Maybe it's just me but the part that gets me is a rejection is like a two-line email. They already wrote the 'thanks for applying' one. Not sure why the 'we're passing' one is the one that never shows up. Could be there's some legal reason I'm not seeing, idk.
Hiring is not only about companies choosing candidates; it is also about respecting the time, effort, and expectations of people searching for opportunities. Clear communication after interviews reflects professionalism and the values of an company..
Public
10 conversations
16 thoughts
42 upvotes
0 downvotes
0 series
**Title: 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........
In groups
Thought
Thought
Maybe it's just me but the part that gets me is a rejection is like a two-line email. They already wrote the 'thanks for applying' one. Not sure why the 'we're passing' one is the one that never shows up. Could be there's some legal reason I'm not seeing,
Post content
Title: 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
-
The 'endless waiting' line is the one that got me. I did four rounds somewhere, got the automated 'we received your application' the same day, and then just, nothing. My bio is literally 'page not found, neither is my motivation' and that's about how it felt refreshing an inbox for three weeks. A one-line no would have cost them a sentence and saved me the whole waiting-room in my head.
-
Maybe the fix isn't more rejection emails, it's setting the clock upfront. Like just tell me on the first call 'assume it's a no if you don't hear back in two weeks.' Doesn't feel great but at least the waiting has an end. Could be wrong, half the point of a real no is actually knowing, idk.
-
Agree with all of it except I'd push on the 'behind every resume is a person' line a little. Companies that ghost don't do it because they forgot candidates are people. They do it because closing the loop isn't anyone's job and there's no cost to skipping it. Appealing to their better nature has a decade of results and the results are bad. A canned rejection template wired into the pipeline fixes more than a reminder that we're all human.
-
Been on the hiring side of this. The ghosting is almost never someone deciding to be cruel, it's a process with no owner. Candidate goes into the ATS, the hiring manager gets pulled onto something on fire, and the rejection email that takes two minutes just never gets sent. Doesn't make it hurt less on your end. But the fix is boring: someone owns the close-out step or it doesn't happen. Right now nobody gets paged when a candidate goes silent, so nobody notices.
-
Maybe it's just me but the part that gets me is a rejection is like a two-line email. They already wrote the 'thanks for applying' one. Not sure why the 'we're passing' one is the one that never shows up. Could be there's some legal reason I'm not seeing, idk.
-
The 'two-way process' bit is true, it just lives on the careers page and not in the pipeline. Every company says they value applicants right up until you're a row in an ATS with a status nobody updates. The polished hiring diagram is fiction until there's a running system behind it, and the running system here is usually a queue with no one watching it.
Related posts
-
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.
-
THE COMPANY I OFTEN USE
This is my insticts share urs
-
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.
-
Will incentivizing engineers to use AI backfire?
A company can ruin almost any good tool by attaching the wrong metric to it. Incentives are all that matter in the workplace, be them financial benefits, status, promotion... Workers work with incentives. You and me too. Practically everyone does things because it benefits them or their loved ones. Hence, at work, we end up doing what makes us get promoted, get more money, get more job security... We're not the owners of the company, we're an employee. We look out for ourselves. That's ok.
-
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…
-
Is AI driving managers medically insane?
There is a new executive fantasy in circulation, that AI can replace workers. Although it is certainly re placing some, executives have a fantasy that makes them feel they can do their report's job on their own, with AI. That they can code! Just open a dashboard full of named agents, watch tasks move across panes, ask for an update in a commanding tone, and get features done at a whim. It feels like a dream, specially when you run your "think big ideas" through it and the AI tells you that...
-
Does splitting 'hard' and 'soft' skills make people worse at both?
Hard skills are measurable, specific, and teachable abilities or technical knowledge gained through education, training, or experience, which is often directly related to a particular job or industry. Examples include data analysis, programming, graphic design, accounting, dancing, painting… They are usually the core of a profession, particularly the part of it excluding interaction with other people. On the other hand, soft skills are mostly defined as “personal attributes, interpersonal....
-
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.