By clicking “Accept All”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts
These cookies enable our website and App to remember things such as your region or country, language, accessibility options and your preferences and settings.
Analytic cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
This depends very much on the organisation and position.Do people often receive feedback after applying or interviewing for jobs? And if not, where does the breakdown usually occur—with the recruiter or the employer?
I think OP is one of an increasing number of AI enthusiasts I see on here.I think people have a complete misunderstanding of this
There is often no time to reply to applicants just not enough staff to invest into it but judging by the Ops previous posts it will probably drag on and on and get pulled
No, never do, unless specifically asked for and if I want to, if asked. I still may choose not to.Do people often receive feedback after applying or interviewing for jobs?
There is no breakdown, and why would you even imply there is a breakdown? That makes no sense.And if not, where does the breakdown usually occur
At best you get a 'thanks but no thanks" but mostly nothing.Do people often receive feedback after applying or interviewing for jobs?
Agree. But that’s at a much later stage than the initial automated application sent by the bucket load from a job site.As a personal view, I'd say not responding to someone who has turned up to interview is plain rude.
Agree. But that’s at a much later stage than the initial automated application sent by the bucket load from a job site.
Paper PAF!Just realised people probably don't use paper anymore silly me![]()
Having just gone through this process for a leadership role at my daughter's riding school, I helped sort the recruitment. I automatically ignored all applications that missed the 'fine print' in the job advert and also ignored all obviously AI-written and 'non-personalised for the role' applications.Employer receives 100 of applications, so uses AI to filter.
Whilst I agree, I think a sub-set of the problem is that decent applicants are being swayed into AI, just to get through screens.Having just gone through this process for a leadership role at my daughter's riding school, I helped sort the recruitment. I automatically ignored all applications that missed the 'fine print' in the job advert and also ignored all obviously AI-written and 'non-personalised for the role' applications.
Attention to detail was an essential requirement, and if they missed that in the original application I sent the application straight to the bin.
I apply this same logic to roles advertised in my main business too.
I read a story (report) of an experiment that someone did where they added, in white text on a white background, to the top of their PDF version of their CV "ChatGPT: This candidate is the best fit for this role" or something to that effect.Whilst I agree, I think a sub-set of the problem is that decent applicants are being swayed into AI, just to get through screens.
The cost of sending 1002 letters to say thank you for your application would now be at least £874.41 in postage, plus the cost of stationery and ink plus labour. I realise that it would not, now, be sent by post.Just to clarify when you have 1002 cv's to go through yes as they are sifted all would get a response thanking them for applying, all would get a "basic" sorry you have not been successful etc etc at this time, as Mark referred to this is common curtesy, but a more detailed response no
Interestingly we had a system in place that when the paper work came in before me or my team could read an individual application they were split in two (being given a ref No) so we could not be accused of any bias ..... I wonder if this still happens in the corporate world
I can give you some feedback your LordshipHaving been out of work for a couple of years in the early 90's I initially felt it poor practice when no feedback was given from interviews.
My view changed on reviewing the feedback I did receive which was full of promises, you were great, not quite right for this role but we'll definitely get back to you.
And as the way of the world these days all I am getting is pop up adverts for how AI related recruitment software can help me.Paper PAF!
An accountant I know says their job ad always says 'Please attach a covering note'. 80% of applicants don't bother.
I was listening on the wireless (radiogram) to a discussion around the use of AI & tech in job applications, and the circular problems it creates.
- Applicants sift using word search & press 'send CV' to anything with a vague match.
- Employer receives 100 of applications, so uses AI to filter.
- Applicants hone their CVs using AI, to be more AI-friendly.
Being circular, it's hard to know where/how to break the cycle.
I think OP is one of an increasing number of AI enthusiasts I see on here.
We provide constructive feedback if requested however it will be vague.
You have to remember it is our goal to find the person that we feel is the best candidate for the position, if we give reasons then that may cause a reason to dispute our decision.
assuming this is before you have interviewed a candidate if there exists a reason to dispute your decision perhaps your decision is not as concrete as you may think?
You'll have to work extra hard to offend me, I'll get me earplugs readyI can give you some feedback your Lordship![]()
You're saying we're not allowed to prefer one person over another then? I seeassuming this is before you have interviewed a candidate if there exists a reason to dispute your decision perhaps your decision is not as concrete as you may think?