Loading…

Hiring is a two way process.... Sensitive

Sawhneyroshni
Public 13 conversations 21 thoughts 42 upvotes 21 downvotes 0 series 159 views

Recruiters often forget that hiring is a two-way process. Yes, candidates may be actively searching for jobs, but that does not mean their time and efforts should be ignored. After preparing, attending multiple interview rounds, and waiting for feedback, candidates deserve clear communication. If a company is not moving forward, a simple update shows professionalism. Endless waiting and unanswered follow-ups make candidates feel undervalued.

In groups

Post content

Hiring Is a Two-Way Respect Process

Recruiters often forget that hiring is a two-way process. Yes, candidates may be actively searching for jobs, but that does not mean their time and efforts should be ignored. After preparing, attending multiple interview rounds, and waiting for feedback, candidates deserve clear communication. If a company is not moving forward, a simple update shows professionalism. Endless waiting and unanswered follow-ups make candidates feel undervalued. Behind every resume is a person, not just an applicant.

Thoughts

  • Arubanuus

    I adree with the idear

    Permalink
  • 404_brain

    Genuinely on your side here, but I'll be the annoying one. Two-way means both ways. I've had candidates no-show a final round with zero notice after I moved three people's calendars for it. Companies should go first because they hold the power, but the ghosting problem isn't only pointed in one direction.

    Permalink
  • half_a_thought

    maybe it's just me but the "behind every resume is a person" line is the whole thing. the fix is cheap, a two line email, and places still skip it. feels like it's just not anyone's actual job to care, so it doesn't happen. idk.

    Permalink
  • SeanArmitage

    Having sat on the hiring side for a while: most of the silence isn't malice, it's structural. The req gets frozen mid-loop, the recruiter who owned your file changes teams, and nobody reassigns the "send the no" task because it's on nobody's roadmap. None of that is the candidate's fault and none of it is an excuse. It just means the fix is a process one. Make "close the loop" a step in the pipeline, not a favor someone happens to remember.

    Permalink
  • readonly_friday

    This is just basic respect, right? I've been on both sides of the table. The awkward part isn't sending the rejection email. It's that most places treat it as optional. A quick "we're moving forward with someone else" takes minutes, and it's the difference between a candidate feeling heard and spending weeks wondering if you even read their application.

    Permalink
  • SeanArmitage

    Having sat on the hiring side for a while: most of the silence isn't malice, it's structural. The req gets frozen mid-loop, the recruiter who owned your file changes teams, and nobody reassigns the "send the no" task because it's on nobody's roadmap. None of that is the candidate's fault and none of it is an excuse. It just means the fix is a process one. Make "close the loop" a step in the pipeline, not a favor someone happens to remember.

    Permalink
  • readonly_friday

    This is just basic respect, right? I've been on both sides of the table. The awkward part isn't sending a rejection email—it's that most places treat it like optional. A quick "we're moving forward with someone else" takes minutes, and it's the difference between a candidate feeling heard and spending weeks wondering if you even read their application.

    Permalink
  • 404_brain

    Genuinely on your side here, but I'll be the annoying one. Two-way means both ways. I've had candidates no-show a final round with zero notice after I moved three people's calendars for it. Companies should go first because they hold the power, but the ghosting problem isn't only pointed in one direction.

    Permalink

Related discussions

  • Will a Meta engineer tell you the comp before the company he works for?

    Meta bought the best engineers in the industry with the fattest comp packages anyone has ever seen, and got exactly what it paid for: a workforce of well-paid mercenaries who feel nothing for the place and will not say its name out loud at parties.

  • Are the managers who bet AI would replace engineers being replaced the fastest?

    Last year my LinkedIn feed had a genre. A program manager or a "delivery lead" or someone with Agile in their headline would post a screenshot of an AI writing a function, add a line like "and they said this job was safe, just learn how to code" and collect four hundred likes from people who do the same job. The implication was always that the typing part of engineering was the engineering, and now that a model can type, the typing class was finished.

  • Is the Rolex Submariner really a dive watch, or an office master?

    The Rolex Submariner is the greatest fantasy object ever sold to men with Outlook calendars. This watch has spent seventy years convincing finance guys, dentists, and accountants that they’re rugged maritime adventurers instead of people who say things like “circle back after lunch.” The Submariner is technically a dive watch, but the average one sees less water than a cactus, because god forbid the seals don't actually work well and it gets wet on the insides. These things spend their lives…

  • Will AI replace you, or will a coworker using AI replace several of you?

    A lot of office workers are comforting themselves with the wrong question. They keep asking whether AI can do their whole job. That is not the threshold their employer will use. The real question is whether the output can be produced cheaply enough, and checked cheaply enough, that the role starts looking expensive. It's not if AI can fully do our job, is "can it accelerate it long enough so only half of my team is needed?". Because the answer to that, sadly, is yes.

  • Does stack ranking turn coworkers into enemies?

    Stack ranking always ends in politics because it changes what competence means inside an organization. Once employees are judged relative to each other instead of against a stable standard or objective, your smartest coworker stops being an asset that you can learn from and collaborate with, and starts becoming competition. Their success can lower your standing. Their visibility can cost you promotion space. Their expertise becomes a threat to your own security.

  • Do you stop getting frustrated at work once you understand corporate incentives?

    There is a status deck somewhere in your company that nobody reads. It gets updated every few weeks, shown in a meeting, and forgotten. Your manager knows this too. They built the same decks on the way up and understand exactly how little thought usually goes into them. The usual explanation for corporate busywork is that someone higher up is confused or disconnected from reality. That's comforting, but mostly wrong. These artifacts survive because they're doing a job, just not the one they…

  • Do most jobs converge into sales once you're senior enough?

    One of the most frustrating things about modern career advice is how often it tells competent people to be more strategic, influential, or senior without saying what those words are hiding. A lot of the time, what they are hiding is sales.

  • Do you have to miss your goals to get promoted?

    Three years ago I watched my manager hit every single quarterly target two years running. Clean dashboards. Green everywhere, all the time. She was the most reliable person in the building, and at the next planning cycle his team got carved down by four engineers out of 35 and folded under someone else. Nobody framed it as a punishment, but rather as "efficiency" and "we want to invest elsewhere". The lesson landed anyway, and not just on me. Sadly, never on my manager.