- Original Poster
- #1
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?
Feedback or ghosted?
- Thread starter memphisshades
- Start date
This depends very much on the organisation and position.
In my days as a Subway franchisee, I never gave feedback. Mainly this was because I'm just one guy and I'm pretty busy, but also I don't think there was much to be gained from ringing up teenagers to tell them to sort out their demeanour.
If I were applying for a management or skilled position with a medium to large organisation (ie one with an HR department) or public sector, I'd expect feedback to be provided and I think that's a pretty reasonable expectation.
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
No, never do, unless specifically asked for and if I want to, if asked. I still may choose not to.
There is no breakdown, and why would you even imply there is a breakdown? That makes no sense.
I don't want to give feedback because it's not important to me, there is no requirement for me to do so, and I don't have time or the inclination to potentially get into a toss-and-fro over my decision. It's made, and I move on.
Upvote
0
At best you get a 'thanks but no thanks" but mostly nothing.
Of 200 people applying for a low level position 195 won't ever hear a thing.
Upvote
0
In our company, no. Unless they specifically ask for it, in which case they may get a very generalised short bit of feedback - but quite honestly we would generally explain why we felt the chosen candidate was a better fit (i.e. "they had more experience with x software" or similar). Rather than directly criticising the candidate who didn't get the job.
Wouldn't want to open myself up any can of worms regarding unfairly not employing someone, them challenging our decision, or even them asking an internet forum if we acted appropriately in our decision or broke any codes of conduct.
Wouldn't want to open myself up any can of worms regarding unfairly not employing someone, them challenging our decision, or even them asking an internet forum if we acted appropriately in our decision or broke any codes of conduct.
Upvote
0
When I had a proper job, applicants that didn't meet the cut, to get an interview, would be discarded with no feedback.
Interviewees who did not progress would be told sorry, you didn't make it through to the next round. We were required to give our reasons for rejecting an interviewee to HR, for the proper trail, but I'm sure it was never passed on.
Interviewees who did not progress would be told sorry, you didn't make it through to the next round. We were required to give our reasons for rejecting an interviewee to HR, for the proper trail, but I'm sure it was never passed on.
Upvote
0
No to feedback agree with above internal records on reason would be held on file by HR if required. As an aside two things I generally hated in the cooperate world HR Directors & Marketing Directors who seem to spend more time inventing new systems rather than progressing the company bottom line.
And when the latter of the two thought re-branding was a great idea and pays an agency £500k to come up with something one had to wonder where their loyalties lay. Anyway I digress
And when the latter of the two thought re-branding was a great idea and pays an agency £500k to come up with something one had to wonder where their loyalties lay. Anyway I digress
Upvote
0
Way back when I applied for jobs, yje norm was to always get a response to an application and fefinita response, often with feedback to an interview. The feedback was mostly vague and generic 'candidate with more relevant experience'
2 major changes have occurred
1. Applications mostly just involve pressing a button to send a CV, which really doesn't merit a response. In fairness, recruiters are equally lazy in their filtering process.
2. There's a reasonable chance that unsuccessful candidates will read too much into feedback and find ways to be offended or discriminated against - so it's far easier not to bother.
As a personal view, I'd say not responding to someone who has turned up to interview is plain rude.
2 major changes have occurred
1. Applications mostly just involve pressing a button to send a CV, which really doesn't merit a response. In fairness, recruiters are equally lazy in their filtering process.
2. There's a reasonable chance that unsuccessful candidates will read too much into feedback and find ways to be offended or discriminated against - so it's far easier not to bother.
As a personal view, I'd say not responding to someone who has turned up to interview is plain rude.
Upvote
0
Agree. But that’s at a much later stage than the initial automated application sent by the bucket load from a job site.
Upvote
0
Absolutely. It's a long time since I last recruited (2008), but even then access to the Internet had changed things beyond belief - hundreds of CVs from people who blatantly had just presses send without even a nod to what the actual job was
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
Paper PAF!Just realised people probably don't use paper anymore silly me
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
The result was that their invitation to interview for roles went up by some stupid hundreds of percentage number.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
I do recall, in the early 80's, advertising for a secretary (remember those) in Central London. We had over 500 letters of application with CVs. Every one was sent an acknowledgment letter, which had to be individually typed. The letter said that only those who were successful in obtaining an interview would hear further. We got about 50 letters stating that it seemed very inprofessional not to send an outcome letter with feedback. They did not get a reply, but it was a handy method of excluding 50 applications!
Upvote
0
Having 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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
What's also interesting when I was thinking about this topic yesterday the words of a recruitment agency came back to me (Sanders & Sydney) after I got hit with redundancy and thought my world had ended.
"the job market is like an iceberg you only see the tip of whats out there" As I have found out over the years networking and who you know is important and can be key. I was out of work three days and I have only ever had to submit a CV once in my lifetime.
And in answer to Newchodge yes we spent a lot on stamps
Upvote
0
A little while back there was the video CV. A bunch of young people in badly fitting clothes spouting unscripted waffle to a camera in the hope this would give them a better chance at obtaining a job.
I think the idea lasted almost a week before dying a well deserved death.
I think the idea lasted almost a week before dying a well deserved death.
Upvote
0
If someone's taken the time to have an interview, they should get some feedback, even if it's simply someone else was a better fit. I can't see a company interviewing more than 6 people, so there's ample time for a reply out of courtesy - the interviewee has taken an hour out of their day, prepped the night before, they deserve something back or friendly advice if possible.
Applications less so, we get hundreds and many are just templates or from a job site.
Applications less so, we get hundreds and many are just templates or from a job site.
Upvote
0
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?
Upvote
0
Nah, these days it leaves you open to endless correspondence and having to triple check anything you say in case you end up in court.
Upvote
0
You'll have to work extra hard to offend me, I'll get me earplugs readyI can give you some feedback your Lordship
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest Articles
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read
-
How to Price a New Product or Service: We Asked UKBFOn 5 August, @Data Swami posted in the General Business Forum with a question that ought to have...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
70 years of director bans in six months: Companies House has stopped asking nicelyCompanies House published a release on August 6th 2026 that every company director should read...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
MTD for Income Tax: your first quarterly update is due 7 August.If you are a sole trader or landlord and your gross income from self-employment and property was...- maka
- Updated:
- 4 min read
-
Andy Burnham's Manifesto for Small Business, and How It Stacks Up Against Count BinfaceIf all goes to plan (or rather, to Labour's timetable), Andy Burnham will be sworn in as Prime...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 5 min read