Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Candidates?

Re:Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Ca... by nsedlet on Friday February 12, 2016 @05:21PM (#11091127)

At HireArt (W12) we've been working on a feedback feature for awhile and are close to finally releasing it. We have a fairly rigorous screening process, and every candidate is assessed by a grader according to a rubric. Our thinking was that if we provide this assessment to employers, surely we could provide it to candidates, too.

When we spoke to a labor attorney about this awhile back, their first reaction was basically that we would be insane to do it, because of the legal liability.

We got comfortable with the idea of feedback because we think that we have a clear, documented process that stands up to scrutiny. However, I think for many employers, recruiting decisions ARE arbitrary and unfair. Honest feedback would merely expose the decisions for what they are - reliant on personal affinity with candidates, vague notions of "culture fit", and gut decisions. There's very little quality training for how to ask good questions, evaluate those responses, and render a hiring decision. If candidates could actually hear the hiring manager and recruiter's thoughts, they'd rightfully be pretty angry.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Ca... by basseq on Friday February 12, 2016 @05:35PM (#11091202)

You're dead right: hiring is hard. Hiring with quality training, repeatable processes, feedback loops, etc. is incredibly hard. For most companies, whether they like to admit it or not, a B-grade process is "good enough". And the ROI to take it to A+ is either non-existent or hard to prove.

Here's the thing, though: that doesn't mean your labor attorney is wrong. One employee says something to a rejected candidate that could be interpreted as labor discrimination, and it doesn't matter how rigorous your process is, you're still in for the cost and time of a lawsuit to prove it.

How do you build the 0.1% risk of a company-ending lawsuit into your business case?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Ca... by dclowd9901 on Saturday February 13, 2016 @07:48AM (#11093756)

It is hard. The problem is that it's also hard to back out of a bad hire, so the cost of making a mistake is tremendously high.

I'm a very "right to work" (bullshit term I know) oriented person, in that I think neither companies nor their employees should be obligated to each other at all. Firing/quitting should be frictionless and easy. Instead, firing is wraught with legal problems such that you can't even fire an employee unless you can monetarily justify the cost of a lawsuit against their impact of being a negative influence, or they're part of some indiscriminate layoff procedure.

If I'm quitting or changing jobs, I'm harangued about it left and right by managers as to why or how this could happen.

Let's not pretend we owe each other anything and just move on like any other business transaction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Do Employers Rarely Offer Explanations to Rejected Ca... by dms105 on Friday February 12, 2016 @10:14PM (#11092310)

Your company is appropriately named, as hiring for sales is certainly more of an art than hiring engineers. It's difficult to hire for sales and other customer facing positions without taking into account personality fit and likability, which are hard to measure/quantify and will often result in someones idea of unfairness.

[ Parent | on HN ]