Hacker News Reader

> If you/your company doesn't have a policy of sending personal feedback please consider doing this at least for junior people.

If you want to keep your job, don't follow this advice. Honestly, I would love nothing more than giving junior people (all people in fact) feedback on why they didn't get the job, but people will sue at even the slightest hint of any type of potentially litigious situation. It's even worse when the person is in a position of desperation ("I can't pay rent because I can't find a job...oh what this lawyer is going to take my case on a performance basis...heck ya, let's sue those assholes!"). Most of these cases get settled because no one wants to deal with them and it's easier to just pay the problem to go away, so they're easy wins.

Seriously, most good honest HR people WANT to give rejected candidates feedback, but asking them to benevolently provide feedback at the risk of their own job won't earn you many friends.

I didn't say to do that against the policy. What I meant was if your company simply doesn't have a habit of doing it just say: "Hey, can I write some feedback and provide some resources to that candidate in your rejection message?".

Edit: My intuition is most companies don't provide the feedback because simply they don't see a value in the time spent or simply never really considered that as there are always other things to do than think about people you'll probably never meet again.

> I didn't say to do that against the policy.

And I didn't say anything about this having to do with policies of companies. Regardless of whether you have policies in place or not, doing what you suggested without any counsel is a very dangerous way of losing your job. Companies will make it very easy to fire a person who costs them a lawsuit (and the subsequent negative PR).

> My intuition is most companies don't provide the feedback

Your intuition is probably right, but it doesn't mean that people who DO want to give feedback should all of the sudden ignore sound advice. Bad HR teams who don't want to give feedback will always use legality as a shield for an excuse, but that doesn't mean that good HR teams who are also taking legal advice are not interested in doing so. As many people have cited in this thread - the long term effects of giving feedback to rejected candidates (they tell their friends, they come back later, etc) are numerous, but the downside risk makes it very difficult for any HR team to make this investment.

We do agree 100%. :)

Why not make candidates sign a non-liability agreement to receive feedback? Of course, choosing to ask for such feedback would be optional - but if you want it, sign the form so you agree you won't sue. Most people would find this information quite valuable to correct their mistakes for next time. It makes the whole process much more efficient for all parties if there's quick, specific feedback.

You can't absolve a company from liability for US labor laws. So even after you sign the non-liability agreement, you can still sue. It's not a real shield for the company.

Our HR asked me to personally call people and thank them for their declined application.

But at the same time requested to not give any feedback because of fear from litigation. Sad world.

If someone told me that in my country (or maybe just outside US) I would simply not believe them at first. It might just be the choice of companies I've worked with though.

It is sad indeed.

I would have simply ignored that HR person and given honest but polite feedback.

You're willing to bet your own employment on that? We'd all love to live in a world of butterflies and sugar plums, but risking your own for that is silly don't you think?

Absolutely I would. Employees create the culture too. If you cant push back against stupid policies then it is probably good to be pushed out and move on. Plus any environment that has a policy like that is probably a very sterile workplace.

Off topic, but I find it amusing that we all do in fact live in a world with both butterflies and sugar plums. They are both very cheap and plentiful as well.

Managerial CYA, and fear of the potential for litigation are crippling corporations more that I think we'd like to admit. Financial risk is something people seem comfortable accepting, but the specter of unknowable legal risk cause so many management anti patterns and so much passive aggressive behavior is it incredible.

As a relatively junior person in management, it is amazing the kind of phantom fears I've been cautioned against. Some of which don't even have any legal precedent at all!

I think a lot of it is trotted out as managerial "emergency hypothesis" for why someone doesn't want to do something, and so invents some plausible legal risk to justify their decision. But, honestly, it can't be only that.

For a swath of business responsibilities, this "phantom legal risk" is the Most Available Excuse (TM).

We see Most Available Excuses in product feedback ("it's too hard to use" is easier to say than "I didn't see how this would help me accomplish anything I actually care about"), in social engagements ("sorry, too busy this week"), and many other areas.

I'm a natural skeptic so I maintain a mental set of Most Available Excuses, and when I hear one I treat it as a dodge, not an answer. Why don't they want to do it? How might I make them more comfortable with me so they can explain how they really feel?

Why don't they want to do it? How might I make them more comfortable with me so they can explain how they really feel?

I'd be very cautious with this approach. Politeness is an extremely important social defense mechanism for most people. By ignoring the standard polite response and trying to get at the truth you're undermining a person's attempt to save face. By doing so, you're attacking their autonomy and agency as a human being.

I'm not suggesting directly asking these questions of the other person. I'm suggesting these as topics for you to think about if you're getting the polite excuse and want the actual reason. To get that you have to actually make them more comfortable; calling them out on a polite lie obviously isn't going to do that.

> fear of the potential for litigation are crippling corporations more that I think we'd like to admit.

Sure, I sometimes see it that way until I'm in the seat of a employer. This isn't a one-sided "corporations suck" because guess who's doing the suing in these cases? That's right, the potential employee. So where is the onus in this negative externality? I'd argue both sides.

Agree. I remember having applied to McKinsey many years ago as a graduate. I got rejected after the first round of interview, but one of the interviewers would call me to explain their rationale. I was very grateful but I can imagine that it must be painful when the candidate doesn't react well or sees that as an opportunity to put the foot back in the door.

I've rejected dozens of people right after face to face coding session of a simple task (third meeting, first technical) explaining the reasons, providing them some guidance on what to tackle next, if I saw hope invite them to try again once they feel they filled the gaps or at least describe the progress and ask if we think it's enough to try and/or what could be next.

I've most likely never had a person who left without a handshake with a sincere smile on his/her face and most of them expressed their gratitude.

Sometimes you have to reject a person on what you feel is a gut feeling. It's because over time you developed an intuition which is picking small details in a less conscious manner. In the end there are some reasons your intuition is shaped that way not the other and you can find something that presented within the context of your company and expectations will resonate with the candidate and he won't feel like he's been scammed.

Having to give that kind of feedback just sounds horribly draining to me. I know there are people who would accept it. There are people it would really help.

Some would already know it and just say ‘thanks’.

But the people who argue with you that you’re wrong, or they need another try, or ‘I forgot to mention X’, or ‘you just hate me because Y’... the people who feel hopeless and you’re just ‘confirming’ their fears (even if they applied for something way outside their qualifications) or falling apart over it.

I would never want having to deal with that be a big part of my job.