The hidden beauty of recruiting(blog.thinkful.com)
blog.thinkful.com
The hidden beauty of recruiting
http://blog.thinkful.com/post/42278275840/the-hidden-beauty-of-recruiting
2 comments
Recruiter here, came to say this. About 90% of hiring managers will tell recruiters 'good candidate but not a fit at this time' and nothing more, as any additional information could lead to all kinds of problems (cries of ageism is a current favorite). I'll always ask for more feedback from my clients, and most of them will go into more detail (I refuse to work with clients that are not willing to provide at least some info on rejections), but there is little incentive for hiring managers to provide full details on their reasoning.
There's a difference between wishing and doing. They wish there was a way to give feedback while avoiding the trouble you're pointing out. Since there's not, they're just left wishing instead of doing.
Hiring managers work in a very human field. They often run into the same issues with candidates, and wish that they could just give a bit of human input, to help someone else. The candidate might not be a good fit for that job, but if he/she is unknowingly self-sabotaging in interviews, it would be great to be able to point that out. Since the potential trouble outweighs the benefits, they're left only wishing.
Hiring managers work in a very human field. They often run into the same issues with candidates, and wish that they could just give a bit of human input, to help someone else. The candidate might not be a good fit for that job, but if he/she is unknowingly self-sabotaging in interviews, it would be great to be able to point that out. Since the potential trouble outweighs the benefits, they're left only wishing.
Definitely – This is exactly what we're seeing. I think people are more open to feedback when working with Thinkful because we're educators not recruiters.
This! Yes, I'd love to give feedback on what wasn't there. But, legally/risk-wise, it's just not worth it. Who knows if the fact that they couldn't write a line of Ruby for a Ruby-on-Rails position could be some reason to sue? Not that they'd win but just the possibility keeps employers from giving even a peep of feedback. Never, ever gonna happen.
Agreed. We hear this a lot. Maybe I should revise the post to be more clear on this point... everyone wants to give this feedback, but it's an HR minefield.
Recruiter here. I think managers do have a careful balance between helping candidates (providing full disclosure as to why they rejected) and potential exposure (being sued or coming across the wrong way), so they tend to err on the side of caution. But having dealt with many managers, they too are in a time crunch, especially if they are being fed lots of unqualified or unvetted candidates (the numbers game you allude to) and also fear the risk. This is more prevalent in the contingency recruiting market.
The manager should have the incentive to provide great feedback to the recruiter, as the recruiter will hopefully hit the target better on future candidates if they are aware why their candidates are being rejected. The recruiter has little incentive to share that feedback with candidates other than goodwill and keeping the relationship strong with the candidate. I always try to get feedback from managers for my own purposes and for helping my candidates improve, but it isn't always as easy as you'd think.
The manager should have the incentive to provide great feedback to the recruiter, as the recruiter will hopefully hit the target better on future candidates if they are aware why their candidates are being rejected. The recruiter has little incentive to share that feedback with candidates other than goodwill and keeping the relationship strong with the candidate. I always try to get feedback from managers for my own purposes and for helping my candidates improve, but it isn't always as easy as you'd think.
Thanks for the insight. I'd definitely love to learn more. Frankly, I'd like to hear a thorough challenge to my central thesis in this essay that "The recruiter has little incentive to share that feedback with candidates other than goodwill and keeping the relationship strong with the candidate."
I continue to find that employers want a way to provide more feedback, though are currently prevented from doing so.
Someone with more insight into being a successful recruiter surely has a deeper understanding than mine, on this and other issues like the "numbers game" element.
I continue to find that employers want a way to provide more feedback, though are currently prevented from doing so.
Someone with more insight into being a successful recruiter surely has a deeper understanding than mine, on this and other issues like the "numbers game" element.
I'm happy to provide more insight, but not sure exactly what you are referring to in asking for a challenge to your thesis but then using my quote as your thesis? I may have missed something, clarify and I'm happy to respond.
I find it interesting that you find employers want to provide more feedback. A mere 30 seconds before writing this reply to your comment, I received an email from a client saying "We looked at the resume and don't think he is a fit for our team". That's it. If this manager wanted to help the candidate, he could mention what skills are missing. If the manager felt there was a problem with the resume, he could have mentioned that. If the manager wanted to help me hit the target better next time, he could have mentioned what was missing.
I think what you are referring to is feedback after interviews mainly, but this very bland, 'not a fit' feedback is exactly what is most commonly provided to recruiters. If given ample free time, managers will provide more detailed feedback, but that usually isn't the case (particularly in the start-up world). I do have clients that are more willing to write a few sentences, but I can tell you that the norm is 'not a fit'.
I don't find managers are in any hurry to help candidates do better next time, which does little to improve the overall ecosystem. If a candidate missed questions on a specific area in programming or a concept, that would be helpful for the candidate to know. I wish more managers wanted to provide more feedback, but for now it is a minority.
I find it interesting that you find employers want to provide more feedback. A mere 30 seconds before writing this reply to your comment, I received an email from a client saying "We looked at the resume and don't think he is a fit for our team". That's it. If this manager wanted to help the candidate, he could mention what skills are missing. If the manager felt there was a problem with the resume, he could have mentioned that. If the manager wanted to help me hit the target better next time, he could have mentioned what was missing.
I think what you are referring to is feedback after interviews mainly, but this very bland, 'not a fit' feedback is exactly what is most commonly provided to recruiters. If given ample free time, managers will provide more detailed feedback, but that usually isn't the case (particularly in the start-up world). I do have clients that are more willing to write a few sentences, but I can tell you that the norm is 'not a fit'.
I don't find managers are in any hurry to help candidates do better next time, which does little to improve the overall ecosystem. If a candidate missed questions on a specific area in programming or a concept, that would be helpful for the candidate to know. I wish more managers wanted to provide more feedback, but for now it is a minority.
I think we see more engagement from hirers (both the hiring manager and potential colleagues) because we're coming at the process as educators. I've certainly seen some share of "not a fit", but that rate goes down once there's an interview, or even a phone screen.
Wow, I never realised that feedback could be a case for a law suit... Is this just in the USA or in the UK as well?
Good question. I don't know off hand, but will keep an eye out as we work with more UK employers. If you want to follow up email me at darrell [at] thinkful.com.
Exactly! They wish there was a way to do it, but know doing so would open a huge can of worms.
Hirers want nothing more than increase the quality of candidates they interview, which is why providing a safe way to gather this feedback is so valuable.
Hirers want nothing more than increase the quality of candidates they interview, which is why providing a safe way to gather this feedback is so valuable.
As a sometimes job seeker: Screw hiring managers who don't give feedback. I want to know what I did wrong so I can improve.
Not giving feedback when people fail is a sure-fire way to make the whole ecosystem worse. In any situation.
Not giving feedback when people fail is a sure-fire way to make the whole ecosystem worse. In any situation.
If the problem is technical, the candidates get their feedback immediately. Either they themselves know they botched up the question, or they are given the clue via absence of a follow up question. The best thing you could due to salvage such situations is to ask what the right answer is. That not only serves as feedback but also signals that you are willing to know.
The feedback you don't get, is almost always about personality. There's no litigation-safe way of saying "Man, you come across as a total douche, I'll pass"
The feedback you don't get, is almost always about personality. There's no litigation-safe way of saying "Man, you come across as a total douche, I'll pass"
Right, and it's one thing if the problem is, "you're a douche," which frankly requires more than interview feedback to fix. But if the problem is, "you came across as timid," and the problem is strictly about speaking with more confidence, that's a highly fixable problem that you can improve with a reasonable amount of practice.
It's because you weren't a good fit for the position.
Want to know more? No, because then you will threaten to sue us. The legal action is frivolous and will lose in the end but it will cost money time and attention to deal with.
But forget all that, seriously now, what's the real reason, the applicant asks? For us, if we didn't make an offer it's either because the applicant is a jerk, a liar, or incompetent. One or more of these covers the situation with the majority of applicants. Salary is not an issue, we pay what it takes for the right people. I can't say the same for other companies, they often want to find someone cheap. Jerks don't change, the incompetent can't improve, and liars only use feedback to make their lies harder to detect. This means all feedback is either useless or counterproductive. There is one exception. The rare case they are a sweet genius with severe BO. In this case little can be gained from feedback since there's little chance one is not aware of it. If one suspects BO might be the reason, then it is and it should be fixed before the interview.
Want to know more? No, because then you will threaten to sue us. The legal action is frivolous and will lose in the end but it will cost money time and attention to deal with.
But forget all that, seriously now, what's the real reason, the applicant asks? For us, if we didn't make an offer it's either because the applicant is a jerk, a liar, or incompetent. One or more of these covers the situation with the majority of applicants. Salary is not an issue, we pay what it takes for the right people. I can't say the same for other companies, they often want to find someone cheap. Jerks don't change, the incompetent can't improve, and liars only use feedback to make their lies harder to detect. This means all feedback is either useless or counterproductive. There is one exception. The rare case they are a sweet genius with severe BO. In this case little can be gained from feedback since there's little chance one is not aware of it. If one suspects BO might be the reason, then it is and it should be fixed before the interview.
>For us, if we didn't make an offer it's either because the applicant is a jerk, a liar, or incompetent.
What an incredibly cocky and pretentious view of the world.
What an incredibly cocky and pretentious view of the world.
If you're finding trouble getting work, it is because you have an attitude problem.
No, it is because you consider him a jerk, a liar or incompetent. That really does not mean he/she is any of those. Especially considering your attitude, which comes across as dismissive and self-assured.
And what about "incompetent can't improve"? This is plainly wrong. We all were incompetent at some point.
And what about "incompetent can't improve"? This is plainly wrong. We all were incompetent at some point.
Businesses have to worry about themselves before the ecosystem. It's for legal concerns that they don't give feedback.
Exactly. How is a rejected applicant supposed to improve if they don't have any feedback?
Here are how the rejected applicants can improve:
1. Stop lying on the CV, about past experience, and about skills.
2. Stop being a jerk, learn some social skills.
3. Stop being incompetent, learn to actually build quality products.
No one that has a problem with any of those is interested in fixing it though, and in general being a liar, a jerk and incompetent isn't something that can be fixed anyway, so feedback won't do any good.
If you are competent, truthful and not a jerk, you'll be getting job offers. If you aren't, you know what the problem is and how to fix it.
1. Stop lying on the CV, about past experience, and about skills.
2. Stop being a jerk, learn some social skills.
3. Stop being incompetent, learn to actually build quality products.
No one that has a problem with any of those is interested in fixing it though, and in general being a liar, a jerk and incompetent isn't something that can be fixed anyway, so feedback won't do any good.
If you are competent, truthful and not a jerk, you'll be getting job offers. If you aren't, you know what the problem is and how to fix it.
I am competent, truthful and not a jerk. I get many job offers. But sometimes I don't. Say, about 2 in 10 discussions lead to either never hearing back or being told I'm not a good fit.
Often this happens because I'm in the wrong stack and they didn't specify. Other times ... shrug
What am I doing wrong on those occasions? I don't know. And never will.
Although once, just once, I managed to figure it out after a few months. That was with Google. But they gave me specific technical feedback on waht I did wrong. Eventually I was able to realise what I was saying wrong that made them think I didn't know those technical things (it was an extremely consistent brain fart that lasted all day, through all 6 interviews, but they can't know that, they just know I was saying the wrong things)
Often this happens because I'm in the wrong stack and they didn't specify. Other times ... shrug
What am I doing wrong on those occasions? I don't know. And never will.
Although once, just once, I managed to figure it out after a few months. That was with Google. But they gave me specific technical feedback on waht I did wrong. Eventually I was able to realise what I was saying wrong that made them think I didn't know those technical things (it was an extremely consistent brain fart that lasted all day, through all 6 interviews, but they can't know that, they just know I was saying the wrong things)
You asked and I told you how it is at my company. I am not privy to other company's reasons.
Your phrasing implies that you get a job offer after 80% of interviews. That seems a perfectly fine record and it seems there is no need to know what was going on in the other 20% of interviews, so things are good.
Your phrasing implies that you get a job offer after 80% of interviews. That seems a perfectly fine record and it seems there is no need to know what was going on in the other 20% of interviews, so things are good.
What can of worms are you talking about? The one where the hiring manager admits on record that he or she rejected a candidate for unethical or illegal reasons opening the company to a lawsuit? Or is it the one where your external recruiter uses that feedback to coach the next applicant to trick you into hiring an incompetent?
"...hiring managers are by definition experts at hiring"
Ummm, I don't think so. Many if not most companies suck at hiring. If you get hiring right, you just nailed the most important factor* to building a great company, and great companies are the exception, not the rule.
*arguably, the only factor. The rest is what the people you hired do.
Ummm, I don't think so. Many if not most companies suck at hiring. If you get hiring right, you just nailed the most important factor* to building a great company, and great companies are the exception, not the rule.
*arguably, the only factor. The rest is what the people you hired do.
They may not be experts at making the best hiring decisions. Whether they are or not isn't really important.
What's important is that when it comes to knowing what hiring managers do and do not like to see in an applicant, they're it. And that's exactly what someone who's job hunting wants to know. They're not out to meet some Platonic ideal for the best possible candidate for XYZ position. They're just looking to get a job.
What's important is that when it comes to knowing what hiring managers do and do not like to see in an applicant, they're it. And that's exactly what someone who's job hunting wants to know. They're not out to meet some Platonic ideal for the best possible candidate for XYZ position. They're just looking to get a job.
No, million times no. Providing feedback to a rejected applicant may open a huge can of worms. If these hiring managers really exist they are putting their employers in a very risky situation.