To think employers could at the least have the common courtesy to tell you you’ve not been successful?

[AlternativePerspective]

I’ve lost count of the number of jobs I’ve applied (and interviewed) for where I’ve just never heard from them again.

In fact on indeed there is often an update which states how long it will likely be before you hear back, and I’ve seen one or two which state “based on our experience, you’re unlikely to ever hear from this employer again.”

TBH, if we were in the days of paper applications I could see how writing a letter to each applicant could be problematic especially if you have several of them.

But given everything is now done electronically, and there are generallly systems in place to acknowledge your application/invite to interview/confirm the interview time etc, I fail to see why there can’t also be something in place which generates a rejection email when the applicant is rejected on the system.

It would save a lot more angst when people are applying for jobs and just hoping that they will hear back about one of them, only for it to appear that their application has disappeared somewhere.

i interviewed for a job recently and have assumed I wasn’t successful. But it would at least be nice to have been told so I could ask for feedback.

Serpenta

Better advising them to use a professional recruiter

Once you factor the cost of putting an ad and your time, it's still better value!

I think if you've interviewed they should let you know. It's one of the reasons I like the council. They rang me up and told me how I did.

@fashionablefennel

UrAWizHarry The idea that recruitment agencies do a better job than dedicated inhouse recruitment is hilarious.

You should actually read my post when you reply to me.
I literally wrote UNLESS SPECIFIC IN-HOUSE RECRUITMENT
but feel free to twist it to fit your angry narrative .

If recruitment agencies didn't have a place and a use, companies wouldn't spend any money employing them, would they... In-house or not, a recruiter is a recruiter, sorry to disappoint you!

A decent recruitment agency saves businesses an awful lot of money and time, and find candidates they wouldn't find otherwise. Otherwise it wouldn't be a very profitable business...

"Decent recruitment agency".

Yeah, like that's an actual thing. Here in the real world what they actually do is farm CVs off linkedin and them spam companies with them in the vague hope one might fit the bill.

It's like the difference between using a screwdriver or a rusty old knife to turn a screw. Sure, the knife will do but you'll probably end up stabing yourself in the process.

UrAWizHarry

Here in the real world
people earning a (very good) living in recruitment are in the real world, and professional people employing them because it's good business are in the real world too.

No one forces you to employ them though.

like that's an actual thing It is actually. Why would anyone bother otherwise? Blanket statements against an entire profession or group of people are never accurate, are they.

@fashionablefennel yes but assuming you've regularly had to deal with people applying for jobs in your company you must employ a fair amount of people

@Serpenta

Maybe I should become a consultant and charge a modest fee to smaller organisations showing people how easy it is to do a 5 min email merge which will send personalised emails to all applicants, whether it's 50 applicants or 500.

Seems there's no money in that - the decent ones already do it and the majority don't give a fuck about applicants.

the majority don't give a fuck about applicants

the majority of applicants don't need a handhold and their ego stroked.
Pretty much everyone has been applicant one day or another!

It's so annoying. It's really annoying if they say after the interview they'll get back to you on and then don't bother.
I have said to my husband loads of times that it would literally take seconds to send an email and tbh it's incredibly rude not to bother when someone has taken the time to apply.

On the job boards, you can set an auto reply that goes out to every applicant.

Mine is set to thank you for your application and tell that you that if you haven't worked in my sector, you haven't been successful but you're welcome to contact me for further guidance or advice. If you do have experience in my sector then I'll be in touch ASAP

It's no work at all to add it to an advert. Set your parameters & essentual experience or qualication clearly on the advert.

If you've been interviewed then you 100% deserve proper feedback. And you'll get it from me every time.

If you're a professional chef applying to a qualified accountancy role then you're less deserving of a response. You need to take some accountability for your own suitability.

If you are interviewed, a response should be mandatory. At the application stage, if you don't hear you've been unsuccessful.

I barely have time in my working day to pee and drink, I don't have time to copy out (accurately) hundreds of emails for a "simple bcc email".

I think it's rude and disrespectful of the potential employer to not at least send an email.
The candidate has taken the time to apply and turn up for the interview, which probably meant expense too.
As far as I'm concerned, it's just common courtesy to at least notify them that they've been unsuccessful.
It's a slack handful of emails they're typing, not war and peace!

We recruit a lot and
A) have in house recruitment people (I'm not one)
B) stopped using agencies because the quality of applicants we got this way were worse than those we got placing directed ads. Think this varies a bit from industry to industry, DH's industry always use recruitment agencies.
C) have ongoing battles with our recruitment people who want to use Indeed when we want to place ads for scientists in scientific journals
D) there's such a skills shortage in our field that we share likely looking applications across the department and invite applicants to interviews for (related) roles they didn't apply for. So not getting job you applied for doesn't mean you'll never hear from us.
E) Following on from that if we interview a few candidates for a role and two are good we'll offer a job to our preferred candidate immediately but if we know in another three months we're going to need to fill an identical role then the other candidate won't hear from us until we get the paperwork to offer them the other job. For internal candidates this is fine we can informally let them know there's another role coming up but HR won't let us do that with external candidates.

So for us much of the time we don't do more than say 'if you haven't heard you've not got the job' but what we don't say is 'if you've got skills we need you might well hear from us in a few months about another job'.

Oh, and we stopped doing feedback a while ago because some candidates would argue with us about whether they had the skills we said they didn't demonstrate in the interview so now all communication is minimal and formal via HR. We do the same with references.

Did you go through a recruitment agency? It may not be the company being rubbish.

I've sent feedback to candidates before via an agency, and a few weeks later the candidate has got in touch to ask if there was any news on the position because they hadn't heard anything...

@LannieDuck

Did you go through a recruitment agency? It may not be the company being rubbish.

I've sent feedback to candidates before via an agency, and a few weeks later the candidate has got in touch to ask if there was any news on the position because they hadn't heard anything...

That works both ways! Having to apologise to candidates because clients won't give feedback.

It's people, at the end of the day. Some are good at efficient decency. Some aren't!

Nohome Yes, I easily believe it happens both ways around.

Totally agree with your OP. I never heard back from somewhere I had an interview last year. Not only that they didn’t answer my email asking for confirmation that I had indeed not got the job / for feedback. Very rude and I guess a dodged bullet in some ways.

@fashionablefennel

the majority don't give a fuck about applicants

the majority of applicants don't need a handhold and their ego stroked.
Pretty much everyone has been applicant one day or another!

the majority of applicants don't need a handhold and their ego stroked. No, just the common decency of a "no" which you can't be bothered with.

DynamoKev

No one needs a personalised "no" for sending an application, as long as they are acknowledged in some way.

@fashionablefennel

DynamoKev

No one needs a personalised "no" for sending an application, as long as they are acknowledged in some way.

I disagree, as you well know - and "Personalised" is a ridiculous exaggeration - the only thing that needs to be personalised is that it's sent to the email of the unsuccessful applicant. You have made it clear that in your view that is too much work (although you also claim the amount of work cannot be quantified). Most posters on the thread and voting seem to feel it's reasonable to expect a short "no" if not successful and ideally some feedback if they interviewed. That seems fair an reasonable to me. Meanwhile you keep making it clear your view is that applicants are just "moaners" or "need ego stroking" for even wish to have the most cursory communication from an employer to whom they have applied. I disagree.

Hiring manager here. We don't inform unsuccessful candidates for a number of reasons including:

1. Candidates that have been invited for an interview may drop out, meaning that one of the initially unsuccessful candidates will be drafted in to replace them. It would look unprofessional to send out a rejection email only to reverse this with an interview invite a few weeks later.

2. We consider unsuccessful candidates for other positions that may suit them better.

3. The roles I interview for (financial services, mainly for new graduates) exceed 1000 applications per position. It is therefore impractical and a waste of HR's time to send out personal rejection emails to the unsuccessful candidates.

Hope that helps.

DynamoKev

Meanwhile you keep making it clear your view is that applicants are just "moaners" or "need ego stroking"

Applicants? absolutely not.

I was referring to you and your unreasonable expectations and your views about "applicants" vs "employers". In the real world, it doesn't work that way, thankfully.

although you also claim the amount of work cannot be quantified

Please tell us how you quantify something that vary completely from company to company, and from position to position...

In the real world, it doesn't work that way, thankfully.
And yet we've had posters on this very thread say that as decent recruiters they do keep every applicant informed.
It just doesn't work like that for you, and (I accept, the majority) of recruiters and employers who don't think it's important to let people know. It isn't impossible - it's your choice.

@fashionablefennel

although you also claim the amount of work cannot be quantified

Please tell us how you quantify something that vary completely from company to company, and from position to position...

Well according to you its impossible to know how much work it is - but you can still be certain that its too much - that doesn't make any sense. If its impossible to measure how can you be sure its too much?

[quote GraduallyWatermelon]@fashionablefennel

But many employers don't have an automated reply for rejected applications, so people are left in limbo after applying.[/quote]
An automated reply isn't always needed.

Create a list of rejected applicants then send one email, putting the list into the BCC field.