to wonder why it seems to be so hard for most organisations to send an email to tell a candidate they haven't got the job?

[IrianofWay]

Just a quick 'Dear candidate, sorry but you were unsuccessful this time'. Hell. even a text message would do.

Just a thought, but is it possible that some employers choose not to contact unsuccessful applicants after the interview stage in case the successful applicant, for whatever reason, doesn't start the job? By that I mean, they might get the job and be ready to start only to get a job elsewhere for instance. Or for whatever reason, are unable to start the job.

If that happens then they would just contact their second choice who had been interviewed and they needn't know they were never the original choice.

Whereas if they had contacted the unsuccessful applicants in the first place to tell them that they hadn't been successful then it's going to look bloody awkward contacting them again just to say "on second thoughts, you have the job after all!"

I contact people who apply for jobs as I think it's the polite thing to do and I think it's what most people want. I also think it's the sensible thing to do, so applicants aren't left hanging around wondering if the application process is still ongoing.

In my experience in these matters, and this is going on quite a while now, most people find contact helpful. I get many emails asking if they'll hear back from us as to whether their application was successful or not. Funnily enough I'm yet to receive an email saying 'please only make contact if I get an interview'.

I'd bet most job hunters are more pissed off when they spend ages putting an application together and hear nothing whatsoever than when they get a polite rejection.

So I will continue to risk the wrath of people like you who react badly to rejection as the majority of people appreciate feedback.

I know where I used to work, we had a few instances where people would get the job and work for a day or a week and then just leave. Granted it only happened a few times in the six years I worked there, but when it did happen, they would be replaced almost immediately.

Now I wasn't involved in the recruiting process but I can't help but think that their replacements were simply people who had been interviewed originally and were the second choice for the job. There wouldn't have been enough time to advertise the job again, sort out applications and interview people again in the short time it took for them to be replaced.

I think you're over thinking this squoosh. I am not angry. I am simply putting another point of view across. If you choose to take that as anger then that's your call.

Also ime employers seldom give feedback. I know I've asked for feedback before when I've been told I've been unsuccessful only to be told they don't give feedback or "don't have time".

Let's agree to disagree.

'piss off, why are you telling me I've been rejected?" sounds angry to me.

Not angry. It's a genuine question I ask myself at the time. I don't understand it.

Obviously I don't tell the person phoning that .

I thank them for letting me know and ask for feedback, to which they usually tell me they don't give feedback or "don't have time". Which considering they obviously made time to phone me in the first place doesn't really make any sense.

Yeah, I've only gotten a few that have told me no directly.

One time I got a no, and then 6 months later an interview, then told no again. C'est la vie..

I've concluded that feedback is a bit pointless really, although I've requested it as per a previous post from a job where the specific criteria was that it was a part of a programme aimed at getting people with a VI back into work and they have failed to respond even though they were the ones offering feedback.

But on occasions where I have been given specific feedback it's been a case of "well, you did really well, excellent interview, please do feel to apply again, but we gave it to someone else." So either they're not being honest, in which case I'm never going to know what I'm doing wrong, and really, there's no way to deliver honest feedback potentially, I've been involved in interviewing as a governor and we've had some candidates who were just awful, but you can't tell them that, and the reality is that you will have employed someone else so what more is there to say? or I'm doing everything right but am still unemployable, in which case there's nothing i can do to increase my chances.

Yeah, I've been on the other side of it as well with the feedback. You really can't give honest feedback without risk of litigation. You really have to be careful about how you word it.

Most times, once it's down to the best few, it's just a matter of personal preference.

I used to work in the NHS and the approach was always 'closing date on x day and if you don't hear within x days then you've not been shortlisted'. I have no problem with that and don't particularly see why big organisations that have always taken that approach should now send out rejection emails just becasue they can. Most of them send automatic 'we've got your application' emails if they have an online system, so you know that your application has been received. In the days when I was applying for multiple jobs it would have been depressing to get multiple rejections (I remember that when I was doing milk round applications I got ten rejection letters within a couple of weeks and that was bloody depressing!).

On the other hand like most people I would always expect follow up from an interview and think it very rude if organisations don't bother. Having said that I've only very recently had two stage interviews (both successful) I guess if you had a very large group doing stage one it might be thought to be too much work to contact all of them. I did once get contacted a few months down the line about a job I interviewed for and was unsuccessful and where the selected candidate had moved on very quickly. I was asked back to interview and got the job.

When I've been on the other side of the table I've always rung up all my successful and unsuccessful applicants as soon as possible and I have always given feedback. Once I had a discrimination challenge which has made me very careful to make sure that the feedback is purely factual (nothing too 'feely' just in case of misinterpretation).

There are three types of interview rejection ime - there is 'based on the interview we decided that the candidate wasnt suitable' easy to reject. Type 2 is there is someone with marginally more experience but either suitable so send a 'we'll keep you on file for another job that may come up' response. Type 3 is 'we want to appoint you but can't get final sign off to do so' (this happens where I work) I suspect type 3 never get informe tbh. .. its worth knowing it happens though and sometimes it's them not you.

I find it weird that if you really have moved on from an interview toad that you would care either way. Most people want to be told. Its simplistic that the next move is looking for another job, it isn't just the unemployed who job search.

OP fingers crossed for ds's apprenticeship

I may be a bit different because I don't work in house and work for multiple clients but when I get asked for feedback I give honest feedback. Honest and constructive. I am also sensitive to people.

So if I am not delivering the feedback personally I give the information to the person who is, in the most honest way. For example I have had to give feedback like this before:

In the group activity X's manner was quite abrasive and occasionally almost aggressive which meant he did not collaborate well with the group. His confrontational approach (where he interrupted, talked over other candidates and raised his voice on three occasions) meant that he didn't get all the information needed to make an informed recommendation which was the main requirement of the brief. At one point he held his hand up in another candidate's face while she was speaking and said "I am going to correct you there. The most important thing is not what the client wants but it making money for the company. If that means telling a little white lie than so be it.". This raises concerns not just about his people skills and ability to influence and engage with others which are essential skills for the role, but it also suggests that he lacks integrity which is a core requirement when working in a regulated role.

However, the person delivering the feedback (and sometimes that is me) would frame it differently for the applicant and of course it would vary depending on the type of role and level but for a trainee role this is pretty much how I do it:

In the group we had some concerns about how you presented your arguments and felt that you didn't gather enough information from others which meant you didn't make the most informed decision. I don't know if you realised that you did this, but when you were making your points you sometimes talked over the other candidates, raised your voice and at one point you put your hand up to stop another candidate speaking. Unfortunately this meant you didn't engage with others in the group which was a key part of the task. The panel felt that you could improve by changing your approach to be less confrontational and more collaborative. As a trainee integrity and honesty is very important so while you are right that as a firm we need to make money, we felt that "telling a little white lie" to clients suggests that you haven't quite grasped the professional expectations of the role and you need to do some work on your understanding of the ethical and regulatory requirements.

All candidates can request copies of any written assessments and feedback so nothing is secret. Legally you can request information related to you by making data subject access requests from any organisation holding your data so that would apply to employers you have applied to.

And ime everybody wants to know what is happening with their application because it may have a direct baring on whether they apply for other jobs or decline/accept other offers. The only people I have come across who don't care if they hear back or not are those who have to apply for jobs whether they want them or not as part of mandated requirements for those claiming JSA (NB not all JSA applicants, just those who are forced to apply for any role regardless of suitability and those who don't actually want the job). They are very rare.

Sorry that was a bit epic

it isn't just the unemployed who job search.

Considering I have never been unemployed but have spent a great deal of time job hunting in the past, I am well aware of this .

Most people want to be told.

Some people don't.

Some employers inform people when they have been unsuccessful. Some of them don't. You just have to deal with it.

IrianofWay Wed 14-Oct-15 10:15:54
shakey - the jobcentre is a whole other heap of misery! He applied for jobseekers allowance about 3 months ago. Was told he'd get Universal credit. Went for various interviews with a 'work coach' and eventually told to sign a contract agreeing to do some work experience at a factory. If he didn't sign he wouldn't get any money - later found out that the factory was 10 miles away, too far to walk or cycle and as his 12 hour shifts started at 6am there was no public transport. When he told his 'work coach' this they told him that he just had to get there or he'd lose his money - they suggested a car share. Who with? So H and I took turns last week to get up at 5am and take him. He spent his day waiting around while they tried to find him something to do and then throwing waste food in a big skip. God knows he better get this apprenticeship ! I can't face another week of 5 am starts!!

Jesus wept. 12 hour shifts for no wage and parents have to stump up the cost.

Fucking ridiculous. And suggesting car sharing with strangers. Wonder what the Crime Prevention Officer would make of this "advice"

My DH is 65 and did an apprenticeship in 1966. It was a technicians /craft course lasting for 4 years with an option to do a fifth . This was at Marconis in the days when apprenticeships were actually proper apprenticeships with a proper qual at the end.

Now the narrative seems to have changed completely.

Apprenticeships still do give a proper qualification at the end. Some of them are very desirable and hard to get into. Jaguar Land-rover for example has a fabulous Apprenticeship scheme.

The shift work Irian describes sounds like mandated work activity to get JSA. So about as far from an Apprenticeship as it's possible to get; learn nothing, get paid nothing for your slave labour.

You can get Apprenticeships now that produce qualified lawyers, accountants, engineers and other professions. These tend to pay very well (not the minimum wage for apprentices) in the region of £16k to start and up to £28-35k at the end and a permanent job to boot. Unsurprising competition for these sorts of roles is huge because they are very desirable.

KPMG (for example) will not only pay you to train for chartered accountant status but during the course of the apprenticeship you get a degree too and avoid the exorbitant tuition fees.

More work needs to be done with apprenticeships generally and some are very poor but those done well are excellent.

Agree ....learn nothing get paid nothing Its disgusting. Parents are having their tax credits cut so they are going to be even less likely to afford the petrol or even a car to run their teens/young adults to a workplace for no wage.

I hate this.

I used to work in a university and part of the job was recruiting a team of students to work part-time during term-time. I'd interview 100-120 people over the course of a week. Always used to send out an email saying "sorry you didn't make it, please don't be dissuaded from trying again next term".

They had to email in their application, so it was easy to create a group and bcc them into a standard response. If anyone asked for more detailed feedback (maybe half a dozen would), it just took a few minutes to look up my interview notes and say what it was (i got into the habit of writing a sentence or two at the end of the interview score sheet that could be used later if they asked). With most of them, it was genuinely because there were better qualified candidates.

We did get a lot of people reapplying, and they had a better idea of what was expected of them next time, so it did work out to worth the half hour it took in the long run.

Sorry - I wasn't clear. The 'work experience' is just required by the Job Centre to get UC. The apprenticeships are a whole different thing. He looks to have got one with a decent company in something that interests him. He will get some sort of IT qualification out of it. If he had to work in this place for ever I think he's throw himself off a cliff! Pity the poor sods who have to do it day in day out.

DH and I had an argument about this tonight. DS is about to start another set of 12 hr shirts. I said he shouldn't do it as it's pointless and exploitative. DH said it doesn't matter - he has agreed to do it and he should suck it up - after all it's just three more days (apprenticeship taster day on the 4th day). I am torn - yes. it's shit but after all this is what some people have to do and he shouldn't be so precious - or I shouldn't be.

To me it just all smacks of the 'undeserving poor' - perhaps they should just get him breaking rocks or picking oakum.

Well then your DH should be the one to run him in every day of those 4 days then.

Im sure your DH will agree to suck it up a few decades from now when your DS helps to choose his nursing home

Not just a joke. This is the kind of thing that can cause resentment to fester for years.

Irian i totally agree with you. He is having to do longer and more hours than someone on community service who has broken the law. You could point this out to your DH.

I agree...it's really rude, and as someone mentioned, it seems to be the bigger companies who don't reply

Thanks for the further replies.

Re DS1's 'work experience', he didn't go yesterday and won't be going today. If they take it out of his benefits so be it. With luck he'll have an apprenticeship in place by the end of this week.

The factory is CLEARLY not a popular employers. They have tens of vacancies and only fill them with agency staff or by strong-arming UC claimants in to accepting them. I think failing to turn up for two days will successfully prevent them from offering DS a job ....

Regarding failure to respond after an interview, DS got a call from the college who ran the first interview 3 weeks days ago - apparently they forgot to forward the candidates details to the employer - didn't realise until I rang them to ask what was happening. Makes you despair.....