• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

HR And other Interviewes

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 338
Scala Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Ranchers,

I want a help in understanding,

Why do HR's and other interviewers say
"We will get back to you.." or "Your profile is on hold"
When they already know that a candidate is already rejected.
Why do they give such false hopes?
Doesn't it it sound frustrating?
Why they don't politely reject by saying "Sorry, you are not selected for further rounds"?
Why don't they reveal the reason behind the rejection if the candidate is rejected?

Please help me understand this..!!!

Regards,
-Pankaj.
 
author
Posts: 23951
142
jQuery Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser VI Editor C++ Chrome Java Linux Windows
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Pankaj Shet wrote:
Why do HR's and other interviewers say
"We will get back to you.." or "Your profile is on hold"
When they already know that a candidate is already rejected.
Why do they give such false hopes?
Doesn't it it sound frustrating?



To start, I empathize with your frustration. We all went through job changes (or the initial job search) in our lifetime. I wish that I can say that it will get easier, but I don't think that any job change can ever be considered easy.

It may be better to put it in a little perspective. First, your view, and HR view is a bit different. In your view, this will be a major change, and hence, it is likely the largest thing on your radar. In HR's view, this is paperwork, you are just one of possibly dozens of candidates for the job search. Adding to that, there could be other job searches going on, totaling up to hundreds of candidates to process. And adding to that, HR has other stuff to do. Your candidacy paperwork, is unfortunately, likely, to be barely showing up on their radar.

Second, HR may not even know of your status. HR is not the hiring manager. They just process the paperwork. And sometimes the hiring manager is just busy doing their "real jobs", than on the hiring process. Job searches do get suspended, for various reason, and HR may not be even be privy to it.

Having said that though, I do notice a trend, and am wondering if others noticed it too...

Pankaj Shet wrote:
Why they don't politely reject by saying "Sorry, you are not selected for further rounds"?
Why don't they reveal the reason behind the rejection if the candidate is rejected?



I agree that rejections does seem less common these days, and being placed "on hold" seem more common. It is almost like HR doesn't want to deliver the bad news. Weird.

And yeah, unless you have a friend on the inside, it is unlikely you are ever going to get a reason (or at least, the real reason) for the rejection. There is a chance that HR doesn't know. And even if they did, why should they ever tell you? There is no benefit to the company to tell you, and it may even expose them to lawsuits.

Anyway, good luck on your job search.
Henry
 
Bartender
Posts: 2407
36
Scala Python Oracle Postgres Database Linux
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Henry Wong wrote:I agree that rejections does seem less common these days, and being placed "on hold" seem more common. It is almost like HR doesn't want to deliver the bad news. Weird.


In some cases it might be that the successful candidate(s) have been chosen, but they may not have accepted the job yet. In this case, recruiters may want to keep potential alternatives "on hold" in case the first choice candidate turns them down.

Anyway, I think "don't call us, we'll call you" is an old and all too familiar pattern!

 
Marshal
Posts: 79179
377
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Henry Wong wrote: . . . it is unlikely you are ever going to get a reason . . .

Unfortunate trend. In the days when I had the misfortune to interview candidates, it was customary to take them aside and tell them why, at lest if the reason wasn't too serious.

For serious reasons they would sometimes phone the referee and get them to tell the candidate.
 
Pankaj Shet
Ranch Hand
Posts: 338
Scala Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Thanks a lot Henry,Campbell and Chris for your inputs, but still I think There is no harm in disclosing the results upfront along with the reasons.
How would it sound if suppose, there are 10 candidates for interview, and my turn 5th, first 4 candidates take 4 rounds of Interview each, and if I take only one round of interview with the feedback "We will get back to you", when he already knows he result?
Does'nt it sound frustrating?
For whatever reasons, I am sorry for being adamant here, but still I have a strong opinion about this..


 
Pankaj Shet
Ranch Hand
Posts: 338
Scala Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Most of the Interviewers find me weak in communication skills which is not actually a problem. I have a problem in Speech and not communication.
Am I not eligible to work in IT industry if I have speech problems?
Please let me know about this. Because till now I have reached the final round in atleast 6 companies and have got the same feedback.

 
Campbell Ritchie
Marshal
Posts: 79179
377
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
In this country (UK) that might be unlawful discrimination on the grounds of disability, but the law will differ from place to place, and it is always difficult to prove such discrimination.

There are all sorts of things to consider about speech difficulties. Just a few:
  • 1: How much are you required to talk about work things? If you need to spend a long time on the phone to customers, that may make it impossible for you to work.
  • 2: Did you mention it on your CV? Did you say you believe it will not prevent you working as a programmer? If you turn up at interview and surprise them with speech difficulties, that will count against you.
  •  
    Campbell Ritchie
    Marshal
    Posts: 79179
    377
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Pankaj Shet wrote: . . . suppose, there are 10 candidates for interview . . .

    Unless there are four or more jobs available, 10 candidates is far too many and it suggests the CVs/resumés have not been analysed properly before shortlisting.
     
    Rancher
    Posts: 2759
    32
    Eclipse IDE Spring Tomcat Server
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Pankaj Shet wrote:Most of the Interviewers find me weak in communication skills which is not actually a problem. I have a problem in Speech and not communication.
    Am I not eligible to work in IT industry if I have speech problems?
    Please let me know about this. Because till now I have reached the final round in atleast 6 companies and have got the same feedback.




    Yes, it definetly helps to hear from the hiring manager why they rejected you. However, most people don't like being told about their faults. By listing all your faults, they might insult you.

    By being honest and potentially insulting you, the company risks 2 things
    a) You will go around talking bad about the company to other people. This might mean that someone who might be perfect for the job may never apply to the job
    b) You will never apply to the company again. You might be a better fit for another position that might open up. You are not going to apply for the job if they insult you

    So, yes, they won't tell you to your face. However, it doesn't hurt to ask. Some companies might do the courtesy of telling you what you need to do to get hired there, if you ask them nicely. If they are really nice, they might also recommend what kind of jobs you should be applying for. Make sure you don't ask them belligerently. If they sense that you are argue with them, they might back off and give you a BS answer. If you ask them as a favor, they might do it.
     
    Henry Wong
    author
    Posts: 23951
    142
    jQuery Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser VI Editor C++ Chrome Java Linux Windows
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Campbell Ritchie wrote:In this country (UK) that might be unlawful discrimination on the grounds of disability, but the law will differ from place to place, and it is always difficult to prove such discrimination.



    In the US, I believe that discrimination laws are more for employees (than job candidates). And even if you are a newly hired employee, you will likely be in a probation period, which puts the microscope on you -- meaning they will have their "ducks in a row" upon your termination. It will be very difficult to prove discrimination.

    Regardless, technically, you can file a lawsuit for anything, so you can do it for a "bad interview", but we are stretching it here.*

    Henry


    * BTW, I am not a lawyer, and recommend that you consult a lawyer if you want to pursue the legal route.
     
    author & internet detective
    Posts: 41860
    908
    Eclipse IDE VI Editor Java
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Pankaj Shet wrote:For whatever reasons, I am sorry for being adamant here, but still I have a strong opinion about this..


    It's ok to have a strong opinion. That's still the way it works.

    Campbell Ritchie wrote:

    Pankaj Shet wrote: . . . suppose, there are 10 candidates for interview . . .

    Unless there are four or more jobs available, 10 candidates is far too many and it suggests the CVs/resumés have not been analysed properly before shortlisting.


    Are you saying you typically hire one out of every 2-3 people you interview? I consider myself very lucky when that ratio happens. And even then, it would only be on onsite interviews. On phone screens, the ratio is worse. Too many people lie on their resume so it isn't just how well you analyze resumes.
     
    Campbell Ritchie
    Marshal
    Posts: 79179
    377
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    In the NHS (not for computing) we used to hire 1 in 3 or 1 in 4, yes. If we were lucky we rejected lots of applicants long before the interview. We didn't come across lots of lying on CVs or anything like that. At least we used not to. Since I have been out of it for over ten years, things may have changed and I wouldn't know.

    Laws vary from country to country but here it is unlawful to discriminate on appointment because of sex, race, religion or disability. They would all be virtually impossible to prove at law, as Henry and I said earlier. Disability is a particularly grey area; if the job involves carrying you can argue that being in a wheelchair makes it impossible to do the job. If the job involves use of screen keyboard pencil and paper then somebody in a wheelchair can do the job just as well as anybody else.
    And we have (I think) a 12 month period in this country during which the employee protection is much weaker. Similar to what Henry described.
     
    Henry Wong
    author
    Posts: 23951
    142
    jQuery Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser VI Editor C++ Chrome Java Linux Windows
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:
    Are you saying you typically hire one out of every 2-3 people you interview? I consider myself very lucky when that ratio happens. And even then, it would only be on onsite interviews. On phone screens, the ratio is worse. Too many people lie on their resume so it isn't just how well you analyze resumes.



    It could simply be related to the point in the process for your involvement.

    My experience is similar to Campbell; by the time that I am involved, it has been mostly vetted -- and I am basically doing the final technical confirmations / discussions.

    Henry
     
    Jayesh A Lalwani
    Rancher
    Posts: 2759
    32
    Eclipse IDE Spring Tomcat Server
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Henry Wong wrote:

    Campbell Ritchie wrote:In this country (UK) that might be unlawful discrimination on the grounds of disability, but the law will differ from place to place, and it is always difficult to prove such discrimination.



    In the US, I believe that discrimination laws are more for employees (than job candidates). And even if you are a newly hired employee, you will likely be in a probation period, which puts the microscope on you -- meaning they will have their "ducks in a row" upon your termination. It will be very difficult to prove discrimination.

    Regardless, technically, you can file a lawsuit for anything, so you can do it for a "bad interview", but we are stretching it here.*

    Henry


    * BTW, I am not a lawyer, and recommend that you consult a lawyer if you want to pursue the legal route.



    It's unlawful to discriminate based on gender, ethnicity and disability. Many states have additional laws that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is legal to discriminate based on job requirements. So, for example, you can say that for a particular job, the employee needs to be standing on his/her feet for 4 hours straight. If you have a disability that prevents you from doing your job, then it's perfectly legal to not hire them. You just can't discriminate someone who, let's say, stutters if it doesn't impede his ability to do the job.
     
    Jeanne Boyarsky
    author & internet detective
    Posts: 41860
    908
    Eclipse IDE VI Editor Java
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Henry Wong wrote:It could simply be related to the point in the process for your involvement.


    Could be. I'm involved end to end.
     
    Campbell Ritchie
    Marshal
    Posts: 79179
    377
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    I used to be end to end; we might get twenty CVs and reject sixteen of them before we got to interview. Unfortunately I don't remember there being a policy of informing unsuccessful applicants, though there were some jobs which were readvertised with

    Previous applicants need not apply again.

    … in the adverts.
     
    Campbell Ritchie
    Marshal
    Posts: 79179
    377
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Jayesh A Lalwani wrote: . . . for a particular job, the employee needs to be standing on his/her feet for 4 hours straight. . . . You just can't discriminate someone who, let's say, stutters if it doesn't impede his ability to do the job.

    Sounds exactly like what I said about having to carry things in one's job.

    I still think OP might do well to mention stammering or whatever the speech problem is so it doesn't come as a shock to the interviewer. I might be mistaken however. Whenever things went badly in my interviews (i.e. I didn't get the job) I would have different people giving exactly contradictory advice.
     
    Henry Wong
    author
    Posts: 23951
    142
    jQuery Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser VI Editor C++ Chrome Java Linux Windows
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    I think it is a tough call, particularly for a junior position. Yes, it is possible for a developer to have minimal communications with others, but what about unusual cases? Fires happen, and developers do have to sometimes do fire fighting, which means communications with customers (mainly irate customers). And what about growth? Isn't a developer expected to become senior? to lead? to mentor?

    Henry
     
    chris webster
    Bartender
    Posts: 2407
    36
    Scala Python Oracle Postgres Database Linux
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    Henry Wong wrote:
    I think it is a tough call, particularly for a junior position. Yes, it is possible for a developer to have minimal communications with others, but what about unusual cases? Fires happen, and developers do have to sometimes do fire fighting, which means communications with customers (mainly irate customers). And what about growth? Isn't a developer expected to become senior? to lead? to mentor?

    Henry


    I think this approach risks creating an implicit ban on employing people who might possibly have a problem in future. If they've got the ability to do the job you're recruiting for, why not give them a chance now and worry about the future when it happens?

    FWIW, in my first IT job (in the late 1980s) we had an analyst/programmer who was blind, but he seemed to get on fine, thanks to a sympathetic employer and the limited technical aids that were available back then. Plus his guide dog was good fun to have around in the office ...
     
    Jeanne Boyarsky
    author & internet detective
    Posts: 41860
    908
    Eclipse IDE VI Editor Java
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    I work with a very senior person who stutters. It's fine. She communicates with plenty of people. She has worked on it over time to stutter less. Most of which was after she had the job and was progressing in her career.
     
    Henry Wong
    author
    Posts: 23951
    142
    jQuery Eclipse IDE Firefox Browser VI Editor C++ Chrome Java Linux Windows
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator

    chris webster wrote:
    I think this approach risks creating an implicit ban on employing people who might possibly have a problem in future. If they've got the ability to do the job you're recruiting for, why not give them a chance now and worry about the future when it happens?



    Don't get me wrong here. I am definitely *not* advocating discrimination. In fact, I am always thinking about it during an interview -- and have in a few cases, actually told a candidate to not answer my previous question (which sometimes happens during "small talk" when I ask a question that HR regards as a no-no).

    I am just saying that people naturally discriminate, whether they realize it or not; or whether due to hate or just envisioning difficulty in working with the person. It will happen. I would like to believe that I won't do it -- but I am just one person in the hiring process.

    Henry
     
    Campbell Ritchie
    Marshal
    Posts: 79179
    377
    • Mark post as helpful
    • send pies
      Number of slices to send:
      Optional 'thank-you' note:
    • Quote
    • Report post to moderator
    You are actually supposed to discriminate in interviews, but you discriminate on bona fide grounds, e.g. will they be able to do the job better than anybody else?
     
    Consider Paul's rocket mass heater.
    reply
      Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
    • New Topic