NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com
Syndicated columnist
Q: Your last three job interviews seemed to go well. You told each employer that you were very interested in the job, and you were given a time frame for a hiring decision. Weeks have passed. You have heard nothing from any of them and they are not returning your calls. Do employers owe you feedback after a job interview?
Nick's reply: What a question. Could job hunters possibly believe they're not entitled to feedback after investing their time to meet with an employer? We might as well ask: Does a job hunter owe an employer answers during a job interview?
Nah, let's all just waste one another's time and agree that our time is worthless and that rude behavior is par for the course.
But your time is not worthless, and rude behavior should not be normal. An employer owes you candid, detailed feedback after a job interview because it's the right thing to do. Unfortunately, while job candidates complain that they are treated badly, they tolerate such behavior as normal and unavoidable.
Bunk. The answer is not to tolerate how companies behave. The answer is to raise our standards even higher and to expect more -- and to let companies know it.
Employers expect people to spend their valuable time discussing the company's needs, talking about how they would do a job and sharing their experience and expertise. Employers want you to fill out forms, divulge your salary history, share your references and even to pee in a cup so they can see whether you've been ingesting illegal powders, drinking steroid shakes or tootin' marijuana. They use all this information to judge you.
But too often they shun any responsibility for giving you feedback. They won't tell you why they aren't hiring you or what they found in the cup. It might put them at legal risk.
Yet, if they make you a job offer that's feedback, too, isn't it? It's a judgment of you. What kind of risk does that create?
I'll tell you. A company makes you an offer, your current boss finds out about it, gets annoyed at your "disloyalty" and terminates you. That's the risk you take every time you go on a job interview. So, do you avoid interviews and the associated risks? Of course not. (When was the last time you consulted your lawyer before going to a job interview?)
Any business meeting poses risks because it requires exchanging potentially sensitive information that potentially puts us at risk. That's why we make informed judgments, we try to do business with people who have integrity and we aim to avoid situations that will hurt us. We know that if we lawyer-up all the time, the competition will walk away with the prize.
The liability risk must be mutual, and trust must be demonstrated. But what we see here is a corporate policy that does not suggest mutual trust: "We want to avoid liability because if we tell you what we think of you, you'll sue us."
But now we cut to the HR department, which is checking your references. It wants your professional friends to tell what they think of you so the employer can make a sound judgment about you.
Is it reasonable to have this double standard? Of course not. The Human Resources department instructs managers not to tell you why you were rejected and not to provide references about former employees, but to obtain references on job candidates and to find out everything they can about candidates in job interviews.
It makes me dizzy. If I'm going to go on a job interview, I expect honest feedback. That's not to say I can't survive without it. I just don't like giving companies a pass on this poor business practice.
Maybe it's time to get the lawyers and the personnel folks out of recruiting, interviewing and hiring. Maybe it's time to be big boys and girls and just tell what we really think.
As is often the case, the answer to today's Challenge is common sense. Providing feedback is just part of the competitive hiring world and employers should just accept it -- or smart job candidates are going to walk across the street to a competitor who respects their time.
Copyright 2009. Distributed by Universal Press Syndicate
Nick Corcodilos is author of "Ask The Headhunter: Reinventing the Interview to Win the Job" and the host of www.asktheheadhunter.com. He can be reached by e-mail at seattle@asktheheadhunter.com or at North Bridge Group, P.O. Box 600, Lebanon, NJ 08833. Sorry, no personal replies.
Read more: Headhunter Challenge , Networking and interviewing , Challenge
By Neal Steik on September 27, 2009 8:07 AM
While I voted that the company should be responsible and provide feedback, you should let your readers know sometimes that may not be for several weeks. Where I work it is our practice to not notify the unsuccessful candidates until the accepting one has started their first day on the job, just in case s/he fails their background check (which can take 2-4 weeks) and we then have to extend an offer to candidate #2 and we don't want them to realize they were our second choice.
By zoraker on September 27, 2009 9:16 AM
When I hire someone I am concentrating on what they can bring to the organization and what their potential is. When interviewing 20 people, which is common in this economy, one has to narrow the list of potential hires in their mind to two or three and focus on their background. After a day, I'll have no idea what the other 17 people in the room were, because I'll be thinking about the next round of 20 interviews.
If you aren't one of those two or three people, and take more of my time calling me for feedback do you really want to hear that you didn't even make an impression? Be happy that you got the interview because many others didn't even get that far.
By nathan on September 27, 2009 11:54 AM
What a silly commentary. Of course there is a double standard. By the way, there is no Easter Bunny, either.
Companies have a policy of no giving references (other than confirming prior employment) and of not giving candidates interview feedback because.... drum roll please.... candidates sue the companies they don't get hired at! And when a former employer gives a reference, and the candidate doesn't get hired for a position, they sue their former employer for "giving a bad reference and jeopardizing my income". Or in the case of interview feedback: "You don't have a good reason for not hiring me, so I will sue you claiming it was age, gender, race or show size that formed your decision."
Do these suits have merit? Sometimes. Often not. But they are a major source of expense and headache for employers. Not only do the lawyers cost money (duh), but having to parade your recruiters, managers, HR staff, etc, through a public trial every time someone is displeased they were not hired and can find an employment attorney willing to work on commission? That's a major drain on the company and looks bad in the press. (Remember, trials are public and regardless of the outcome they can cast a shadow over the accused.)
So if you were an employer, you'd avoid that situation -- regardless of whether it's fair, or a double standard.
How does an employer avoid it? You guessed it: Don't provide references, and don't provide feedback in interviews.
What's the solution for candidates? Don't get formal about it all. Want a reference? Get it "off the record". Development a relationship with people in the companies you work for that extends BEYOND the workplace. Why? So that if you need a professional reference later on, you can say "Hey, Jill, prior boss, can I have x-company call you on your personal phone to discuss my professional qualifications?" Look at that. A reference.
Getting interview feedback is more difficult, but it definitely pays to develop a relationship with the RECRUITER "at" the company you are speaking with, via a few phone calls prior to the interview. HR and the hiring manager are not allowed to provide feedback. The lawyers won't let them, because it puts the company at risk. So it's not that the woman you interviewed with is a jerk. Rather, it's that she can be terminated for providing you candid feedback about why you were passed over. But often recruiters are third party individuals (contractors, temps, agencies) with fewer restrictions on their discussions because they aren't directly employed by the company you interviewed with). They are your best bet.
By Lisa on September 28, 2009 12:22 PM
Amen! While employers might not be able to legally give reasons why they did not hire you.... I think the least they can do is even let interview candidates know by e-mail (even if in the form of a standard form letter) that he/she did not get the job and all the formalities that used to be normal. Where have our manners gone?
By Noel on September 29, 2009 9:42 AM
Employers these days - or should I say, UNemployers - are so arrogant and rude that most of the time there's not even an acknowledgment that you've applied for a position. If you ARE fortunate enough to get an interview, half the time they don't even give you the courtesy of a call to let you know you've been rejected. They're either lazy or just plain rude, and couldn't care less about all you've done just to satisfy their requirements or answer their questions. I've applied for jobs several times, and been turned down with the standard HR-approved phrase, "we have chosen to go forward with a candidate that better fits our requirements", which is, of course, simply code for, "we're too cheap to pay what you're really worth, so we're hiring someone we can get for less money". And employers wonder why workers show no loyalty anymore?? Sheesh!
By Kevin Talbot on September 30, 2009 9:36 AM
It's hard to believe I am reading such an ill-informed opinion by this columnist. In today's market (and frankly ANY market), jobs are NOT about the APPLICANT'S needs, they are about the EMPLOYER'S need! Get real!
Today this is magnified with so many job seekers and fewer jobs. Being a job seeker myself after being laid off May 1, I sympathize 100%. But the reality is employers are absolutely deluged with hundreds if not thousands of resumes for any job and they simply don't have the resources to follow up as much as they'd like.
And part of the problem is US - those applying. Every time you submit a resume for a job you clearly are not qualified for, you make more work for the employer and run the risk of getting on their unofficial "black list" as someone who “shotguns” their resume into nearly any job without much regard to how well qualified they are. Now I’m not talking applying for a job where you are missing 1 or 2 skills or maybe a year or two short on experience. Example: A former goat herder applied for a web developer project manager job recently with an employer. Seriously – many years’ experience as a GOAT HERDER and they felt they were qualified for the job. I hope the HR department got a chuckle out of that.
Does it suck that we don’t get feedback? Sure. Do we wish you’d at least get a “thanks but no thanks” e-mail if you don’t make the first resume screening cut? Sure. But face it – HR departments (like all departments) are asked to do more with less and they are drowning in resumes, so these are unrealistic expectations on our part. On the plus side, there are a few companies that I have applied to that did a good job with at least an automated e-mail status of my application. But these are the tiny minority.
So let’s put the responsibility back where it belongs today – on US, the job seekers. We are the ones that should (politely) follow up with the companies. Don’t call them every day, maybe give them a week or two after submittal and then call or email for a follow up. Use LinkedIn to find people that work there and use these “back channels” to check with HR and perhaps submit your resume internally (many companies have hiring bonuses for internal referrals even today).
Don’t play the victim. Like Norm from Cheers said “it’s a dog eat dog world out there and I’m wearing milk bone underwear”. Embrace that – learn how to run faster than the dogs or outsmart them and don’t get bitten!
By Tony on September 30, 2009 12:27 PM
Though I agree you are not going to get a detailed, point by point account of why you were not chosen, it is a reflection of today's rude a$s world not to get ANY kind of closure. Personally, working for the Govt. as a contractor, I can tell you they make you jump thru rings of fire, wait sometimes up to 3 months for EVEN AN INTERVIEW, and then can waste another couple months letting you know how that interview went! Oh yeah, FYI, I got the job, but applied last July, interviewed in September and was offered the position in January-THE NEXT YEAR.
So, was that rude? Yes, but in the end I got what I set out for. Have I had other Govt. agencies since put me through the same ring of fire, waste MONTHS of my time, and NEVER get back to me? Absolutely. And I agree with every person on here, that is rude and unacceptable. People's lives are hanging in the balance, and you cannot even give them the courtesy of a "we went with someone else" email? Really?!? Pathetic.
I cannot wait until we get back to how things were in the late 90's, when if someone doesn't interview/ offer you a position within 2 weeks their SOL, because you've already had 3 other job offers by then!
By MacMac on October 2, 2009 1:37 PM
Zoracker, I strongly disagree with you. It is this attitude that drives job searchers crazy! Most of us out in the ranks of the unemployed understand that many of us will be passed over for a job. It's busines and nothing personal of course. However, we DO mind the lack of respect shown to individuals and welcome the feedback. The who job search/interview thing is about marketing oneself and getting that feedback helps us better market ourselves to the next prospective employer.
I'm sure the company you work for markets itself. They many even rely on market research to make informed business decisions and build a customer base. If you try to think of a job search in the very same manner, you'd have a better understanding about what a job seeker/interviewee deserves after spending countless hours applying for your position, preparing extensively for it, commuting and finally spending valuable time sitting through all the questions. It says a lot aobut a company, how it regards its human resources and, importanly, reflects poorly on your brand. Show some respect to all of us job seekers and offer some constructive feedback!
By Dianne on October 9, 2009 1:05 PM
I was so-called hired at a department store, took the drug test, background check and I was told when to come in and start work. I arrived with uniform ready to work only to be told my background check hadn't come in and they lost my drug test! That was 4 months ago! I am still unemployed and the employer never would return my phone calls; talk about rude and insensitive.
I wouldn't work at Target if they begged me.
By Rob on October 13, 2009 4:20 AM
Can a previous employer black list you so that you can't get a job? What can you do about it, how can you find out if they are?
By Sara on October 14, 2009 5:55 PM
I have read through the comments. I can only hope that the interviewing and hiring managers find themselves on the other side the desk - looking for a job and getting the same lame excuses for not being hired.
By mike on October 14, 2009 7:08 PM
I just hosted a job fair in Mobile Alabama to fill 4-5 retail management positions. We had over 320 folks show up. We had to add an extra day to sit with all those qualified. There is no way we could have provided feedback or even a no thanks. Many were not even close to qualified yet chose to waste our time on the hope they were more qualified than the other 319 people present.
Online I receive 40-50 resumes EVERY DAY. Again, no way to talk to them all. Luckily for online resumes I have an "Easy Button" that sends a no thanks email with one click. And I'm not a recruiter or HR person. I have 172 stores in 13 districts to run. No admin assistant, just me. Not much time to even look much less give feedback.
Today the best way, as it has always been, is to network. I always try to hire those with personal references from with in the company first. Since most companies, including mine give neutral references only, it can be my only insight at times.
I also have tons of respect for candidates that follow through with a couple phone calls after. It can take weeks to make a final decision. A candidate that "Bugs" me show follow through and is unlikely to be discouraged as easily with an overload of projects or hard to please customers. Honestly folks that wine about no closure, are not strong enough to work for me. Not being mean, just realistic.
As for feedback from the prospective employer to allow you to better yourself and chances next time... just not their responsibility. I have a hard enough time sifting through the "Hollywood Resume" for reality, the last thing I need is to tell folks what I want to hear. It takes 6 weeks to see who I really hired. The interview and background just hedge my bets, but it's always still a roll of the dice.
If you want feedback, get a mentor and a focus group. There are several attached to your local colleges and community centers. Most are FREE!! They will do mock interviews and role playing. They will give you feedback and help you tailor your resume. Quit blaming the employer for your lack of talent, preparedness and follow through.
And as for not hiring someone because they "Cost" to much. It's supply and demand. Blame the game or sit home. If I lost my job tomorrow and went to McDonalds to be a Fry Guy, I would make Fry Guy money. It might be high end of the Fry Guy scale, but it wouldn't be 6 figures anymore... If there's someone else that is qualified enough to do the job and the cost less than an overqualified person, an employer would be NUTS not to hire them. Most companies are in business to make a profit. It's great you can do so much, but if it's more than I need, why pay for extra's. It's like buying a microwave to heat up TV dinners. It's nice that another one that cost $100 more can use convection heat to cook a turkey...but I don't want to cook a turkey.
My wife lost her job early this year. She went to Walmart as a cashier at $9.25 an hour. She had left a $60K retail manager's job. She refused to sit home waiting. She just started a new GM position for $65K. The Regional Manager said he hired her because not only was she qualified but she was the only applicant that continued to work instead of sitting home waiting for the perfect catch. Employers like to hire those already employed...
I hope I don't sound to harsh, I truly wish all folks find meaningful employement, but don't expect an employer to "OWE" you anything. I can take my car to 5 different body shops for an estimate, they all take the time to walk the car and crunch numbers. Do I owe all of them a call to tell them why I chose someone else? WOuld it be nice, sure, but then again, maybe they should have been better prepared and known what I was looking for and what the competition looked like ahead of time.
Or do I have to call the salesman at Sears to tell him why I went with the Best Buy TV? You are all guilty of that at some time. Get over it.
By Scott on October 21, 2009 5:21 AM
I left my last job due to a Hostile Work Enviorment. My former employer has told me that he as ruined former employee's chances at other jobs including getting them fired. I have a feeling he has been sabotageing my job search on anyone that contacts him. I belive I missed out on a job oppertunity due to this. Am I allowed or should I inquire on this as this may help me get unemployment if I can show he is holding me back from getting a job. Also are prospective employers allowed to call former jobs if you have asked them not to?
By Scott on October 21, 2009 5:23 AM
Oh yes. I had two interviews with this employeer. Both seemed to go well.
By pat on November 4, 2009 1:29 PM
Love all the excuses from all the HR shills and so called “employers’ posting here. As with everything in life, sooner or later “things change” and when the shoe is back on the other foot and it is a employees marketplace – I hope you get burned over and over again with people that steal your intellectual property, walk out the front door with laptops etc.
Your lack of compassion and people skills SCREAMS in every one of your posts – you will get yours in the end, trust that.
If someone takes the time to put on a suit, drive to your shitty corporate offices on the side of some busy highway, fill out 12 pages of paperwork with information you have already given to them on your resume, sit in meetings with 4 different conceited idiots who spend the whole time talking about themselves and how great they are – the LEAST YOU CAN DO, is send them a short email to thank them for their time and inform them the did not get the position.
If you cant be bothered to do that, get out of the HR business as you are nothing but an ignorant, self centered hack.
By Jamie on November 13, 2009 11:18 AM
Just had a telephone interview today. The agent has not got back to me with feedback as he said he would, so it is pretty sure I will not get a second interview, which is enough feedback in itself, so no big deal, I am grateful I got an interview and will move on. If there is a better candidate who go the job what do I have to whine about. When I did insist on feedback in a previous job application and the agent called and said they had given it someone else that didn't make me feel any better. So given the choice, wait 2 days maximum, if you haven't heard back then assume you were not successful, think about what you could have done better and move on.
By robert on January 19, 2010 9:29 AM
I am absolutely convinced of not only employers blacklists but also University's as well. Getting a half decent job is next to impossible without a degree and the assumption is that University's are run like computers and do not engage in petty things like racism but because of a letter I had written criticizing Israel's occupation of Palestine resulted in Martin Singer preventing me from getting into either engineering or Chemistry despite my have adequate grades. They have been actively blacklisting me and keeping me from getting reasonably decent jobs. University's have an enormous impact as to who gets what jobs or business contracts. In reality it is a way to effectively control society through the alumni of the University's getting emails and newsletters to act this way or that.
By Adam on January 20, 2010 8:17 AM
HR departments do not owe anything to someone who has merely submitted a resume for a position. It usually clearly states that "we will contact you if you meet the qualifications." What I do have a problem with is NO follow-up at all after interviews. Potential hires must take time out of their schedule, perhaps miss time in their current job, and may be required spend money to get to interview. They are making a potential investment. The least the recruiters could do is get a general form email saying "thanks but no thanks" so they don't end up waiting for a call that won't be coming. Specific feedback would be nice, but that is not going to happen for obvious legal purposes. Just an email is all it takes. No excuses HR people. That simple email absolves you from any further responsibility to the candidate. I interviewed with a large corporation dealing in finance. Shortly after the fact I received an email stating that they had decided to pursue other candidates. I thought this showed tremendous class on behalf of the employer. I interviewed with another organization twice and never heard from them again despite the standard time frame follow-ups (remember the difference between being a pest and persistent.) Employers forget that potential employees are also a business opportunity. I will not do business with an employer who chooses to treat potential recruits poorly, and I will be vocal to friends about how that corporation treated me. Many of the HR folks forget that they are essentially crapping all over the brand that the organization works so vigorously to protect.