Lori Freeman, President of Inside Talent, a national corporate recruiting and consulting firm, says candidates don’t often hear back from hiring managers because of a lack of organization and communication within companies. There is often not a clear internal understanding or agreement on ownership for each step of the recruiting process.
“If there is an HR or recruiting department involved, or any team for that matter, there should be agreement on responsibilities for each step in the process prior to even embarking on a search to fill an open role,” says Freeman.
For example, if an HR or recruiting professional is involved, it would make sense that that individual be responsible for following up with the candidate after each interview or when final decisions have been mad. If that simple step is taken it can alleviate future issues such as candidates feeling like they are left hanging after interviews. This gives the candidate a poor impression of the company, even if they had a good experience throughout the interview process.
“It leaves one wondering if the company is either very disorganized or worse, lacks a sense of respect for people, both of which are not impressions any company or professional would want to leave with anyone or have spread through the marketplace,” says Freeman.
Freeman always encourages job seekers to check in with their point of contact – the person they have worked the closest to during the interview process. Recruiters and hiring managers like this “It shows interest and initiative which are traits all of my clients value in a potential hire,” says Freeman. But it doesn’t always mean the hiring manager will reach out to the job seeker if not chosen for the job.
“If a candidate does their part and still does not hear back in a reasonable period of time I would advise them to move on. This is a candidate-driven market and one should go where they’re treated in a way that they’d expect if they were employees.”
Christy Nichols, a Senior Talent Acquisition Consultant, may be considered old fashioned – she truly believes it should be common courtesy to communicate to candidates the status of their application. But, she also knows the sheer volume of applicants can make the task nearly impossible – and overwhelming – especially with a small HR organization.
“If a candidate has taken the time to do an interview, they should expect an update,” says Nichols. “If a candidate never receives a response after an interview, even after attempting to get it, perhaps they’ve dodged a bullet in not joining that particular company.”
Often, candidates receive the update that they didn’t get the job and in turn understandably ask for feedback for their personal development. Unfortunately, this often leaves an employer at risk legally and opens the door for debate, Nichols points out. Many employers or recruiters won’t respond or opt out of providing feedback for this reason. Not only that, workload is typically an issue in providing feedback to turned down candidates – sometimes there just isn’t time for this, Nichols adds. In addition, the risks of providing feedback for an employer are that many candidates will begin to debate or even argue the points in the feedback, and sometimes an employer may respond emotionally or provide detail that could put them at legal risk.
“There are times when I will provide feedback if there was truly something that occurred that I believe will help an otherwise talented candidate succeed in the future,” says Nichols. “This may be related to how that the candidate struggled with behavioral-based interview questions or wasn’t concise. I will coach them on ways to overcome those things in future interviews.”
Tim Mayer, Director of Talent Acquisition at Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, says the sheer volume of applications makes it difficult to notify all candidates that they are no longer being considered for a role. This can be a time consuming process for a recruiter or hiring manager who views their time better spent focusing on other open roles, candidates in process, and the other duties of their position (especially true for hiring managers).
“I think there is also some fear that a poorly worded rejection notification, letter or call could spark legal action,” says Mayer.
To fix that potential issue, discussing options with legal counsel could provide a basic framework to notify candidates in each of the above mediums, says Mayer.
For some companies the opportunity to keep their options open is another reason. If a top candidate falls through – turns down the offer, doesn’t pass the background check or references reveal information that changes the opinion of the candidate, they want to be able to go back to the next candidate in line and make them feel like they were top candidate all along. Despite these issues, a timely and appropriate notification can be a differentiator for a company’s employment brand by providing closure and a great candidate experience, says Mayer.
“I would define a great candidate experience as one where a rejected candidate will reapply and refer others to apply to your organization,” says Mayer. “Candidates talk and their view of this experience may lead to negative impressions of your company in their network and beyond.”
In many cases these people are (or could be) customers. As a candidate gets further into the process (phone screen, first interview, final interview) a system generated message, email, or letter may no longer be the most appropriate way to notify them of a decision.
“I have found that a personal touch (email or call) can make all of the difference in the eyes of a candidate,” says Mayer.
Some companies brands are strong enough to overcome the “black hole” that is their application process, but many are not.
“Not all companies have the resources to quickly and simply notify candidates of their employment decisions, but as the market continues to tighten, leaving applicants and candidates with a strong impression of your company could be the difference in landing the right candidate – or a new customer,” says Mayer.
