I don't think it's necessarily better or worse than email. As the hiring manager quoted in the article said, for candidates who made it to the final phases of the process it can seem more cordial. But I can see how it might be cruel to do it to new graduates, who are both potentially less ready for rejection and more busy with the job search process.
That said, it can be horribly executed. Last year after several interviews with a large company, I got an email from a recruiter who hadn't been involved in the process up to that point, telling me to expect a short call within a certain time window. I kept my calendar clear, but didn't get a call, so I sent a polite email offering a couple of times the next day to reschedule. After hearing nothing back for a few days, I got another email with another window. The recruiter also missed that window. This went on for a few more days until I suggested that they just get to the point over email, a few minutes later the recruiter called unscheduled to tell me I didn't get the job. At that point I feel like it was more awkward for the company (big one, name begins with "A"). I think I might have audibly laughed when the recruiter asked if I'd be interested in other positions there.
I don't think it's necessarily better or worse than email
It's greatly worse than an email because it (1) primes the candidate with a false set of a (highly positive) expectations, only to simply (2) gouge very significantly into their time (as with any scheduled video call). The fact that these companies have no grasp of what should be obvious to them -- in particular as regards item (2) -- is central to what's so toxic about the current job application process.
A rejection email with the option of requesting a phone or video call seems like the best balance. I can imagine there's a few scenarios where the hiring team can offer constructive feedback, but ... again, it's probably few. Giving people the option, and seeing how many people actual request it, would be instructive to the HR folks about whether to continue that approach or not.
Facebook, when it was new and turning the tech industry upside down, made a name for itself by treating candidates with more respect than the companies they fled did,and generally improving upon the culture of their former employers. One of their innovations was to give a bit of concrete feedback on what the negative aspects of the evaluation were.
Yeah, I suspect that ordinarily that's the way to do it, if you were already into the interview process with someone (or the company had actively recruited them, or there was some special referral).
We can't necessarily offer useful feedback, but the optional call can at least provide the opportunity for a personal touch and fellow-human decency, with the person having a chance to compose themselves first and think about anything they want to ask or add.
If the candidate is one you really don't want to talk with again (e.g., got unambiguously jerky in an interview, or seems a high risk of flipping out and trying to sue), the rejection email doesn't have to offer a call.
> with the option of requesting a phone or video call
If they want to tell something real instead of "you were a fan-tas-tic candidate, but we decided to go with another." There's no information, nothing helpful in there.
If HR thinks that saying something about e.g. experience is supposed to be helpful, they should have informed everyone in advance where they stood wrt. experience. Because that message still makes the recipient feel "and now you tell me?" So don't mention it, or inform throughout the process. If HR doesn't like that, because it reduces their options, but then please cut the BS.
> They at least don’t require candidates to get dressed up or to worry about controlling their facial expressions [...] Expecting candidates to remain in Professional Mode while experiencing what might be extreme disappointment is unkind.
If more of us flipped out a little at such treatment, maybe managers would stop doing it. Or in other words: give negative feedback to being treated negatively.
I don't mean anything unseemly, but indeed, maybe break that professional barrier a bit. "Oh, no. I'm so terribly disappointed, you know? Just to be clear this is a rejection? Wow. I've never had anyone call to reject my offer before. ...Well, gosh, this is awkward, isn't it? Oh wow, I really wasn't expecting this. Totally out of left field. Well, uh, thanks for taking the time to reject me, anyway. Take care."
(How are they to even know they just seriously distressed you, pointlessly, if you don't tell them?)
Even the most measured emotional appeal is considered unprofessional on the basis that it appeals to humanity; it is “unfair” to appeal to someone on a para-rational level. You can’t reason away how someone’s face dropping, their voice breaking up, makes you feel.
I still feel this is nothing. Last year, I got a rejection email with a link to calendly to book an appointment with the recruiter if I care for feedback. This was two weeks after all 7-10 interviews.
Real thing is - just like candidates employers too are taking chances with multiple candidates for a position. I don’t see a scalable way of running this. We shouldn’t be taking rejections personally.
Hah. I once had a company ask the same, except they didn't specify that it was feedback for them. I set time aside for a call with them thinking they were going to clarify why they didn't want to proceed with me, and what I could have done better (least a company can do after rejecting someone), and was soundly disappointed when they said that they couldn't do that, but that I should please let them know how they could improve their hiring process.
"My hourly rate to consult on hiring processes is ${houry rate}, minimum 8 hours. Alternately, I'd consider a full-time role in HR at your company for ${salary requirements}."
Seriously though, asking a rejected candidate to do free work to benefit the company is unbelievable.
Yes please just email these. Especially lately, every recruiter and manager has an annoyingly full schedule so your not even getting your rejection timely and I have to block out time in the day so you can tell me how sorry you are moving on with someone else. Plus I need to sit around for days wondering what the status is with this looming calendar invite, when you already have the decision.
Just send an email and if you can any feedback over email. Don't waste time with a call or make us pretend like we'll ever talk again.
I didn't realize this was becoming more common. It seems far more uncomfortable for everyone involved, although based on the comments it does seem like some people appreciate a phone/Zoom call. I don't really understand why, though (please try to explain!). An email gives me more time to process difficult news, and prevents me from needing to act positively in an unambiguously negative situation.
I've been called for a rejection exactly once, less than an hour after I'd left the office where I was being interviewed. I was kind of shocked (the interviews went really well) and I didn't realize until later that the recruiter never said my name, and had previously claimed I would absolutely not get the result for at least 3 days. A week later, I got an offer, and I always felt a little bad for the candidate I unintentionally caused to get ghosted because the recruiter dialed the wrong number and I didn't figure it out.
This has happened to me twice now (and almost a third). The first time was with a certain tech darling with a hugging face emoji mascot, but I could at least sort of see that one coming, because the whole process was so poor that I had already written them off.
The almost a third time was the worst, though. I had a two hour interview with the CEO, who then didn't get back to me or reply to two follow ups. I then mentioned in passing two months later to the external recruiter what I had experienced, and the CEO emailed the next day offering a call. Dude, we both know what's happening, do we really need a face to face?
It's not good that you were ghosted, but don't you think it's a positive sign that the CEO was trying to make amends in some way? Admittedly, it's 'too little, too late', but I think it still shows a basic level of self-consciousness if not actual remorse of the part of the executive.
The "CEOs" I know are process ridden vodoo priests with the attention span of collibris when it comes to "side" projects like hiring. Up and down the scenario tree, the newest "toy" firmly on the mind, the rest fast forgotten. Which is why all those career animals try to generate company internal headlines, to bubble as a new/rediscovered toy back upon the adhd stack.
If this video call gives the interviewee a final opportunity to express their thoughts and has the potential to change the outcome, then I think it still has positive value. However, as mentioned in the article, most people feel very awkward and have nothing to say during this meeting, which is simply torturous. In that case, I think it would be better to replace the video conference with an email, after all, if you don't allow the possibility of changing the outcome, why not make it more comfortable for both parties?
> This person was invited to visit the employer’s office, only to be rejected in person once they got there
I wonder if this is actually meant to avoid leaving a record -- if any part of the rejection message was legally contentious, the candidate is less likely to have any tangible evidence to share.
I had similar thoughts regarding rejections via phone calls and video meetings, since some lawyers prefer those over written discussions for similar reasons, but it's conceivable that the candidate would be recording all calls if they were at home.
Another problem is that due to fear of lawsuits, you really are not allowed to talk to candidates afterwards.
Even innocuous things like "We all really thought you'resmart, and loved your projects, but in the end we thought you needed a bit more experience. Please, please reapply in a few years" - you may mean it to encourage the person and show them that the lack of an offer is just a time mismatch, they or their lawyers might reinterpret it as a type of age discrimination, or worse.
Basically as a company employee you are in a "live fire" environment when talking to candidates and you need to keep your head down and minimize exposure
The obvious answer is to make the average validity of successful suits against companies much higher, so that the feeling changed from "it's Very very easy to be sued and lose money+status+reputation wise, regardless of the merits of the case" to "it's a free country, if you do clear, overt, intentional wrong, you may be in trouble, but in general as long as you are honest you are in the clear"
> Hiring managers who want to make rejections feel less impersonal can do it by sharing the news in an email initially and then offering a phone call for feedback if the person wants one,
People are getting offers for feedback? Every time I have asked for feedback I get met with nothing. Like, how am I supposed to improve if I don't know what is missing?
Do you have any friends that can go through a mock interview with you? There are also mentorship platforms that offer this as a service. I am biased since I have been on the mentor side of this, but I think they are well worth the money.
One problem with feedback is that the reality is that people are often not hired rather than rejected.
I've been on a bunch of hiring committees (for mostly not purely technical jobs). And a lot of the time the discussion takes the form of "eh," "not feeling the love," or "we can probably do better." Usually it's not about alarms blaring or red flags going up or some specific skill set missing. (To be fair, the jobs I've been on committees for usually involve a lot of interpersonal relationship skills rather than a specific set of technical requirements.)
I think those scenarios are exactly where feedback could be valuable to the candidate. If the panel didn't feel the love, why so? If I get a low score on a coding test I am already going to realise that its going badly right there in the test so feedback is less valuable.
In my experience, it's either hard to articulate or it's something I wouldn't say to them like "you came across as very arrogant." Not the same thing but imagine dating scenarios. I've had plenty of situations where there were no red flags and also I couldn't have filled out a questionnaire about why I didn't "click" with a person.
That's not always the case. "Your writing sample was poor" so take a writing class. But I'd say that has been the minority and I could name one mistake where I assumed that was a flaw we could fix.
I think both phone call and Zoom call are worse than an automated email because 1) I have to find the time to be available for both and 2) More often than not I want to process in private.
A short, but still personalized email would be my preference. An offer to do a phone call or Zoom would also be humanizing but not necessary.
There is no easy way to reject. But I think a phone call with talking points is the best way.
Some saying an email is better, but then you literally start to form a relationship with the company. You have several interviews, you are in constant communication with the recruiter, they text you. An email after all that is just as impersonal.
Candidates should have that expectation. No matter how well things are going, you might get rejected.
My recruiter from Amazon ghosted me for 6 months, then started talking to me like it was nothing. [1]. I treated it like I would in any relationship.
I doubt many people appreciate getting a call like this, but for people who find it to be suffering, it's a good exercise to practice stoicism / unattachment.
Learning to handle calls like this will make you better at professional conversations. The article alludes to that but dismisses it without examination.
Remember that your rejected applicants are the largest and cheapest part of your recruiting organization, and you can't fire them. You will do well to make them fans of your company and your hiring process.
Still better than telling you they want to hire you, then ghosting you for 2 weeks, and when you finally send a kind reminder, replying that "if you have other opportunities, feel free to go ahead"
Still slightly better than being ghosted by the company, which is what happened for one job I applied for. (Hey maybe they're still considering me 15 years later!)
My (few) jobs have been through personal connections for 20+ years now. But way back when in the days of sending letters into the void, there were countless examples. Admittedly far fewer when I actually had in-person interviews.
I think it's nice that some companies try to combat the common complaints of poor communication towards rejected candidates. Sounds like they swung too far in the other direction, I'd rather just get an email too.
Now, can we do something about whiteboarding? Pretty please?
When I read the title I thought this was going to be about the case when AI supposedly rejected an applicant for listing their date of birth as 4/20. I can think of many other worse ways than this, even though it's dumb.
That said, it can be horribly executed. Last year after several interviews with a large company, I got an email from a recruiter who hadn't been involved in the process up to that point, telling me to expect a short call within a certain time window. I kept my calendar clear, but didn't get a call, so I sent a polite email offering a couple of times the next day to reschedule. After hearing nothing back for a few days, I got another email with another window. The recruiter also missed that window. This went on for a few more days until I suggested that they just get to the point over email, a few minutes later the recruiter called unscheduled to tell me I didn't get the job. At that point I feel like it was more awkward for the company (big one, name begins with "A"). I think I might have audibly laughed when the recruiter asked if I'd be interested in other positions there.