Oh I know. She’s doing OK as far as I know. The thing that had her mildly upset at first was just the whole thing of “Sheesh, if I don’t fit this job description, who the heck does?!?”
I’ve had two jobs where I was clearly THE candidate for the job (since they ended up hiring me), but I still had to wait months while they went through some “due dilligence” sham of interviewing other candidates.
Another voice chiming in from the hiring end -
Hundreds of resumes received for each job opening - postage and paper costs alone for sending generic form rejection letters is immense. We narrow it down to a handful to interview, then hire one. It’s not personal, really, just that individual got picked - it coulda been the next person just as easily.
It’s rarely about negatives - in every race someone is going to cross the finish line a thousandth of a second before the next person. One winner, everyone else - not the winner.
I’ve worked in H/R and I would never answer any request like that.
What part of “I don’t want you” aren’t you getting.
I’ve had humours things happen to me. Once someone sent me a “Sorry but we’re going with another candidate letter.” Ok fine, fair enough. A month later the job was posted again, but I didn’t apply. Anyway about a week later I get YET ANOTHER, “Sorry but we we’re going with another candidate letter.”
OK this is weird, but about a month later I got YET ANOTHER “Sorry, but we’re going with another candidate latter.”
I guess it wasn’t enough that I didn’t get the job, they wanted to MAKE SURE, I knew I didn’t get it back then, I didn’t get when the first guy didn’t work out and they had no intention of waiting for me to apply. They just didn’t want me 
I had another person not hire me and start sending me work assignments. I said, “What is this?” She emailed back, “Didn’t you start on Monday.” I emailed “No,” She says “Oops wrong candidate.”
And that’s just the tip of the fun 
Most of the time if you can get the interview it means you had the qualifications and the resume to get the job. From that point it was something you had the company didn’t like or simply someone was better. The competition is fierce now.
Often it’s going to come down to making the interviewer LIKE YOU and feel like he/she would like you to work with everyday.
I meant candidates we actually interviewed. I don’t know how they responded to resumes that weren’t even close - but I suspect there were a lot fewer, since you couldn’t build up a lost of companies using Google, and sending a resume required a lot more work than today.
The only time I saw a lot of useless resumes was when we were working through a recruitment firm, and in that case the candidate never knew we had seen the resume. And the rate of non-matches was pretty darn high.
Bullshit. It’s merely wanting companies not to be narcissists themselves. Do you not realize that the only reason why the company doesn’t do it is that it’s not in their own best interest? Why the hell is it okay for them to act like that, but gauche for others to act in their own best interests?
Now, it would be one thing if you were just pointing out how the world really works. But you made a value judgment. What the company does is right, and if you don’t like what they do, then you are the one that is wrong.
What it really boils down to is one group defending their own narcissism while trying to hurt other narcissists. Newsflash: that’s what narcissists do.
Crud. That was overly confrontational. And I’m sure the mods won’t let me delete it. This is what that was supposed to be edited into
It’s funny how, if a person looks out for their own interest in improving themselves, they have an entitlement complex. But when a company looks after their own interests in improving themselves, it’s perfectly normal.
No one is a narcissist for asking for what they want. That’s just stupid. Just because, in the real world, it can backfire, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
And, really, companies have the biggest entitlement complex of all. They feel they have the right to forgo what the rest of us consider basic humans decency. Everything is calculated on how it benefits them. The idea of altruism is a foreign concept. They have a Randian morality.
So, please, cut with the value statements. Companies that are only looking out for themselves definitely do not have the moral high ground. That may not matter in the real world, but there’s no need to defend them for their crappy actions.
It would be nice if, instead of the law REQUIRING them to post and interview, it required them to say as part of the advertising process “strong internal candidate under consideration.”
Then you’d know that your chances of doing anything other than wasting you time were slim.
Frankly though, they need to. There are a few options to the whole “giving feedback to someone who didn’t get the job.”
The candidate graciously accepts your feedback, thanks you, and moves on.
The candidate argues with you over your feedback. Not pleasant. Not productive. In my experience, more common that you think it would be.
The candidate uses the information you have given him to sue you. Since you don’t want this, if you do give feedback, its often not at all truly meaningful - unless you can give direct feedback on a skill (we wanted Ruby on Rails, which you didn’t have). Even then, if the skill was not in the job description posted, you might be in trouble.
Upshot, there is no upside for the company other than being nice and leaving a good impression. The potential downside is hundreds of thousands in legal bills.
Two extra pieces of information on the employing side:
Some organisations, particularly government agencies, can have rules that they HAVE to disclose their assessment of you and the information about the successful candidate. Usually this only applies if you are interviewed, not to anyone who applies. In these cases it can be very helpful to ask for the feedback.
Sometimes employers stuff up the job requirements, and don’t employ anyone because even people who exactly match the requirements aren’t suitable for what they really want. Alternatively, the paperwork for advertising takes so long that they’ve been refused permission to employ someone by the time the applications come in.
Well, maybe they could at least put that right in the job requirements. Wouldn’t necessarily stop other people from applying, of course …
Question: If a woman asks me on a date and I say “no thank you”, do I have to provide a lengthy feedback session as to why? Why are companies any different in your mind? MegaGigantacorp Worldwide just wasn’t that into you. Move on.
You aren’t “entitled” to a job just because you are qualified for it. Every single candidate I interview is probably qualified for the job on paper. I only hire the candidate who I think will provide the most benefit to the company. Can you honestly say that is always you?
And I don’t know why you throw around Rand as if you assume there is a universally accepted view on her philosophy. Some people actually think companies operating in the rational self-interest of their owners to be a good thing.
I assume you’re not talking about the U.S. Government as I’ve never heard of such a requirements. But analogous to that, if you bid on a Government contract and don’t win, above certain dollar thresholds, they are required to give you a debrief on why you didn’t win. Guess what? If they have a favored candidate for a contract, that company will win 100 times out of 100. The reason you weren’t selected? Because you didn’t score as high in whatever the categories they evaluated were. Their evaluation is subjective just like a job interview, and even the cheapest guy doesn’t win because the Government likes to use a “best value approach”. I can honestly say that every debrief I ever had on a contract I lost was virtually worthless. It’s rare when writing a proposal that you miss some major point given the time taken to write it and the number of eyes who review it before hand. As such, you get phony assessments that you can’t use because you don’t get to see the winning proposal content.