me, I'd tell them honestly. Never happened though.

------
rexreed
As a tech employer, I can tell you the top 3 reasons why it's hard to provide
the feedback you seek:

1) Many times it's not that you're lacking in any manner, it's just that
there's someone that suited the position better. It's like dating - if you
reject someone because someone better came into your life, what do you tell
the other person? Usually it goes "it's not you, it's me...".

2) Sometimes I don't know what I'm looking for until I look. Then I get
responses and realize I'm looking for the wrong thing. Then when I say no,
again, it's not because of you, it's because of me. Sounds like dating again.

3) Finally, connections and personal relationships help. If I don't know you
from Jack Adam, then it's hard to provide any sort of useful feedback if I
don't have that much useful feedback. If we had a relationship, then I could
give you some sort of advice on what would be a better fit for you, make a
recommendation to someone else.

Instead of asking "what went wrong", maybe you might want to ask "is there
anyone you can recommend or do you think that something / someone else might
be a better fit"? You never know whomever else we might know in the space
that's hiring. And while we might have found for ourselves a great mate, that
doesn't mean you're not dating material. Perhaps we have just the right fix-up
for you. Or maybe not.

Just one additional perspective.

~~~
twymer
_Usually it goes "it's not you, it's me..."._

Yes but in life as in dating, I'd like to know why I'm not a match.

Knowing the posting was inaccurate for what you're looking for is better than
wondering why one got turned down for what seemed a perfect fit.

 _Instead of asking "what went wrong", maybe you might want to ask "is there
anyone you can recommend or do you think that something / someone else might
be a better fit"?_

I really like this idea, I guess I never considered this as a possibility
before. Nothing to lose by asking, though.

~~~
ams6110
I think in many cases, like in relationships, it's intangible. The hired
candidate just "clicked" with the interviewer(s). Also mentioned earlier,
anyone who has a referral from a current (competent) employee is going to be
greatly preferred over any candidate that nobody knows. The first two jobs I
had after college I got on my own, everything since then has at least partly
involved a referral.

------
agentultra
In the many interviews I've had to do last year, I'd say a rejection notice is
a start. In far too many cases the company simply ignores you. I've gotten to
second and third interviews and thought I was doing quite well. Only to never
hear from them again. Just sending out a notice would have at least prevented
me from wondering.

Knowing why... would be nice, but it's understandleable why companies avoid
it. From a purely human perspective it's hard disappointing people and letting
them down. People don't like giving other people bad news. Especially if they
don't know you. There's no way to tell how the person receiving it is going to
react. It's easier to just be as polite as you can about it and keep your
resons to yourself.

I hate wondering, but that's just part of the process. I've interviewed with a
company where I blew past the technical interview. When I came in to meet with
the CEO and do the social bit... well I thought I did alright, but I just
never heard back from them again. I've wondered a thousand times what I
might've said that would turn them off from a perfectly good candidate such as
myself. I'll just have to live without knowing and I think it might be better
that way anyway. It might be that the CEO just didn't get a good gut feeling
about it, maybe I made a bad joke, maybe someone that works there recommended
a friend... who knows? This stuff can be really, painfully arbitrary. It's
best not to fret about it and keep your head up.

------
sambeau
Things are both simpler and more complicated in the UK.

Simpler because the rules are quite clear (and very fair) and more complex
because company managers tend to make up extreme rules that are way beyond
what is necessary.

Job application disputes are not settled in a standard court, they go to an
employment tribunal instead and are decided by one judge and two independent
lay-member volunteers (often councillors, trade-unionists, clergy, business
leaders etc).

For a case to be heard there would almost certainly have had to be
discrimination on the grounds of disability, race, sex, age, sexual
orientation, religion or belief. While some serious degree of "bad-process"
might make it it would be unlikely to be successful.

Apart from blatant discrimination, tribunals mostly look for consistency in
how workers are treated. So if you tell one candidate why they weren't
successful there is an argument that all must be told. A simple way round this
is to wait to be asked and only reply to those candidates that ask.

Sadly, UK companies seem to be un-necessarily paranoid about this and I have
heard management claim all sorts of reasons why reasonable openness cannot be
practiced during the job-interview process.

Generally, though, UK tribunals tend towards doing the _right_ thing from my
experience. In the 2 tribunals I have been present at, both sided with the
company (as they should have). Both had a trade unionist on the tribunal.

I do think that companies have a moral duty to tell applicants why they were
unsuccessful if _they got as far as an interview_ , even if it is just to say
"there was a better candidate on the day". They have made a commitment to the
candidate and the candidate has reciprocated by turning up to be interviewed.

Companies should do the right thing rather than fear litigation.

~~~
notahacker
I've had plenty of feedback from interviews from UK companies without
receiving one piece of actionable advice.

To be fair, it was quite clear that I didn't want to work at some of those
companies and if I'd have been asked to give _them_ feedback I'd have phrased
my disinterest in similarly brief and diplomatic terms which wouldn't have
told them much they didn't already know or weren't inclined to disagree
strongly with.

Even if the tribunals are inclined to side with the companies, companies'
fears are still well placed. A perfectly reasonable "unfortunately we didn't
think you had the appropriate experience for the job" can become possible
evidence that they were concealing discrimination should the company
subesquently hire someone similarly lacking in experience but _in every other
way perfectly suited to the role_. Companies seldom announce their decisions
to reject a candidate are based on racism, sexism, homophobia etc even when
they are.

~~~
sambeau
I think it could benefit companies to ask for feedback from interviewees.

My top interview tip is to always interview the company back. You may end up
spending the next 3 or more years there - you have to be sure its a good fit,
too.

------
csexton
Discomfort.

As a former hiring manager I can tell you I once tried to give feedback.

There was no threatened litigation, nothing like that at all.

But it resulted in the guy trying to argue the points I made, convince me that
he should still get the gig. I tried to be polite and explain clearly our
reasoning -- but he just kept pushing. I nearly had to hang up on him to get
him off the phone.

At that point I decided whenever I needed to turn someone down I would be as
quick and opaque as possible. Since then I never had a problem. Better yet,
have HR do it for you.

------
edw519
1\. There is no position. We're just "feeling out" the marketplace.

2\. There is no position. This was a headhunter building his database.

3\. We were planning to promote from within, but HR made us post the position
anyway. We didn't read or respond to any of the resumes.

4\. We already had the perfect candidate, but HR made us post the position
anyway. We didn't read or respond to any of the resumes.

5\. We posted the position as required by HR, but when an executive saw it on
the intranet, he made us hire his son/nephew/family friend. We didn't read or
respond to any of the resumes.

5\. We were planning to hire someone, but by the time the resumes started
arriving, the perfect candidate presented himself. We didn't read or respond
to any of the resumes.

6\. We were planning to hire someone, but the budget was cut. We didn't read
or respond to any of the resumes.

7\. We got 1,200 resumes in 2 days so HR ran them through a filter with almost
no correlation to potential suitability for the job. Your resume didn't get
through the filter. Next time, add buzzwords from the ad.

8\. Your resume made it through the HR filter, but we only had time to read
20% of them. Yours wasn't pretty enough.

9\. Your resume didn't stick out in a field of many that did stick out. You
probably should have some kick-ass differentiator FRONT AND CENTER.

10\. We read many great resumes. Yours was substandard compared to many of
them for one or more of many possible reasons. Have 5 friends proofread it and
give you brutally honest feedback for next time.

11\. Your resume sucked but you don't. Find 5 friends. See #10.

12\. You interviewed well, but someone else absolutely kicked ass. We loved
him/her. Tough break for you, I guess.

13\. You didn't interview well, but we can't really put our finger on it and
don't have time to respond. Tough break.

14\. You interviewed well and are still under consideration. But we are
waiting on corporate for 27 other things. You'll probably find another job
before we get back to you.

15\. You really do suck. (No you don't. Chances are the process never got this
far.)

~~~
Nitramp
There are actually courses/books on how to spot the faux job ads (forced by HR
policy, worker's council, ...).

~~~
mkr-hn
Any recommendations? It would save me a lot of time if I could spend a little
money and read a book to save the hours wasted on applying for junk offers.

~~~
andy_boot
I think the total time spent reading the book and evaluating the job would be
more than knocking out a quick cover letter and sending it off with your CV

------
troels
When I have hired people, I have always offered to explain the reasons for
rejection, when I turned people down. The ones that opted in, I have given an
answer. This way, I don't have to spend time on telling people why I turned
them down if they don't really care.

The thing is - It's quite hard to give that kind of feedback. A great deal of
the assertion of candidates ultimately comes down to instinct. That's hard to
qualify. Besides, you want to be very careful about your wording, so it
usually takes up a lot of time to write even a few paragraphs back to a
candidate.

~~~
injekt
I totally agree. I guess it's limited to the cases where you feel you can help
the candidate with further job searching

------
acangiano
America has an extremely litigious society. I won't tell you why you suck,
because if I do you'll find a way to sue me.

~~~
injekt
A very good point. It's actually the UK, but to be honest.. The same can be
said in most countries nowadays

~~~
oscardelben
I hope not, I hope this trend stop. It's ridiculous that you can get sued for
everything these days.

~~~
gulbrandr
Unfortunately, it won't.

------
wheeliemow
This is great article. I recently was to an interview with a company and
thought the interview went great. They even told me they had been looking for
a candidate since August. To my dismay one week after the interview I received
a similar email. No reason, just the "we looked at your credentials and those
of other applicants and have decided to continue with other applicants". Funny
thing is the job is still posted and probably will be for another 6 months.

What I don't understand is that if company x has been looking to fill a
position for 6 months is company x just too picky or have too high
expectations of a new applicant?

I really have to agree with this that companies should at least give some
additional reason for the turn down instead of the typical form letter. You as
an applicant spent a lot of time working on your resume and interviewing
skills the least the company could do is let you know why they wont be
offering a jab.

Just my two cents...

~~~
ChuckMcM
One of the things I found interesting about Google's process was that everyone
had input on their tracking system. Thus even when a person was a 'good fit'
if there was someone in the company who had worked at the same company/time as
the candidate, and suggested that the company pass, that carried a huge amount
of force.

When ever I recommended someone I would check to see what the other folks that
knew them added into the 'mix' if there was someone who clearly had an axe to
grind (hey it happens) I'd try to talk to them one on one and figure out if it
was a 'real' issue or just a past injustice that was motivating the down vote.

Sometimes it was warranted, there are good people who just don't fit with a
company's culture. Sometimes it wasn't. One manager suggested that even if it
was just sour grapes between the candidate and the employee it was a 'good
signal' because the candidate burned their bridges willingly. (Although I'm a
firm believer that people mature and change over time, not everyone subscribes
to that philosophy either)

Be nice, be courteous, if they turn you down move on.

------
Udo
"I suck" is not a productive line of thought and potential employers will
never give you feedback what you suck at. If you're sending out a large number
of job applications and resumes, it might be a good idea to incorporate some
basic testing methods. Try out different combinations of CVs, different tones,
different vocabularies. Maybe there is a simple reason for all the rejections
that can be fixed with some minor adjustments. For example, you might be
giving too much or too little information on your CV. Perhaps you're applying
at the wrong companies or for the wrong position. The point being, if you
received so many _fuck-off_ letters, there is probably something systemically
wrong here, and chances are you can use a combination of quality assurance and
data analysis to find out what it is.

------
broofa
One problem with telling someone why you didn't hire them is that most (yes,
most) people will disagree with you. "No, you're wrong I really do know [skill
X], and have experience with [technology Y]". (Uhm, no you don't, otherwise
I'd have hired you). Or, "but I gave you a good answer!" (wrong again.) At
best these are dead-end arguments that leave both parties frustrated. At worst
you end up in a courtroom, as others have mentioned.

So, you want to know what you did wrong? Maybe it's that you didn't develop a
good enough rapport with your interviewer to show you knew how to listen to
them and "take a hint". Next time, be sure to checkin with the person you're
talking to by asking things like, "does that answer your question", and "do
you want me to go into more detail".

And it's great that you're looking for feedback, but why are you whining about
not getting it after the fact when you could just ask for it in the interview?
When an interviewer asks you a question, do your best to answer it and if
you're not sure how you've done, just frickin' ask! "What do you think? Is
that a good solution", or, "That's how I'd tackle it. What would you do?"
Demonstrate that you know where your weaknesses are and that you have genuine
interest in improving your skillset/knowledge/whatever.

One of the most important qualities I look for in people I work with is self-
awareness of how they're perceived. People who lack this are a pain in the ass
to manage. In the extreme, they're self-entitled primadonnas who are
impossible to give feedback to. But even in moderation, this is problematic.
Yes, I know you don't think copy/pasting code is all that bad, or that you're
l33t-speak documentation is readable enough... but it's not. Don't make me
argue with you about it.

------
tow21
Have you tried asking?

I've done this in the past with jobs for which I was not accepted. Some were
happy to, some weren't, but where they did it was useful.

And as an employer now, I'm generally happy to share useful feedback. But I'll
usually only bother if the candidate asks me. This is at least partly because
- as RiderOfGiraffes alludes to, there are legal issues involved, and I have
to think very hard about how I word a reply to make sure it stays within the
bounds of relevant laws. And I'm happy to do that if the candidate asked after
it - but not if they've expressed no interest.

(fwiw, this is in the UK)

~~~
injekt
It's not really happening at the moment, I'm a freelance developer now. But
after having a discussion with a friend going through the same trouble, I had
the question.

I probably didn't ask as much as I should/could have, I possibly asked 5-10%
of employers, and when I had either no response or a negative 'you didnt suit
our needs', I guess I just gave up. I think it's extremely dependent of the
company, and surprisingly the person you're dealing with directly inside the
company.

~~~
eli
It's not too late.

What's the harm in something like: " _Hey, remember me? I once applied here
and wasn't hired, but I really like your company and I was wondering if you
have any advice to make me a stronger applicant for future openings_ "

------
easilydeasily
I was once not hired for a job i applied for (during the interview i was cross
questioned a bit like an interrogation but a lot like i had done something
wrong and this was my trial!), after the interview, his assistant was really
kind and said to me,"really sorry about, that is my bosses confrontation style
..." then i was told they would like to see me again!

But after some thought (1 second), i just wanted not to go back again ... so
maybe meaningful feedback to the interviewer/company would be useful too ...

------
yahelc
"Tell Me Why I Suck" could be a great anonymous "3 words"-style
service...People post their resumes, cover letters, and people can give
anonymous feedback on why they suck.

~~~
stephencelis
A friend and I built <http://failin.gs> with the mindset of vanilla anonymous
feedback but were surprised when a lot of people started using their profile
as a forum for feedback on their artwork and other hobbies.

------
whow
I think all these explanation of fear of legal ramifications and how it's hard
to provide feedback are just covers.

Employers and/or recruiters don't provide any reason because the the minimum
that they have to do to let you know that you are not accepted is to tell you
no. They are not bounded in any ways to do more than that. Telling you why
means they have to think, to sit down and write more than a sentence. It's
easier to just give a canned answer and send it out.

All the outer explanation of legal ramification, hard to provide feed back,
it's just smoke screen to cover the most basic human nature to be lazy.
Period.

Personally I've had good feedback 1 in every 50 application I sent. I've
always proactively asked for feedback when I can and I think I've probably had
3 good feedbacks so far. One went as far as buying me lunch and explain the
decision to me while another invited me back to his office where we sat down
and chatted for quite a bit.

It's not that you suck, it's just human nature. Most of us are a lazy bunch.

------
ecaradec
Telling candidates why they are not a good fit is not the company job, it's
your job as a candidate to figure out why you are not a good fit. Also it
would open them to some liability, which is something that anyone prefers to
avoid.

I sometimes made interviews with potential candidates, and if you do it at a
time you'll learn that it's really not something personal. I just say this, so
that you know that you don't suck actually. Most companies are looking for
someone who know their stuff (surprisingly hard to find ) AND is nice (someone
you can work with ).

If you do the two above thing for a long enough time, have a good CV, ideally
some personal project to show, you'll land up a good job in the end.

------
bena
Even small companies get many applicants.

Think about it this way. You are vying with 30 - 40 other people for one spot.

Failure should not be a surprise. Especially when there is no way to clearly
differentiate the best from the top 10%.

------
lt
There's also the fact that there's multiple candidates for one position. You
might have been a good choice, but someone else had more experience, or
another diferential.

------
AngeloAnolin
Just a thought.

Maybe it is not who sucks.

But rather the first person in line receiving and reviewing your profile who
has the crab mentality thinking that this person seems so good that s/he may
change the way how business is done.

And let's accept it. A lot of these front end people dislike change. A lot of
them have the same repertoire of outdated processes in hiring and looking for
people who would be a good fit in their organization.

------
cletus
Getting no feedback sucks. I wrote about this last year [1]. Now Google is
somewhat of a special case because it's a highly desirable place to work and
very large so you have issues of scale [2].

Sometimes I read posts like this and someone will say "I sent out X hundred
resumes" and my response is always "really?". It always strikes me that if
that's what you're doing, you're doing something wrong.

Let me explain. I contracted in Australia for some years (where I'm from) and
also in the UK (London) for several years. Contracting in London is a soul-
destroying experience and there is an industry in dire need of regulation but
I digress.

Contracting is possibly the worst and most depressing form of looking for work
because you in many ways are at the bottom of the totem pole. You may earn a
lot but you pay for that. Companies will generally treat you as replaceable
(which you are).

But in the course of much job-seeking I've spoken to many recruiters and some
have given me the lowdown on what they do (including the shady practices). But
the thing that stuck out the most for me was they all say they can throw out
90-95% of the resumes (CVs actually) they receive within seconds of receiving.
This is a combination of them being bad but, more interestingly, the person
just isn't suited for the job. Like not even remotely. Basically people take a
shotgun approach of applying for everything. If you're a C++ programmer living
in Leeds you end up applying for an Oracle DBA position in Reading. I'm not
kidding.

I've generally had a reasonable success rate with both getting interviews and
getting the job at that point. One reason for this I think is not that I'm
some super candidate but that I really target which jobs I go after as being
something I'm particularly interested in or something I'm particularly well-
suited for.

Part of it too is understanding the process and this varies from place to
place.

So in the UK for example you want to deal with only a handful of recruiting
agencies. There are many fly-by-night operations who are either harvesting CVs
or just hoping to get lucky. Filling one candidate a month can keep a small
operation afloat.

So if applying for a job with a bank in London there are three filters you
have to make it through:

1\. The recruiter. The recruiter may be limited in the number of CVs they can
submit (eg 2). Even if they don't submit you they'll often tell you they will,
which is why it's important to find one you can trust. Trust but verify;

2\. HR. This is in my experience the biggest impediment to filling jobs. HR
know _nothing_ about programming so they'll word scan your CV/resume based on
buzzwords. So you need to fill your CV with buzzwords, particularly those for
the job. This can often mean catering your CV on a per-job basis. Some may not
like this because it's more work (which it is) but that's the point: target
high-probability jobs. The problem is that a buzzword-filled CV is actually a
red flag to anyone technically competent;

3\. Hiring Manager: if you make it this far, with UK banks at least, you'll be
in a pile of up to 10 CVs generally speaking. Rarely will a hiring manager
interview all candidates. They might pick 2-4 they like, screen them by phone
and go down to 2-3 onsite interviews. Or they might just interview people
until they find someone they like (very common in my experience) so, if you
ever have a choice of interview slot, pick the earliest one. Cancel anything
else. You can lose a job simply by choosing a slot on the second day and never
being seen.

So to return to the issue of feedback: it's even worse with recruiters in the
picture. The hiring manager may give feedback to the recruiter (but generally
won't; they're too busy). But even if they do the chances of the recruiter
passing it along, unless you have a very good relationship with them, is
almost zero. At the point you didn't get the job, they lose interest in you
until the next job they can shop you for comes up.

Recruitment as it stands now is a disaster but won't really change until
companies (who have the money) sign on to changing it. The feedback loop isn't
there to inform them of how they're not getting the best result out of this
(if they even care). Bear in mind that the person running the team you would
potentially work for may be as frustrated by this process as you the candidate
are.

Google again is a special case here. We're large enough that we have our own
recruiters. I can't imagine how horrid the situation would be if we outsourced
recruitment. Of course not everyone can do that but not everyone needs to I
guess.

The process here is scrutinized (and criticized) quite a lot so is subject to
gaming. So please don't take my comments to mean the process here is perfect.
It isn't. But I have a hard time figuring out how it could be done better on
the same scale. Every large company will be selective in some way, just to
limit the deluge of applicants to manageable levels.

Other commentors have likened recruitment to dating and it's an apt analogy
IMHO. A lot of recruitment comes down to chemistry between those doing the
hiring and the candidate. If the interviewer likes you then you're in a much
better position. So you can be technically well-suited for something but just
not a great "culture fit".

There can be luck involved here too. It can depend on who interviews you,
other factors (maybe an interviewer is just having a bad day; maybe you are).
I think it's important not to dwell on the feedback and rejection for too
long. Try and just move on to the next thing.

[1]: <http://www.cforcoding.com/2010/07/my-google-interview.html>

[2]: [http://screamable.com/google-received-over-75000-job-
applica...](http://screamable.com/google-received-over-75000-job-applications-
worldwide-in-just-one-week.html)

------
imechura
Not sure where you are looking but there has been no lack of jobs for software
developers where I am located. If you can code Java in Dallas you can slip and
fall into a 6 figure salary. I guess I am spoiled but the ideas of sending out
"Hundreds" of resumes seems foreign to me.

