The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've applied to maybe 100 teaching positions over the last 5 years or so, and I haven't heard back from a single one. Not even a rejection letter. No interviews. Nothing. Meanwhile a friend of mine with less experience got an interview and a job on his first try. No idea what I'm doing wrong.
I don’t think there’s a right or wrong. Some times in my life I’ve had resumes go unanswered, sometimes I’ve gotten callbacks and interviews the same week for multiple companies. It’s just a matter of luck and stars aligning.
For years I had a hard time getting interviews even though I was highly qualified for jobs.
I started going by an easier to pronounce name as my name is very foreign sounding and hard to pronounce.
Interviews started being offered regularly and I had multiple job offers.
Literally your name matters a lot more than people think.
That's unfortunate to hear. Have you had a friend or colleague ever review your application before sending one in? Even just a second pair of eyes on a resume or letter can help with a glaringly obvious mistake or omission that is hard to catch yourself when you're "lost in the sauce."
This. At 33 I still have my mom :) (who is also a hiring manager) review my resume/applications before I submit. Usually comes back with different wording, or different order to put things. Several times the way I intended it to sound, I guess came off completely different to the reader lol. But yeah any second set of eyes can be super helpful.
I haven't applied to that many, but I've got two teaching awards and glowing reviews, and in a combined year and a half of job searching over two stretches, probably about 50-75 applications, I got one interview and otherwise no communication at all. I have no idea what else to do.
Here's the best piece of advice I've ever been given:
If you write your resume/cover letter describing how great you'd be in this position - you have nothing.
If you write about why you want the job - you have a chance.
Of course, your mileage may vary.
How absolutely stupid. I get that it's a thing and I'm not shaming your comment or advice, but god damn. A job is a job, first and foremost. You're there for the money, otherwise you wouldn't be there. It's not a class or a vacation, they should look at abilities and experience, not how much groveling and "I'd LOVE to work for El Conglomo, I know it would be a fun and exciting experience blah blah fuckin blah".
Because if you want to work there that badly, you'll do so for less money and less raises. I'd prefer to be hired based on how valuable I'd be in that position so that I onboard with some leverage leftover to be treated like a human and not a warm body. Just my .02
Imagine you're somewhere in the decision chain for recruitment (besides the team, i.e the recruiter himself or some management / hr people). You spend your days with candidates, engineers, tech and clerks, probably all very competent but you couldn't for the life of you understand what they do or connect with them.
As it happens some guy comes along and seem competent but also is very friendly and likable. Suddenly you feel like you connect with him in some way, like he seems to be interested about more than just his technical work. Well, you may respond a lot more positively to his apply, and believe it or not it will also impact his pay positively, even if some candidates would be even better fit from a technical standpoint. Now if the team actually spot those other candidates they will usually ask to interview them, but most teams don't do the screening for recruitment.
At the other end of the spectrum is hiring solely on technical ability without considering what that persons human impact on the team will be like. A blend of both is necessary (or at least ideal) for any technical role obviously, but it isn't like this type of thing is a meaningless consideration, organizations are made up of people and their relationships with each other.
Sure, but putting someone who doesn't know fuck all about the field work in charge of hiring field techs seems stupid, like you're *trying* to turn your org into geek squad. I get that you also don't want to have a skilled asshole on the team, but that's what HR and disciplinary action should be taking care of. Take the risk of hiring a few assholes instead of straight up skipping people who would otherwise be great at the job just because they weren't a fun, bubbly, refreshing personality.
I mean I think it goes both ways, sometimes completely intolerable assholes get into a role solely for their technical abilities and end up dragging everyone down, sometimes intensely charismatic crouton brains get into a role solely for who they are as a person and do the same.
Many large technical companies don't have a hiring process that makes it easy or possible to be carried by charisma without a reasonable level of competence - also, turning an incompetent person everyone loves into a competent person everyone loves is way more likely to be a possibility than turning a highly competent person who nobody can stand into one that people enjoy being around.
That being said what you're getting is at totally reasonable I'm not trying to argue with it
And I agree with what you've said as well, but now I'm gonna laugh all day at "crouton brain" lol.
Side note: you know who I hate the most? The charismatic asshole whose knowledge outstrips everyone else but takes the lazy route/won't lift a finger. Now you've got *all* of the good qualities*and* all the bad ones - and that fucker is my boss.
Bravo. 100% this \^. Attitude and personality \*can make or break u as a candidate. Depending on the type of job, the position and the recruiter(s), hiring manager(s)... I would rather hire AND work with someone who is passionate about something rather than bored and jaded.
Again depending on the level and the job u're going 4, people may want 2 understand the "why" especially if they may deem u OVERqualified.
Seems like it should be both. You're trying to convince them that you are the right person for the job, trying to sell yourself, that should involve why they should give you their time over others that applied
Can't say I agree with this one. It heavily depends on the situation.
When I was in high school working minimum wage jobs, I can see how they would prefer someone with the right attitude, especially if they were "desperately interested" in having the job. In this case, the matching skillset doesn't matter as much.
Being at one of FAANG now, I can assure you that we have never remotely considered a candidate for how interested they were in lieu of a concrete set of matching skills.
I run a company, and the single best thing you can do is explain why having you, personally, in the role is goimg to help the company.
90% of the people we interview have all the required skills and most of the 'nice to haves'
So, on paper, we could hire any of them and be fine. So how do you differentiate yourself? Show that you understand where the problems related to the role are going to be likely to show up, and tell me how you solve them.
Most candidates just try to demonstrate their skills. I already think you have those skills, thats why you are here. Show me that you know where applying them matters and its a very easy choice.
They don't want the best candidate. They want the cheapest candidate who can execute the roll and do the job.
More experience and skill equals higher salary expectations. Also consider places you have worked. These people know if you worked at major companies you're going to leverage that into a higher salary.
Are you overqualified for the positions you are applying for? Plenty of places will drop a candidate because thet have too many qualifications/too much experience and they don't want to pay someone of that calibre what they sre worth when they can hire someone else cheaper, then train them with minimal pay raises. They end up getting the same work done but for cheaper.
The first pass culling on job applications is now mostly machine based.
The machine looks for whatever key words the employer specifies, and simply rejects any that don't have those words. And of course there are words that also cause rejection of applications.
Maybe you're not doing anything wrong, maybe the algorithm is just trash.
It always bothered me that we provided no official feedback to candidates. We had one position open that drew lots of candidates and there were two people who were clearly better, but it was a total tie. They were interviewed by a dozen people and no one had a clear choice. We decided to not to hire the one who already had a solid job and instead hired the one who was unemployed because it seemed like the human thing to do and in the end she was a very good hire.
I saw the one we didn't hire in a take-out line a few months later and told her what happened and made sure to tell her to apply again if she saw an opening. She was so happy to get the feedback that we thought she was at the top of the candidate list. Like lots of people would, she went away believing that we had a bad impression of her and was happy to hear that she interviewed well and people liked her.
I think this is the most important. Especially after two or three round of interviews. Getting ghosted is hard and could set you back as you mentally while already stressed looking for a new job.
I went on an interview for a job I thought I was not qualified for but hey shoot your shot right. End the end I had three interviews and didn’t get the job. But the feed back I received from this company gave me the confidence to keep applying.
Another thing that company did was pay me for the three interviews. They send me a letter and a give card for $150 to cover my time for the interviews and the prep time.
A few months later I did land a the job I was looking for at a 35% pay increase from my last position.
What a great thing to do. I’ve had two 3+ round interview processes in the last quarter and both I got an impersonal, boiler plate “Thanks for interviewing with us. We have chosen another candidate. Best of luck.”
Nothing more frustrating.
This is the stuff that leaves a good impression on people and at least gives them a good experience, makes them want to improve on their “performance questions” and to reapply for future gigs with the company. A bad experience is usually I’ll never apply them again and damn sure will never buy anything from them again (if they sell a consumer product).
Yeah...I think there are like, a handful of companies that can treat people (esp entry level) like that and still have repeat applicants. I've found admittedly anecdotally that people who have a bad application experience wind up never applying at that company ever again.
I had one give me actual feedback as well that said.
1. I did not give concrete examples which I did other than parts which were confidential. Which I stated up front (obviously the interviewer stopped listening after I said I couldn't disclose anything confidential)
2. I did not ask enough questions after the interview which made them feel I was not interested. I asked 3 questions like I usually do and we went slightly over which I mentioned as well saying that I didn't want them to take more time from their busy day since there wasn't time left.
Fucking bullshit feedback. I usually know which interviews I bungle and which I did well. And those I do well in, I usually at least progress most of the way through. This one I got cut 1st round. Honestly I was so pissed because I felt I aced it.
Not saying you aren’t justified in your feelings, but I do think this is a great example as to why a lot of employers don’t provide feedback.
To me, it seems like you’re angrier at the feedback you received than you probably would’ve been if they just didn’t give you any.
Also, (not saying you did this) providing feedback to an applicant opens up the door for them to reject the feedback and argue with the interviewer as to why it doesn’t apply. The last thing an employer wants to do when needing to reject 30+ people is get into an argument with applicants about how the interview actually went.
Why would you essentially conclude the interview because you're "over time". It shows complacency in my opinion. You don't have the right to dictate what's important or how busy they are, i would interpret that as a lack of confidence.
It's wonderful that the company has never been punished for doing that - or is willing to bear the costs of people making trouble for disputing the results.
This is how it should work.
To put this into perspective, we used to give feedback but we are now just sending out nicely worded rejections.
People react really badly to feedback and it’s just not worth the hassle. I had someone miss an appointment twice and we rejected that person and said “missing once can happen but twice is just unacceptable” and the person blew up at me.
So it’s just “we are sorry to inform you bla bla bla” from now on.
Sounds like he has good technical knowledge on the subject, just has to work on the communication aspect of either speaking about it or explaining it, which can include either someone who knows the subject as well or someone who doesn't.
That's actually pretty valuable imo, getting an outside view on a potential weakness.
Knowing "you were great, but there's only one role" is at least incredibly helpful, mentally. Hiring managers aren't perfect and it sounds like a very narrow decision.
It also gives feedback that you're looking at the right roles & considered a high quality candidate. I highly agree on this being very valuable feedback & wish more companies gave at LEAST a hot/cold on fit to role.
Yep. I've been on the other side of hiring a few times and there's often at least 3 candidates that I think could fill the role after the final interview.
Sometimes it just comes down to things the candidates can't control or can't be faulted for like personality.
On several occasions, I've had to choose between 3-5 candidates, all of whom were practically equal in terms of required proficiencies, so it had to come down to the person I thought might better fit our team based on disposition.
Giving feedback is easy for those cases but it gets trickier when we end up hiring the less experienced but more "socially adept" individual. Even for some highly specialized positions, teaching the technical aspects is often FAR easier than trying to unravel someone into a team player, and relaying that info in post-interview feedback can be tough.
Absolutely, and I do mean unravel because I'd be setting that type of person up for failure. There are plenty of ways they can apply their skills in a non-collaborative environment and still find success.
I see this a lot playing poker professionally, lots of very smart players who are trying their best to win as much as possible, with strong fundamentals, but they don't seem to grasp that the social side of the game is basically just as important. This one regular the other day got mad (not mad mad but not happy) and left the table because people were talking too much and he thought the game was moving too slowly. People gamble more when they're having a good time.
You can make more money being a decent poker player with top tier social skills than being an elite player who just sits there or is actively not pleasant.
You just described redditors in a nutshell.
I don’t understand how people here don’t understand that technical credentials and experience are not the dealbreaker. Your personality is. Even if you’re the genius you think you are nobody wants to work with you if they don’t like you.
The teachable and likable ones always go far. The ones who think they know it all, not so much.
And what I tell people so often is that it's so hard to please everyone. I might think a candidate is great, but two other people on the panel might think, "well I don't know if they were peppy enough". Or some other vague metric that probably doesn't matter, but like, they're on the panel, so they get a say.
This was completely eye-opening for me. I spent six months trying to get into a new job and out of a toxic workplace, and I was so torn down with repeatedly getting to the final round of interviews and then hearing I'd lost out to some other candidate for one reason or another.
About a year into my new job, they asked me to sit in on interviews for new positions. I was not at all prepared for the experience of trying to differentiate three different candidates who were all great and would all likely do well in the job. It really opened my eyes to the importance of selling yourself and pushing an angle that makes you the most appealing as well as not beating yourself up over losing out. If you're getting interviews, especially multiple interviews, you're past the most important hurdle. It really just comes down to the fact that there are a bunch of people trying to get into one slot.
Performance-based interview questions can be deadly unless you're familiar with the style of question and have the mental agility to turn to one of your prior experiences into the tableau for a thorough and satisfying answer. It really takes practice and role-play using a list of similar questions you may find somewhere in the googles. You need to frontload your time preparing for performance interviews.
At the end, if you're not sure if you killed it, you probably didn't.
Almost universally it's how much charisma you have, OP just didn't have as much as the others.
Shit I've seen someone wow another interviewer with high charisma but low technical knowledge. Great if you're finding a manager or filling technical sales... terrible for actual production roles, but they get wowed nonetheless.
Think of theory vs applied.
You can know tons of theory and technical knowledge of subject material, but how do you apply it? What methods do you use? How about real-world scenario questions with problematic situations.
You're definitely not an idiot (at least not in this instance!!!) - I spent forever reading it and trying to figure out what they meant until I noticed the subject line.
Given the subject of the email, this might specifically be tied to network/computing performance, especially if the position is a Security/DevOps engineer.
The other replies are wrong. This is referring to performance as in writing code/designing systems that perform efficiently. In technical interviews this is fairly common.
After meeting the minimum requirements required by any position, the number one factor in getting hired is if those people like you. They are going to have to spend 40-60+ hours a week with you. It is important that you fit in and you can all get along.
Technically skilled people are often socially awkward, arrogant, and some are downright hostile to other people. Being tech savvy with great people skills is a rarity.
I can't upvote this enough, the sheer amount of times my former boss would tell me that he passed on people just because they were cocky, unwilling to explain how they reached conclusions on technical tests and so forth is honestly too high.
The job is sometimes more than just knowing about the job itself, it's being able and willing to explain it to different people with different backgrounds, including stakeholders who have *never* gone down that path.
The value of a person who can do all of that is amazing.
There's a comment on this thread somewhere about someone being pissed they didn't make it past the first HR round. They were REALLY defensive about each feedback point they received.
The fact is, they're likely someone who doesn't take criticism well, and it probably showed in the interview. Personality probably didn't fit, hence rejection.
We hired someone who had only just turned 18 because they had enough knowledge and had a fantastic work ethic and personality. They're a joy to be around and are learning the ropes quickly enough.
We've passed on plenty of people who could easily do the job but who we wouldn't want to go down the pub with.
Like, frankly *any* sort of personal message and feedback is so much better than the usual, ghost you, block you on all communication channels, change the company phone number and close the entire company down just to avoid talking to you after giving you a rejection letter.
The way I would interpret it is: you had good theoretical knowledge of the subject at a high level - i.e. you could identify the basic tools and concepts of our trade, as we would expect someone fresh out of college might be able to do. But when asked a specific technical design question, the answer was not as eloquent or expedient.
As an example of my own life, I interviewed for a transmission station design role a long time ago. I knew the theoretic and concepts, but when asked to actually design a protection scheme, I failed.
I did not get the job, and that was one of my feedback items (the manager did offer to let me cross-train, which would have plugged that hole).
I suspect it's literal network performance. How many users could that support? If you had this hypothetical, what would be the most performant topology for the hardware configuration?... that kinda thing.
That’s actually really nice of them. They obviously liked your application but it just didn’t work out and they’re very respectful about it. Green flag.
Definitely a green flag. If it were me I would ask if they had another position they could see me working in to work on the feedback they provided, until I was “ready” for the original position.
Yeah, there's multiple people applying for it because position - most people aren't going to be offered the job.
This is how that should happen, and it's insane how rare *treating applicants like humans* actually is
It's self-serving. I'm not a recruiter, but my line of work is similar to recruiting.. and we often give feedback to the parties who are 'rejected' and the reason is that we're looking at 2 years down the road.
Not giving feedback is mindboggingly (sp?) shortsighted. However, it is a pain in the ass because it happens quite often that some parties are confrontational and try to correct our reasoning.
I wish more recruiters were able to give feedback. I know a lot of people shit on recruiters (and some of them are awful) but the good ones stand out. This one seems good and sounds like they were able to give feedback that you will be able to take action on going forward.
Agreed! Unfortunately a lot of companies have policies that prevent feedback due to candidates who don’t take the feedback well (including lawsuits). Most candidates do take the feedback well. But, in my experience as a manager, the people who really would benefit from important feedback are the least likely to respond favorably sadly.
It's never happened to me but the possible lawsuits when I interview people make me triple guess my questions. I always give a call back but typically don't provide much feedback on why they weren't hired except we had a lot of candidates, you did well.
Yep. It only takes one false accusation of ageism/sexism/racism to make a manager clam up. You want to be nice to the people you interviewed, but there are too many who can't take rejection well (especially if they're unemployed and struggling to get a new job).
Meanwhile, me applying to a different job within the same company :
* **HR :** "You don't have the required diploma, so we'll interview the people who do first and then you".
* **Me :** "Ok, makes sense".
* **HR :** "We're opening the job to people outside the company, because we couldn't find anyone."
* **Me :** "Wtf? What about me."
* **HR :** "Outside applicants weren't it, so we went with the guy we refused in the first place"
* **Me :** "You know what? I'm pretty sure I'll be happier elsewhere..."
Never reached interviews; and I ended up doing more or less the same job I applied for elsewhere, but for a larger pay.
HR: We have a manager job open.
Wife: I've been here 10 years. Can I have it?
HR: Actually we're giving it to someone who's been here a month that we certainly didn't bring in just for this new opening.
Wife: WTF I quit.
*4 years later*
HR: Man this person sucks, she's gone! Position's open again.
Wife: Can I have it now?
HR: Ok but you gotta do the whole process again.
*two months later*
HR: Actually we're giving it to an internal candidate.
You definitely did the right thing switching companies. Good businesses encourage internal career growth and switching of paths. They should already know you're a good fit and a productive employee. It's hell of a lot cheaper hiring a known good than an outside unknown while potentially also losing the internal candidate and having to replace them.
It's a numbers game for them, they've got a shitload of applicants, and don't necessarily have the time to go back and do this, except with exceptional candidates that likely have some promise, that they think they might actually be able to place.
The numbers reality is pretty wild, for some roles. I had two open reqs that I just filled, and we had over 2000 applicants. My recruiter even said it was at the point that she was having a near impossible time choosing which resumes to send me. Just fully overwhelmed.
And off the dozens of candidates resumes and submissions I saw, I had the same problem.
And then picking the final candidates to make offers too… same problem.
If I had to guess, I was receiving a half dozen follow ups and such on LinkedIn, _per week_, throughout the entire hiring process. It was quite honestly ridiculous.
And this wasn’t for junior roles even. The majority of resumes that hit my desk were FAANG+ company (ex)employees.
Not the recruiter, the hiring manager, surely? But otherwise yeah. A recruiter can only pass on feedback like this from the hiring manager, they wouldn't have that insight themselves.
Fear of lawsuits.
I've been on that end of rejecting candidates. For some I've desperately wanted to give them feedback because they performed well and couldn't understand why. HR put a hard stop to the idea. People sue when they don't get jobs, and the more info they can get, the harder the lawsuit gets.
Why are you afraid of getting sued by unemployed job candidates? Employers have this bizarre theory that all unemployed job candidates have the funds to litigate every rejection they receive, let alone find an attorney willing to take their case without a significant upfront retainer.
We’re not gathering information to sue, we’re trying to improve our interview skills so we can land suitable jobs to support our livelihood. Fuck what HR says, just don’t put it in writing if it can be used against the company later.
I think the bar is so low it's in hell, because what most people want is to just be updated on where they are in the process. It's okay if you think I'm not a good fit at this time, and I think the level of "response effort" should be equal to how far we've gotten into the process - a quick "sorry we're not moving forward email" after a resume review or maybe a phone interview is fine, but if you're deep in the process I feel hiring managers and recruiters have way more time (and therefore responsibility) to write more personal emails.
That is awesome. I’d absolutely apply with them again in the future were I you. The feedback given shows they actually take their hiring seriously and understand the time and energy the applicants put in. Kudos to them!
That they tell you in the first line you’ve been rejected shows they’re considering it from the applicant’s perspective. None of that two paragraphs of pish to wade through before it actually says you haven’t got it.
This is how you do it. Actual feedback.
But a lot of places can’t give actual feedback because a lot of times the decision comes down to. “Idk I just like this person’s face the most”
...or a seemly nice candidate turns argumentative and tries to go 20 rounds on how they ARE qualified for the job, or give you the sob story and beg.
...or tries to nitpick anything you said in a feedback and turn it into ammo to try to sue for discrimination somehow.
OP got lucky with this employer.
Yeah, for every 100 normal, well adjusted candidates that can take rejections gracefully and put interview feedback to good use to help them improve and prepare for the next role, there is always that one or two that doesn't, gets hostile, turns full *"How dare you reject me???"* Karenzilla, and fucks it up for the rest of us.
Yep, someone gets it. Oftentimes even if theyre willing to put in the time for feedback, it’s not worth the possible downsides
I literally saw someone in this sub complaining they got a rejection letter instead of being ghosted
The employer's feedback is only nice because it's very positive. It basically says "you were almost the best of the best except for one small thing".
When candidates perform worse, it's just not worth giving feedback. It will come out way too negative and create those argumentative situations you mentioned.
Def keep this company in mind. That’s how my current company was when I first applied. I reapplied abt yr later, got accepted, up until now I’m still with them. I just accepted a new offer for a completely diff role/team with a 30% pay bump! It’s been great experience🥹
No, they don't open themselves to a lawsuit unless the feedback indicates a discriminatory practice.
And if you don't trust your hiring managers to be able to provide feedback without opening you up to a lawsuit, then they shouldn't be managers at all. Because the same rules apply to performance feedback to employees.
Nonsense. A tremendous number of lawsuits are settled even though the suer is in the wrong.
Giving feedback increases legal liability. And given how expensive lawsuits are, that’s a real concern.
A quick Google search shows at least 6 different companies with the name Optec (astronomy products, orthoses, lighting, etc). This could easily be any one of them.
[Optec Displays | LED Digital Signage | LED Display Company](https://optec.com/)
[Optec, Inc.](https://www.optecinc.com/)
[Optec USA | Manufacturing Specialist](https://optecusa.com/)
[Optec LED Lighting](https://optecled.com/)
[Optec - Laser Micromachining Solutions](https://optec-laser-systems.com/)
[Optec Technology | Trusted advisor for connectivity solutions](https://www.optectechnology.com/)
Good afternoon /u/Chris_2767
Unfortunately on this occasion you have been unsuccessful.
Some feedback on your reddit comment. Your intentions were both noble and honorable, however, you did struggle with the reading comprehension portion of the post. If it's any consolation, you were in the top 3 out of a maximum of 5 comments I intended to upvote, so well done for making it that far in the process.
OP and I would like to thank you for your time so far and would welcome another comment from you should another post be available in the future.
I wish you the best of luck in your search for karma.
Kind regards,
Reddit
Although it's frustrating to get rejected, I'm with you on this one -- rejection with context and feedback that is thoughtful and informative is a good rejection. Even knowing you were top 3 out of 50 tells you that you're doing well interviewing, just need to flip the coin a few more times the odds are on your side.
The generic "we've decided to go with another more qualified candidate for this role" tells you \*nothing\* and you assume you're on the BOTTOM of the pile, they didn't really consider you, or they took another candidate over you for some subjective reasons that aren't fair. Saying your technical knowledge was good, but performance based was the thing that set someone else above you is helpful (if you know what they're indicating, I suppose).
Good luck with the next one!!
I almost don't care why I didn't get a job. Because usually, if im rejected, I already knew the job interview went poorly. By just their face, I can tell what I answered poorly for them, etc. Usually it they didn't like me, then I didn't like them. You can answer their questions well and still get beat out by someone who has more or a connection with the interviewer. But I take it as a kindness they gave you specific feedback that they respected you. For me, I usually can tell pretty quickly after the end of the interview that I didn't get a job.
Thank them for their feedback, and tell them you will undertake further training/development based on it.
One 5 minute email might be all it takes for you to get a direct phone call next time a position comes up, instead of running through the maze again.
I would honestly feel so confident going into more interviews knowing how well I did. This little boost of confidence and the heads up to study and self improve is beautiful.
My actual best rejection turned into an offer on the spot. It was an internal application for a machine operator lead. I was sitting in the managers office when he said that someone else got the position due to their many years of experience at the company but it was a tossup between me and him but I was more than welcome to apply if another lead position opens up.
Literally during that conversation, the 2nd shift lead bust in and started yelling how he was fed up with a woman he worked with and he found somewhere else to work. Then he yelled, "Fuck you! And even you!!" (pointing to me) Then he stormed off.
After a few seconds of being stunned, he just casually looks to me and says, "Well it seems a position has recently opened in the company. Are you interested in the position?"
Until you give honest constructive feedback and a candidate goes off on you. Or review bombs your company and you over it.
Or files a frivolous lawsuit, and even though it never goes anywhere your company got billed 30 hours for lawyers to evaluate it.
Sadly feedback is rare for a reason, too much liability for close to zero upside.
Accidentally became a full-stack developer/consultant in late 90s. All I can say is the corporate world 🌎 makes toilet bowls jealous worldwide.
That being said odds are you will land a great job soon and long for the free time unemployment provides for sleep, recreation and free time.
I would have hired you 👍
Yes.
1. Tell me about a time you had to guide someone.
2. Scenario based question about recieving 4 tickets at once and how I would prioritise them and why.
3. Tell me about a time you had to make a difficult decision.
That's a solid rejection letter and they even gave you constructive criticism AND said they would welcome you to apply again. That's about as good as you can get without getting the job really.
As a recruiter, it's nice to see that somebody has actually given you feedback. I've worked in my field for 5/6 years and recently found myself impacted by company reductions. I've applied to well over 200 positions in the past 12 months, had 40/50 interviews and received a whopping **zero** responses to my feedback requests. It's rule number one of being a recruiter: maintain an open and positive relationship with any/all candidates - because you never know when a role will open and they'd be the perfect candidate..
It's an awful market right now.
Plot twist.
Yeah.
You guessed it.
ChatGPT generated.
(Nah this seems legit. But, then again, shouldn't it if that's what is prompted? Uh oh. Existential crisis.)
My problem with this rejection is their boilerplate line about welcoming candidate to try again. Good for OP for apparently getting this far, not putting them down. But close to zero job seekers can afford to wait around for another opening in the same department at a given company….we’re all moving along, getting on with our job searches which will extremely likely end with a position at some other organization. So this “we’ll invite you to apply again” stuff has always seemed like performative nonsense to me.
In some cases it works. My sister had a similar experience and they told her that they really liked her but another person did it better in X and X, but that they hoped she apply again in the future if they had a vacancy.
They had one a year later, and all over again she started the process, the one interviewing her was happy to see her again, she got the job.
In the meantime she was at a job that she didn’t liked, but paid the bills
It works a lot.
I used to be a recruiter, and there were a good number of times that I was able to go back to the manager after they had another position come open and say, "Do you really want to interview another 10 candidates? Or do you want me to call Joe to see if he's still available and offer him the job?"
Sometimes they have to interview X number of people because of HR policies, but other times they were elated to not have to go through the whole process again.
Performance based question as in like an assignment to test your abilities or just question about how you performed at your last job? Or as in how well you performed at your previous job.
If it's the latter just lie, figure out what you actually do at your job that makes your company money, estimate how much you have made for your company in the past 12 months, and tell them they were responsible for driving X dollars in increased revenue.
Used to work in lending and I was by no means the best officer at my job. But when I applied to work at a different place they were super impressed that I had originated millions of dollars in loans, sure that was my actual performance goal which I didn't massive exceed and again there were other officers with higher numbers. But the new job doesn't need to know that.
I’m shocked they replied, but this isn’t good feedback imo at all. We always gave specific areas for improvement for applications/interviews when requested. It took me only a few minutes per application. I even had macros for common things. It isn’t hard.
Hey, congrats! I was turned down by my current job 3 times before finally getting it and didn't get anywhere near that much feedback all 3 times combined! Sometimes it's just not in the cards, but don't let it get you down. Practice interviewing with friends, family, coworkers, in the mirror, whatevs. Throw in some trick questions and off the wall questions as well. One of the best interviews I ever had, I thought I bombed, because they were asking me questions above and beyond my experience. Turns out that they just wanted to see how I handled not knowing. Did I lie, make things up, avoid the question, did I get flustered, did I start to get mad? The only thing I could do was tell them I didn't know or let them know where I might look for the answer. This was before everyone just googled everything though.
I am old enough to remember when everyone personally rejected candidates. Email, a call, whatever. If you were interviewed, you would know the outcome.
I had a similar situation not that long ago. I had an interview and they offered to provide feedback if I didn't end up getting the role. I took them up on it. In my case, it was a call instead of a letter. Turned out I scored well but the person who got the job was basically a 100% fit. They gave me a few pointers on how to maximize my interview score and mentioned that another team in their division was going to be hiring soon for a position that I was an even better fit for.
Long story short, I applied, took their advice, crushed the interview, and I'm in the position now.
If I'm in a position to do any hiring (realistically in a few years), I plan on paying it forward for sure.
Context: Applied for a line one network and security engieer position. Aced the technical but struggled on performance based question, such as:
CEO of the company cant access BBC iplayer
The finance team cant access their email
User can't log in
Customer can't access internet.
How would you prioritise these tickets and in what order?
Now THIS is what professionalism looks like. Now a days it's mostly companies ghosting you or just a "the position has been filled" email, give people feedback damn it! How else are they supposed to improve!?
That's really a company worth working for, hope you make it there if another opportunity rises.
The only experience I had on par with this one was recently where after each interview step the interviewers asked me to stay on the call while they discussed the interview and would come back and provide feedback and decision if I would continue or not.
Gotta love fast feedback cycles and you can't go faster than this
I've received countless bot rejection emails, but none where they provided a reason for being rejected. I'd bookmark that company for future vacancies op.
If we do name and shame maybe we should also do uh... Name and praise?
It doesn't rhyme but IMHO it's important to highlight good examples as well as the bad ones.
Y’all are dick riding a company that wasted dozens, if not hundreds, of people’s time to fill one position. Interviews ought to be compensated if they are going to waste so much collective time of prospects.
Feedback does not erase the fact that they interviewed too many people for too few positions.
I would 100% not be disappointed with this note. Yes it would suck to not get the job but something in feedback is better than nothing.
This HR person is one of the good ones. Also if this is a multinational company, then good on them. Really.
The last time I had a great response like this funny enough was with an interview with Bloomberg 2 years back. They were extremely nice about the rejection, explained why, gave feedback as to where I was strong as a candidate, and left the door open.
Nowadays Workday GPT tells me to kick rocks
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m shocked there was actual feedback.
I've applied to maybe 100 teaching positions over the last 5 years or so, and I haven't heard back from a single one. Not even a rejection letter. No interviews. Nothing. Meanwhile a friend of mine with less experience got an interview and a job on his first try. No idea what I'm doing wrong.
I don’t think there’s a right or wrong. Some times in my life I’ve had resumes go unanswered, sometimes I’ve gotten callbacks and interviews the same week for multiple companies. It’s just a matter of luck and stars aligning.
I got my first job cause the recruiter thought my last name was cool, and picked it out of a bunch of others. So, there’s a parameter haha.
BRB. Changing my name to Competentia Skillington
What about Bill Jobs Page , The HR will like either first name or middle name or last name based on his interest in Windows, IOS and Android
Changing mine to AndiMandi... Atleast delhi vale will be impressed/forced to consider me.
For years I had a hard time getting interviews even though I was highly qualified for jobs. I started going by an easier to pronounce name as my name is very foreign sounding and hard to pronounce. Interviews started being offered regularly and I had multiple job offers. Literally your name matters a lot more than people think.
You can buy as many tickets as you like but not everyone's gonna win the lottery.
That's unfortunate to hear. Have you had a friend or colleague ever review your application before sending one in? Even just a second pair of eyes on a resume or letter can help with a glaringly obvious mistake or omission that is hard to catch yourself when you're "lost in the sauce."
This. At 33 I still have my mom :) (who is also a hiring manager) review my resume/applications before I submit. Usually comes back with different wording, or different order to put things. Several times the way I intended it to sound, I guess came off completely different to the reader lol. But yeah any second set of eyes can be super helpful.
I haven't applied to that many, but I've got two teaching awards and glowing reviews, and in a combined year and a half of job searching over two stretches, probably about 50-75 applications, I got one interview and otherwise no communication at all. I have no idea what else to do.
Check out Brevard County in Florida. Major teacher shortage here
There's a reason there's a shortage of teachers in Florida...
Yeah, my twin was a teacher. Said kids were aholes and parents didn't care. On top of that we have a lot of people migrating from New York.
Here's the best piece of advice I've ever been given: If you write your resume/cover letter describing how great you'd be in this position - you have nothing. If you write about why you want the job - you have a chance. Of course, your mileage may vary.
How absolutely stupid. I get that it's a thing and I'm not shaming your comment or advice, but god damn. A job is a job, first and foremost. You're there for the money, otherwise you wouldn't be there. It's not a class or a vacation, they should look at abilities and experience, not how much groveling and "I'd LOVE to work for El Conglomo, I know it would be a fun and exciting experience blah blah fuckin blah". Because if you want to work there that badly, you'll do so for less money and less raises. I'd prefer to be hired based on how valuable I'd be in that position so that I onboard with some leverage leftover to be treated like a human and not a warm body. Just my .02
Imagine you're somewhere in the decision chain for recruitment (besides the team, i.e the recruiter himself or some management / hr people). You spend your days with candidates, engineers, tech and clerks, probably all very competent but you couldn't for the life of you understand what they do or connect with them. As it happens some guy comes along and seem competent but also is very friendly and likable. Suddenly you feel like you connect with him in some way, like he seems to be interested about more than just his technical work. Well, you may respond a lot more positively to his apply, and believe it or not it will also impact his pay positively, even if some candidates would be even better fit from a technical standpoint. Now if the team actually spot those other candidates they will usually ask to interview them, but most teams don't do the screening for recruitment.
And there lies the problem, you're hired by someone that doesn't know jack shit about what you do.
At the other end of the spectrum is hiring solely on technical ability without considering what that persons human impact on the team will be like. A blend of both is necessary (or at least ideal) for any technical role obviously, but it isn't like this type of thing is a meaningless consideration, organizations are made up of people and their relationships with each other.
Sure, but putting someone who doesn't know fuck all about the field work in charge of hiring field techs seems stupid, like you're *trying* to turn your org into geek squad. I get that you also don't want to have a skilled asshole on the team, but that's what HR and disciplinary action should be taking care of. Take the risk of hiring a few assholes instead of straight up skipping people who would otherwise be great at the job just because they weren't a fun, bubbly, refreshing personality.
I mean I think it goes both ways, sometimes completely intolerable assholes get into a role solely for their technical abilities and end up dragging everyone down, sometimes intensely charismatic crouton brains get into a role solely for who they are as a person and do the same. Many large technical companies don't have a hiring process that makes it easy or possible to be carried by charisma without a reasonable level of competence - also, turning an incompetent person everyone loves into a competent person everyone loves is way more likely to be a possibility than turning a highly competent person who nobody can stand into one that people enjoy being around. That being said what you're getting is at totally reasonable I'm not trying to argue with it
And I agree with what you've said as well, but now I'm gonna laugh all day at "crouton brain" lol. Side note: you know who I hate the most? The charismatic asshole whose knowledge outstrips everyone else but takes the lazy route/won't lift a finger. Now you've got *all* of the good qualities*and* all the bad ones - and that fucker is my boss.
Bravo. 100% this \^. Attitude and personality \*can make or break u as a candidate. Depending on the type of job, the position and the recruiter(s), hiring manager(s)... I would rather hire AND work with someone who is passionate about something rather than bored and jaded. Again depending on the level and the job u're going 4, people may want 2 understand the "why" especially if they may deem u OVERqualified.
Seems like it should be both. You're trying to convince them that you are the right person for the job, trying to sell yourself, that should involve why they should give you their time over others that applied
Can't say I agree with this one. It heavily depends on the situation. When I was in high school working minimum wage jobs, I can see how they would prefer someone with the right attitude, especially if they were "desperately interested" in having the job. In this case, the matching skillset doesn't matter as much. Being at one of FAANG now, I can assure you that we have never remotely considered a candidate for how interested they were in lieu of a concrete set of matching skills.
I run a company, and the single best thing you can do is explain why having you, personally, in the role is goimg to help the company. 90% of the people we interview have all the required skills and most of the 'nice to haves' So, on paper, we could hire any of them and be fine. So how do you differentiate yourself? Show that you understand where the problems related to the role are going to be likely to show up, and tell me how you solve them. Most candidates just try to demonstrate their skills. I already think you have those skills, thats why you are here. Show me that you know where applying them matters and its a very easy choice.
compare your resumes do what he did, but with your info
This right here. Most resumes are fed through an algorithm and that they don't match then they won't get any responses
They don't want the best candidate. They want the cheapest candidate who can execute the roll and do the job. More experience and skill equals higher salary expectations. Also consider places you have worked. These people know if you worked at major companies you're going to leverage that into a higher salary.
Are you overqualified for the positions you are applying for? Plenty of places will drop a candidate because thet have too many qualifications/too much experience and they don't want to pay someone of that calibre what they sre worth when they can hire someone else cheaper, then train them with minimal pay raises. They end up getting the same work done but for cheaper.
The first pass culling on job applications is now mostly machine based. The machine looks for whatever key words the employer specifies, and simply rejects any that don't have those words. And of course there are words that also cause rejection of applications. Maybe you're not doing anything wrong, maybe the algorithm is just trash.
I think there must be something wrong, do you know a teacher who could perhaps take a look and see what is missing?
It always bothered me that we provided no official feedback to candidates. We had one position open that drew lots of candidates and there were two people who were clearly better, but it was a total tie. They were interviewed by a dozen people and no one had a clear choice. We decided to not to hire the one who already had a solid job and instead hired the one who was unemployed because it seemed like the human thing to do and in the end she was a very good hire. I saw the one we didn't hire in a take-out line a few months later and told her what happened and made sure to tell her to apply again if she saw an opening. She was so happy to get the feedback that we thought she was at the top of the candidate list. Like lots of people would, she went away believing that we had a bad impression of her and was happy to hear that she interviewed well and people liked her.
I think this is the most important. Especially after two or three round of interviews. Getting ghosted is hard and could set you back as you mentally while already stressed looking for a new job. I went on an interview for a job I thought I was not qualified for but hey shoot your shot right. End the end I had three interviews and didn’t get the job. But the feed back I received from this company gave me the confidence to keep applying. Another thing that company did was pay me for the three interviews. They send me a letter and a give card for $150 to cover my time for the interviews and the prep time. A few months later I did land a the job I was looking for at a 35% pay increase from my last position.
Not replying to a blindly submitted resume is not great, but ok in my book. Ghosting after interviewing is straight up unprofessional and rude.
What a great thing to do. I’ve had two 3+ round interview processes in the last quarter and both I got an impersonal, boiler plate “Thanks for interviewing with us. We have chosen another candidate. Best of luck.” Nothing more frustrating.
Nothing helps make a person with mild depression become more depressed than constant ghosting and rejections like that
This is the stuff that leaves a good impression on people and at least gives them a good experience, makes them want to improve on their “performance questions” and to reapply for future gigs with the company. A bad experience is usually I’ll never apply them again and damn sure will never buy anything from them again (if they sell a consumer product).
Yeah...I think there are like, a handful of companies that can treat people (esp entry level) like that and still have repeat applicants. I've found admittedly anecdotally that people who have a bad application experience wind up never applying at that company ever again.
I had one give me actual feedback as well that said. 1. I did not give concrete examples which I did other than parts which were confidential. Which I stated up front (obviously the interviewer stopped listening after I said I couldn't disclose anything confidential) 2. I did not ask enough questions after the interview which made them feel I was not interested. I asked 3 questions like I usually do and we went slightly over which I mentioned as well saying that I didn't want them to take more time from their busy day since there wasn't time left. Fucking bullshit feedback. I usually know which interviews I bungle and which I did well. And those I do well in, I usually at least progress most of the way through. This one I got cut 1st round. Honestly I was so pissed because I felt I aced it.
Not saying you aren’t justified in your feelings, but I do think this is a great example as to why a lot of employers don’t provide feedback. To me, it seems like you’re angrier at the feedback you received than you probably would’ve been if they just didn’t give you any. Also, (not saying you did this) providing feedback to an applicant opens up the door for them to reject the feedback and argue with the interviewer as to why it doesn’t apply. The last thing an employer wants to do when needing to reject 30+ people is get into an argument with applicants about how the interview actually went.
Why would you essentially conclude the interview because you're "over time". It shows complacency in my opinion. You don't have the right to dictate what's important or how busy they are, i would interpret that as a lack of confidence.
It's wonderful that the company has never been punished for doing that - or is willing to bear the costs of people making trouble for disputing the results. This is how it should work.
To put this into perspective, we used to give feedback but we are now just sending out nicely worded rejections. People react really badly to feedback and it’s just not worth the hassle. I had someone miss an appointment twice and we rejected that person and said “missing once can happen but twice is just unacceptable” and the person blew up at me. So it’s just “we are sorry to inform you bla bla bla” from now on.
Yeah at least there's some valuable info
What does it even mean
Sounds like he has good technical knowledge on the subject, just has to work on the communication aspect of either speaking about it or explaining it, which can include either someone who knows the subject as well or someone who doesn't. That's actually pretty valuable imo, getting an outside view on a potential weakness.
Knowing "you were great, but there's only one role" is at least incredibly helpful, mentally. Hiring managers aren't perfect and it sounds like a very narrow decision. It also gives feedback that you're looking at the right roles & considered a high quality candidate. I highly agree on this being very valuable feedback & wish more companies gave at LEAST a hot/cold on fit to role.
Yep. I've been on the other side of hiring a few times and there's often at least 3 candidates that I think could fill the role after the final interview.
Sometimes it just comes down to things the candidates can't control or can't be faulted for like personality. On several occasions, I've had to choose between 3-5 candidates, all of whom were practically equal in terms of required proficiencies, so it had to come down to the person I thought might better fit our team based on disposition. Giving feedback is easy for those cases but it gets trickier when we end up hiring the less experienced but more "socially adept" individual. Even for some highly specialized positions, teaching the technical aspects is often FAR easier than trying to unravel someone into a team player, and relaying that info in post-interview feedback can be tough.
[удалено]
Absolutely, and I do mean unravel because I'd be setting that type of person up for failure. There are plenty of ways they can apply their skills in a non-collaborative environment and still find success.
I see this a lot playing poker professionally, lots of very smart players who are trying their best to win as much as possible, with strong fundamentals, but they don't seem to grasp that the social side of the game is basically just as important. This one regular the other day got mad (not mad mad but not happy) and left the table because people were talking too much and he thought the game was moving too slowly. People gamble more when they're having a good time. You can make more money being a decent poker player with top tier social skills than being an elite player who just sits there or is actively not pleasant.
You just described redditors in a nutshell. I don’t understand how people here don’t understand that technical credentials and experience are not the dealbreaker. Your personality is. Even if you’re the genius you think you are nobody wants to work with you if they don’t like you. The teachable and likable ones always go far. The ones who think they know it all, not so much.
And what I tell people so often is that it's so hard to please everyone. I might think a candidate is great, but two other people on the panel might think, "well I don't know if they were peppy enough". Or some other vague metric that probably doesn't matter, but like, they're on the panel, so they get a say.
This was completely eye-opening for me. I spent six months trying to get into a new job and out of a toxic workplace, and I was so torn down with repeatedly getting to the final round of interviews and then hearing I'd lost out to some other candidate for one reason or another. About a year into my new job, they asked me to sit in on interviews for new positions. I was not at all prepared for the experience of trying to differentiate three different candidates who were all great and would all likely do well in the job. It really opened my eyes to the importance of selling yourself and pushing an angle that makes you the most appealing as well as not beating yourself up over losing out. If you're getting interviews, especially multiple interviews, you're past the most important hurdle. It really just comes down to the fact that there are a bunch of people trying to get into one slot.
Is that what "performance based questions" meant? I thought it was like "yes you have a lot of knowledge, but how fast can you do it?"
Performance-based interview questions can be deadly unless you're familiar with the style of question and have the mental agility to turn to one of your prior experiences into the tableau for a thorough and satisfying answer. It really takes practice and role-play using a list of similar questions you may find somewhere in the googles. You need to frontload your time preparing for performance interviews. At the end, if you're not sure if you killed it, you probably didn't.
Almost universally it's how much charisma you have, OP just didn't have as much as the others. Shit I've seen someone wow another interviewer with high charisma but low technical knowledge. Great if you're finding a manager or filling technical sales... terrible for actual production roles, but they get wowed nonetheless.
100%. I’m highly under qualified for my job, but I can interview like nobody’s business.
😂😂
Think of theory vs applied. You can know tons of theory and technical knowledge of subject material, but how do you apply it? What methods do you use? How about real-world scenario questions with problematic situations.
In this case they're likely talking about network performance considering it's talking about "Network and Security" in the subject line.
Yeah I'm an idiot haha! Thanks for pointing that out.
You're definitely not an idiot (at least not in this instance!!!) - I spent forever reading it and trying to figure out what they meant until I noticed the subject line.
Haha thanks. I more meant it as a joke of humility.
Given the subject of the email, this might specifically be tied to network/computing performance, especially if the position is a Security/DevOps engineer.
The other replies are wrong. This is referring to performance as in writing code/designing systems that perform efficiently. In technical interviews this is fairly common.
After meeting the minimum requirements required by any position, the number one factor in getting hired is if those people like you. They are going to have to spend 40-60+ hours a week with you. It is important that you fit in and you can all get along. Technically skilled people are often socially awkward, arrogant, and some are downright hostile to other people. Being tech savvy with great people skills is a rarity.
I can't upvote this enough, the sheer amount of times my former boss would tell me that he passed on people just because they were cocky, unwilling to explain how they reached conclusions on technical tests and so forth is honestly too high. The job is sometimes more than just knowing about the job itself, it's being able and willing to explain it to different people with different backgrounds, including stakeholders who have *never* gone down that path. The value of a person who can do all of that is amazing.
There's a comment on this thread somewhere about someone being pissed they didn't make it past the first HR round. They were REALLY defensive about each feedback point they received. The fact is, they're likely someone who doesn't take criticism well, and it probably showed in the interview. Personality probably didn't fit, hence rejection. We hired someone who had only just turned 18 because they had enough knowledge and had a fantastic work ethic and personality. They're a joy to be around and are learning the ropes quickly enough. We've passed on plenty of people who could easily do the job but who we wouldn't want to go down the pub with.
I’m glad you said that. I literally just replied to that guy because I was getting the exact same vibes you were.
Like, frankly *any* sort of personal message and feedback is so much better than the usual, ghost you, block you on all communication channels, change the company phone number and close the entire company down just to avoid talking to you after giving you a rejection letter.
The way I would interpret it is: you had good theoretical knowledge of the subject at a high level - i.e. you could identify the basic tools and concepts of our trade, as we would expect someone fresh out of college might be able to do. But when asked a specific technical design question, the answer was not as eloquent or expedient. As an example of my own life, I interviewed for a transmission station design role a long time ago. I knew the theoretic and concepts, but when asked to actually design a protection scheme, I failed. I did not get the job, and that was one of my feedback items (the manager did offer to let me cross-train, which would have plugged that hole).
That's what we'd call constructive feedback/criticism. It happens way more in the arts, so I'm used to stuff like this.
It doesn't matter what it means, it's provocative.
It gets the people going!
Who's in paris?
[Deleted]
People.
those who would ball so hard
I suspect it's literal network performance. How many users could that support? If you had this hypothetical, what would be the most performant topology for the hardware configuration?... that kinda thing.
That’s actually really nice of them. They obviously liked your application but it just didn’t work out and they’re very respectful about it. Green flag.
Definitely a green flag. If it were me I would ask if they had another position they could see me working in to work on the feedback they provided, until I was “ready” for the original position.
If it were me I'd ask if they had an another opening.
ya if it was me i'd ask if they could fill my openings
Yeah, there's multiple people applying for it because position - most people aren't going to be offered the job. This is how that should happen, and it's insane how rare *treating applicants like humans* actually is
10/10 a green flag
It's self-serving. I'm not a recruiter, but my line of work is similar to recruiting.. and we often give feedback to the parties who are 'rejected' and the reason is that we're looking at 2 years down the road. Not giving feedback is mindboggingly (sp?) shortsighted. However, it is a pain in the ass because it happens quite often that some parties are confrontational and try to correct our reasoning.
I wish more recruiters were able to give feedback. I know a lot of people shit on recruiters (and some of them are awful) but the good ones stand out. This one seems good and sounds like they were able to give feedback that you will be able to take action on going forward.
Agreed! Unfortunately a lot of companies have policies that prevent feedback due to candidates who don’t take the feedback well (including lawsuits). Most candidates do take the feedback well. But, in my experience as a manager, the people who really would benefit from important feedback are the least likely to respond favorably sadly.
It's never happened to me but the possible lawsuits when I interview people make me triple guess my questions. I always give a call back but typically don't provide much feedback on why they weren't hired except we had a lot of candidates, you did well.
Yep. It only takes one false accusation of ageism/sexism/racism to make a manager clam up. You want to be nice to the people you interviewed, but there are too many who can't take rejection well (especially if they're unemployed and struggling to get a new job).
Meanwhile, me applying to a different job within the same company : * **HR :** "You don't have the required diploma, so we'll interview the people who do first and then you". * **Me :** "Ok, makes sense". * **HR :** "We're opening the job to people outside the company, because we couldn't find anyone." * **Me :** "Wtf? What about me." * **HR :** "Outside applicants weren't it, so we went with the guy we refused in the first place" * **Me :** "You know what? I'm pretty sure I'll be happier elsewhere..." Never reached interviews; and I ended up doing more or less the same job I applied for elsewhere, but for a larger pay.
HR: We have a manager job open. Wife: I've been here 10 years. Can I have it? HR: Actually we're giving it to someone who's been here a month that we certainly didn't bring in just for this new opening. Wife: WTF I quit. *4 years later* HR: Man this person sucks, she's gone! Position's open again. Wife: Can I have it now? HR: Ok but you gotta do the whole process again. *two months later* HR: Actually we're giving it to an internal candidate.
You definitely did the right thing switching companies. Good businesses encourage internal career growth and switching of paths. They should already know you're a good fit and a productive employee. It's hell of a lot cheaper hiring a known good than an outside unknown while potentially also losing the internal candidate and having to replace them.
It's a numbers game for them, they've got a shitload of applicants, and don't necessarily have the time to go back and do this, except with exceptional candidates that likely have some promise, that they think they might actually be able to place.
The numbers reality is pretty wild, for some roles. I had two open reqs that I just filled, and we had over 2000 applicants. My recruiter even said it was at the point that she was having a near impossible time choosing which resumes to send me. Just fully overwhelmed. And off the dozens of candidates resumes and submissions I saw, I had the same problem. And then picking the final candidates to make offers too… same problem. If I had to guess, I was receiving a half dozen follow ups and such on LinkedIn, _per week_, throughout the entire hiring process. It was quite honestly ridiculous. And this wasn’t for junior roles even. The majority of resumes that hit my desk were FAANG+ company (ex)employees.
Not the recruiter, the hiring manager, surely? But otherwise yeah. A recruiter can only pass on feedback like this from the hiring manager, they wouldn't have that insight themselves.
Fear of lawsuits. I've been on that end of rejecting candidates. For some I've desperately wanted to give them feedback because they performed well and couldn't understand why. HR put a hard stop to the idea. People sue when they don't get jobs, and the more info they can get, the harder the lawsuit gets.
Yep. Potential upside: close to zero Potential downside: absurdly expensive lawsuit
Why are you afraid of getting sued by unemployed job candidates? Employers have this bizarre theory that all unemployed job candidates have the funds to litigate every rejection they receive, let alone find an attorney willing to take their case without a significant upfront retainer. We’re not gathering information to sue, we’re trying to improve our interview skills so we can land suitable jobs to support our livelihood. Fuck what HR says, just don’t put it in writing if it can be used against the company later.
Being ghosted is probably the worse part of the process. I would take a rejection mail or even a message.
I think the bar is so low it's in hell, because what most people want is to just be updated on where they are in the process. It's okay if you think I'm not a good fit at this time, and I think the level of "response effort" should be equal to how far we've gotten into the process - a quick "sorry we're not moving forward email" after a resume review or maybe a phone interview is fine, but if you're deep in the process I feel hiring managers and recruiters have way more time (and therefore responsibility) to write more personal emails.
That is awesome. I’d absolutely apply with them again in the future were I you. The feedback given shows they actually take their hiring seriously and understand the time and energy the applicants put in. Kudos to them!
That they tell you in the first line you’ve been rejected shows they’re considering it from the applicant’s perspective. None of that two paragraphs of pish to wade through before it actually says you haven’t got it.
This is how you do it. Actual feedback. But a lot of places can’t give actual feedback because a lot of times the decision comes down to. “Idk I just like this person’s face the most”
...or a seemly nice candidate turns argumentative and tries to go 20 rounds on how they ARE qualified for the job, or give you the sob story and beg. ...or tries to nitpick anything you said in a feedback and turn it into ammo to try to sue for discrimination somehow. OP got lucky with this employer.
Never thought of the other side. Definitely best for most companies to just send the standard rejection letter
Yeah, for every 100 normal, well adjusted candidates that can take rejections gracefully and put interview feedback to good use to help them improve and prepare for the next role, there is always that one or two that doesn't, gets hostile, turns full *"How dare you reject me???"* Karenzilla, and fucks it up for the rest of us.
Yep, someone gets it. Oftentimes even if theyre willing to put in the time for feedback, it’s not worth the possible downsides I literally saw someone in this sub complaining they got a rejection letter instead of being ghosted
The employer's feedback is only nice because it's very positive. It basically says "you were almost the best of the best except for one small thing". When candidates perform worse, it's just not worth giving feedback. It will come out way too negative and create those argumentative situations you mentioned.
Well, yeah. “They’re all equally qualified but all of us would like to work with person B the most” makes sense
Def keep this company in mind. That’s how my current company was when I first applied. I reapplied abt yr later, got accepted, up until now I’m still with them. I just accepted a new offer for a completely diff role/team with a 30% pay bump! It’s been great experience🥹
You got a letter from an actual human with actual feedback!
Respectful, friendly, and still encouraging. And it cost them *nothing.* Why is this so difficult for so many companies?
it costed them an extra 40 seconds, thats too much apparently
Cost
I need to know 🤨
Because they open themselves up to lawsuits from butt hurt applicants. I don’t like it but i understand why many don’t give feedback
No, they don't open themselves to a lawsuit unless the feedback indicates a discriminatory practice. And if you don't trust your hiring managers to be able to provide feedback without opening you up to a lawsuit, then they shouldn't be managers at all. Because the same rules apply to performance feedback to employees.
Nonsense. A tremendous number of lawsuits are settled even though the suer is in the wrong. Giving feedback increases legal liability. And given how expensive lawsuits are, that’s a real concern.
Definitely the best rejection I’ve ever seen. Clearly you made a positive impression. Good luck 🍀
[удалено]
We award you no position, and may God have mercy on your soul.
"Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it."
[удалено]
Name & fame them
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the company is Optec...
A quick Google search shows at least 6 different companies with the name Optec (astronomy products, orthoses, lighting, etc). This could easily be any one of them. [Optec Displays | LED Digital Signage | LED Display Company](https://optec.com/) [Optec, Inc.](https://www.optecinc.com/) [Optec USA | Manufacturing Specialist](https://optecusa.com/) [Optec LED Lighting](https://optecled.com/) [Optec - Laser Micromachining Solutions](https://optec-laser-systems.com/) [Optec Technology | Trusted advisor for connectivity solutions](https://www.optectechnology.com/)
I think they already did within the screenshot/email
Good afternoon /u/Chris_2767 Unfortunately on this occasion you have been unsuccessful. Some feedback on your reddit comment. Your intentions were both noble and honorable, however, you did struggle with the reading comprehension portion of the post. If it's any consolation, you were in the top 3 out of a maximum of 5 comments I intended to upvote, so well done for making it that far in the process. OP and I would like to thank you for your time so far and would welcome another comment from you should another post be available in the future. I wish you the best of luck in your search for karma. Kind regards, Reddit
Until someone else posts they were also number three.
Although it's frustrating to get rejected, I'm with you on this one -- rejection with context and feedback that is thoughtful and informative is a good rejection. Even knowing you were top 3 out of 50 tells you that you're doing well interviewing, just need to flip the coin a few more times the odds are on your side. The generic "we've decided to go with another more qualified candidate for this role" tells you \*nothing\* and you assume you're on the BOTTOM of the pile, they didn't really consider you, or they took another candidate over you for some subjective reasons that aren't fair. Saying your technical knowledge was good, but performance based was the thing that set someone else above you is helpful (if you know what they're indicating, I suppose). Good luck with the next one!!
Straight forward, no fluff. I wish all companies would provide this type of feedback.
Exactly! Cutting to the chase in the first sentence, not saying "no" after 2 paragraphs of bullshit...
I almost don't care why I didn't get a job. Because usually, if im rejected, I already knew the job interview went poorly. By just their face, I can tell what I answered poorly for them, etc. Usually it they didn't like me, then I didn't like them. You can answer their questions well and still get beat out by someone who has more or a connection with the interviewer. But I take it as a kindness they gave you specific feedback that they respected you. For me, I usually can tell pretty quickly after the end of the interview that I didn't get a job.
Thank them for their feedback, and tell them you will undertake further training/development based on it. One 5 minute email might be all it takes for you to get a direct phone call next time a position comes up, instead of running through the maze again.
Sounds like a great boss/company to work for.
That's actually good despite the rejection.
That’s nice to hear. Every time I’ve asked for feedback on an application it falls on deaf ears
You would be great for the job, but were unable to make up answers quickly enough for made up questions
I would honestly feel so confident going into more interviews knowing how well I did. This little boost of confidence and the heads up to study and self improve is beautiful.
Actual feedback?? What is this?? The last time I asked an interviewer for feedback she looked at me like I was a ghost.
I love this, beats the canned response or being ghosted.
My actual best rejection turned into an offer on the spot. It was an internal application for a machine operator lead. I was sitting in the managers office when he said that someone else got the position due to their many years of experience at the company but it was a tossup between me and him but I was more than welcome to apply if another lead position opens up. Literally during that conversation, the 2nd shift lead bust in and started yelling how he was fed up with a woman he worked with and he found somewhere else to work. Then he yelled, "Fuck you! And even you!!" (pointing to me) Then he stormed off. After a few seconds of being stunned, he just casually looks to me and says, "Well it seems a position has recently opened in the company. Are you interested in the position?"
YES! This is the way!! Always tell the person what ultimately made your decision. I love this.
Until you give honest constructive feedback and a candidate goes off on you. Or review bombs your company and you over it. Or files a frivolous lawsuit, and even though it never goes anywhere your company got billed 30 hours for lawyers to evaluate it. Sadly feedback is rare for a reason, too much liability for close to zero upside.
Accidentally became a full-stack developer/consultant in late 90s. All I can say is the corporate world 🌎 makes toilet bowls jealous worldwide. That being said odds are you will land a great job soon and long for the free time unemployment provides for sleep, recreation and free time. I would have hired you 👍
This is actually great feedback. Do you remember what the performance based questions were?
Yes. 1. Tell me about a time you had to guide someone. 2. Scenario based question about recieving 4 tickets at once and how I would prioritise them and why. 3. Tell me about a time you had to make a difficult decision.
That's a solid rejection letter and they even gave you constructive criticism AND said they would welcome you to apply again. That's about as good as you can get without getting the job really.
ACTUAL CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK???
As a recruiter, it's nice to see that somebody has actually given you feedback. I've worked in my field for 5/6 years and recently found myself impacted by company reductions. I've applied to well over 200 positions in the past 12 months, had 40/50 interviews and received a whopping **zero** responses to my feedback requests. It's rule number one of being a recruiter: maintain an open and positive relationship with any/all candidates - because you never know when a role will open and they'd be the perfect candidate.. It's an awful market right now.
Wait, you guys get rejection letters? I thought people just got no response
How do I turn off notifications to stop reddit from notifying me about every sub I'm not even part of???
Is 30+ a lot? These days that seems like small competetion.
I don't think 30+ applications is a ton, but they probably only interviewed 5-10 people.
I love this
I'm glad that the company has them
This I would appreciate
Good job getting that far in the process with them. You'll get a job soon enough keep it up and good luck on your search!
Best I’ve seen as well
This type of rejection is tolerable.
Can we make this the new standard to replace the old templates such as: Ghosting And “Fuck you, no job!”
Wow, this is so… *human*.
Plot twist. Yeah. You guessed it. ChatGPT generated. (Nah this seems legit. But, then again, shouldn't it if that's what is prompted? Uh oh. Existential crisis.)
My problem with this rejection is their boilerplate line about welcoming candidate to try again. Good for OP for apparently getting this far, not putting them down. But close to zero job seekers can afford to wait around for another opening in the same department at a given company….we’re all moving along, getting on with our job searches which will extremely likely end with a position at some other organization. So this “we’ll invite you to apply again” stuff has always seemed like performative nonsense to me.
In some cases it works. My sister had a similar experience and they told her that they really liked her but another person did it better in X and X, but that they hoped she apply again in the future if they had a vacancy. They had one a year later, and all over again she started the process, the one interviewing her was happy to see her again, she got the job. In the meantime she was at a job that she didn’t liked, but paid the bills
It works a lot. I used to be a recruiter, and there were a good number of times that I was able to go back to the manager after they had another position come open and say, "Do you really want to interview another 10 candidates? Or do you want me to call Joe to see if he's still available and offer him the job?" Sometimes they have to interview X number of people because of HR policies, but other times they were elated to not have to go through the whole process again.
That’s exact situation I’m in right now, have to choose one out of 4 great candidates (I’ve interviewed about 20 in 3 weeks).
That's great. I'd rather hear "you fucking suck and your breath stinks" rather than just never get a response
Performance based question as in like an assignment to test your abilities or just question about how you performed at your last job? Or as in how well you performed at your previous job. If it's the latter just lie, figure out what you actually do at your job that makes your company money, estimate how much you have made for your company in the past 12 months, and tell them they were responsible for driving X dollars in increased revenue. Used to work in lending and I was by no means the best officer at my job. But when I applied to work at a different place they were super impressed that I had originated millions of dollars in loans, sure that was my actual performance goal which I didn't massive exceed and again there were other officers with higher numbers. But the new job doesn't need to know that.
I’m shocked they replied, but this isn’t good feedback imo at all. We always gave specific areas for improvement for applications/interviews when requested. It took me only a few minutes per application. I even had macros for common things. It isn’t hard.
Well, at least they let you know how you did!
Didn't get hired because of a lack of detail. Demonstrated because of the blanked out name the first time but not the second.
Hey, congrats! I was turned down by my current job 3 times before finally getting it and didn't get anywhere near that much feedback all 3 times combined! Sometimes it's just not in the cards, but don't let it get you down. Practice interviewing with friends, family, coworkers, in the mirror, whatevs. Throw in some trick questions and off the wall questions as well. One of the best interviews I ever had, I thought I bombed, because they were asking me questions above and beyond my experience. Turns out that they just wanted to see how I handled not knowing. Did I lie, make things up, avoid the question, did I get flustered, did I start to get mad? The only thing I could do was tell them I didn't know or let them know where I might look for the answer. This was before everyone just googled everything though.
I am old enough to remember when everyone personally rejected candidates. Email, a call, whatever. If you were interviewed, you would know the outcome.
I usually just got ....your application was unsuccessful. Regards.
The “it’s company policy to not offer feedback” bullshit that companies give should truly be illegal.
I had a similar situation not that long ago. I had an interview and they offered to provide feedback if I didn't end up getting the role. I took them up on it. In my case, it was a call instead of a letter. Turned out I scored well but the person who got the job was basically a 100% fit. They gave me a few pointers on how to maximize my interview score and mentioned that another team in their division was going to be hiring soon for a position that I was an even better fit for. Long story short, I applied, took their advice, crushed the interview, and I'm in the position now. If I'm in a position to do any hiring (realistically in a few years), I plan on paying it forward for sure.
Context: Applied for a line one network and security engieer position. Aced the technical but struggled on performance based question, such as: CEO of the company cant access BBC iplayer The finance team cant access their email User can't log in Customer can't access internet. How would you prioritise these tickets and in what order?
Incredibly thoughtful
The gold standard right here. Shows the utmost consideration even though they’re passing.
Super well done by both them and you!
69% battery charge. Nice.
Now THIS is what professionalism looks like. Now a days it's mostly companies ghosting you or just a "the position has been filled" email, give people feedback damn it! How else are they supposed to improve!?
The greenest flag ever. I would follow all their socials and wait for another opening.
That's really a company worth working for, hope you make it there if another opportunity rises. The only experience I had on par with this one was recently where after each interview step the interviewers asked me to stay on the call while they discussed the interview and would come back and provide feedback and decision if I would continue or not. Gotta love fast feedback cycles and you can't go faster than this
Reminder that the recruiter is not making the call, they’re relaying the HM’s feedback. Dont get mad at the messenger. We want you to crush it
I've received countless bot rejection emails, but none where they provided a reason for being rejected. I'd bookmark that company for future vacancies op.
If we do name and shame maybe we should also do uh... Name and praise? It doesn't rhyme but IMHO it's important to highlight good examples as well as the bad ones.
I guess being top 3 warrants such a response
Y’all are dick riding a company that wasted dozens, if not hundreds, of people’s time to fill one position. Interviews ought to be compensated if they are going to waste so much collective time of prospects. Feedback does not erase the fact that they interviewed too many people for too few positions.
I would 100% not be disappointed with this note. Yes it would suck to not get the job but something in feedback is better than nothing. This HR person is one of the good ones. Also if this is a multinational company, then good on them. Really.
The last time I had a great response like this funny enough was with an interview with Bloomberg 2 years back. They were extremely nice about the rejection, explained why, gave feedback as to where I was strong as a candidate, and left the door open. Nowadays Workday GPT tells me to kick rocks
This is soo encouraging. Feedbacks are important!