Just wondering if we have any HR folks or even folks who have gone to interviews lately

I am currently employed but have been referred by ex coworkers to two external positions over the past year. Both positions were in management with officer titles.

On both applications the HR departments jumped all over me to setup an interview. I met with Sr Management on both and I felt both went very well. Both companies said I would hear from them soon but getting responses after the interviews was like pulling teeth. The first company a year ago didn't bother to even notify me that they selected someone else.

As I said before I am employed so not devastated by either. I am just wondering why their HR departments don't bother keeping qualified applicants updated or sending out a standard rejection email or letter. Is this type of practice pretty common out there? If so that's pretty pathetic.

The HR department at my employer is a joke. Everything you described happens there, too. So many times in the past, I've interviewed great people, but we end up losing them because our own internal politics delay the process. By the time HR is ready to make an offer, the candidate has selected another job elsewhere.

My wife has been in HR most of her professional career. She says professionally trained staff will follow all the expected traditions you mentioned above (keeping in touch with prospective candidates, sending correspondence regarding the status of the position, recruit via LinkedIn etc.). Unfortunately, for some companies, HR is more of an after thought or a neglected legal necessity. I know plenty of decent size companies with no real HR department at all - while others are so regimented that really good candidates are filtered out too soon.

My previous employer sent letters to candidates that we passed on, but always with a line about re-applying another time. I don't think they have continued to do that though. Postage was starting to get pretty high on that and when you open up social media, it's a way to be flooded with junk or irrelevant stuff when you're a company spread out all over the country. Email has sort of the same problem, but being an IT guy, we just set them up with a no-reply mailbox for that type of stuff.

The "RIGHT" thing to do is to let the candidate know they have been passed on, but I don't think it's the common thing to do.

Before I comment I'll say that with a small company I'm rarely hiring management-level, and in fact hiring front-line service industry positions tends to be more of a cattle call. So my comments may or may not apply here.

Since I have a very small management team (myself and an office manager) and we wear many hats (including HR, but also including just about everything else under the sun), I also don't have time to send letters, or spend valuable time having uncomfortable (for both parties) conversations with folks who I won't be hiring (many of whom unprofessionally demand to know the reasons why, which as a matter of policy I will not provide, making the conversation even MORE uncomfortable). Recounting someone's inadequacies for a position only serves to make them more unhappy and is a complete time-waster for both of us.

I also think the rejection letter is a little cold hearted. If you're going to bother with that, you'd might as well call and take your lumps as the jerk who didn't hire somebody. At least you're not being coldly impersonal.

What I have found most effective is to give every interview - those that went well AND those that went poorly - a drop-dead date for a decision on whether I am moving forward with them. That is, "thank you so much for coming in for an interview, it was a pleasure to meet you...if I call you back for a second interview it will be no later than [date]." That way if that day passes and no phone call from me they can have some finality and we can both go on with our lives. I think what bothers people more than not getting a particular job is uncertainty while waiting.

I will say that sometimes when I really like a candidate but there is something holding me back from hiring that might change for them - such as schedule availability - I'll usually tell them as much. As in, "if something changes there give me a call, because otherwise I think you're an excellent fit. If I still have something available at that time we'll talk..."

I would much rather receive an email saying I have not been selected, even if it is generic. I have been given dates many times and those dates have passed and I have been contacted later to continue the process. Things change with timelines, so I don't really think you should just let a potential candidate assume they weren't selected.

It's different in other situations I'm sure, but if I don't call you back you are very safe in assuming that you're not going to be working for me.

And again, you are thinking in terms of a professional environment instead of my reality, which is service industry. I deal with many very professional applicants, but also some who end up being very unprofessional. An e-mail just opens the door for more discussion about why you're not a good fit. Pass.

It's different in other situations I'm sure, but if I don't call you back you are very safe in assuming that you're not going to be working for me.

And again, you are thinking in terms of a professional environment instead of my reality, which is service industry. I deal with many very professional applicants, but also some who end up being very unprofessional. An e-mail just opens the door for more discussion about why you're not a good fit. Pass.

True. I'm sure the standards are different based on industry.

From what I've seen lately, it very much seems most 'HR' departments out there are lacking. Like someone stated above I work at a small bank, so I do my own hiring all the way from the interview to the hiring. I always make sure to send out a letter or email stating the person as not selected, but for others in the company don't do that. So depending on what job you applied for at my company, you may or may not get a letter. I myself find that it's common courteous and really saves the person the struggle of 'do I call' and if so 'when.' I recently interviewed at a local large credit union and basically when I got done with the interview I got told I was overqualified and my asking salary was more than the top of their range. This is something they didn't advertise and something I could not get out of their HR department prior or else I wouldn't have wasted either one of our times. Again they too didn't send a letter, although I had a pretty good idea on this particular instance.

To me the companies that want to get good people and retain them usually have very good HR departments. Those that don't tend to have high turnover, and because of this they never usually fix the problem that starts with the HR department.

Some companies have outsourced most of their HR departments and it shows in how they treat applicants.

I work for a fortune 500 IT company, which shall remain nameless. They staff help desks for most of their clients. I've heard some of the people who work in the help desk say that they were hired based completely on telephone interviews. They never saw anyone face to face until their first day at work.

HR is just another department the the current generation of CEOs doesn't value so they go as cheap as possible.

I just think it can ruin a business in the long run. With a simple call saying hey it was a tough decision but we decided on someone else that would leave the door open if an even more suitable position opened. As it stands now my latest just checking in email was left unanswered. Just a super douche move IMO. Especially since they know I'm currently employed.

Put me in the camp of, "Just wanted to let you know we hired two other applicants, but we'll keep your app/resume on file. Thank you for thinking of our company and taking the time to apply and meet with us. Maybe in the future there will be something that brings us together. Until Then, good luck in your job search...Sam Spade."

Ignoring an applicant is rude and shows that some companies see those who apply as mere cogs in the machine, not worthy of giving them a courteous close to the process. Expecting an applicant to know that if they don't hear back from you then they didn't get the job is just wrong. They may still think they're in the running a week or two later when in reality you made the decision two days after meeting with them. Expecting them to wait and then decide on their own how long the no-call period is before realizing they are not going to be hired is cruel. HR like that needs serious help with human relations themselves.

I saw this article this morning:

Your HR department doesn?t give a damn: How corporate overseers exploit American workers - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2015/02/24/your_hr_department_doesnt_give_a_damn_how_corporat e_overseers_exploit_american_workers_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)

I had the best experience with a company a few years ago. I didn't get the job but they called and let me know why I didn't get it. They flew me to Denver for the interview and paid for all of my expenses. They are a first class company that in the future I hope to do business.

...Ignoring an applicant is rude and shows that some companies see those who apply as mere cogs in the machine, not worthy of giving them a courteous close to the process. ...


Ehhh, I don't go that far. Most people have no idea how much work is required of good HR department - this includes the companies themselves. Some decent size companies try and get away with tiny HR staffs and then work them to death. They have to prioritize and when I work for a company like that, I'd much rather have them take care of existing employees over sending Hallmark cards/form letters to the hoards of potential employees who often were ill prepared for an interview in the first place or never even bothered to notice or address the fact they didn't meet the minimum qualifications.

Also depends on the company and their hiring needs. If you routinely hire sales staff or floor staff then your HR department is seeing a TON of applications and many won't even make it through the initial filters. It costs real time and money to respond to everyone.

Even many state jobs simply remove the job posting or give a 'fill by' date. If the job is no longer posted then you know you didn't get it.

In an ideal setting everyone hears back. But for that to be the standard or expectation, is pretty unrealistic.

My opinion is, if you were called in for an in-person interview, then the HR department should at the very least let you know if they've chosen someone else. If its a company that did a large pool of first interviews, then possibly they should only contact those who were called to a second interview.

I've done lots of hiring when I was in a marketing/PR administrative role with other companies. I always requested that HR send me all the applications/resumes and not filter any out (I find some filters can cause you to lose out on some pretty talented people). Only when I worked for the state of Oklahoma was that request not granted. If I choose to interview someone I'd let them know what to expect; "We are in the process of filling the position, we hope to have it filled by 'x date' and we will let you know if we've decided to go with someone else and whether or not we will keep your resume on file for the next 12-months." Same goes when I'd let someone go. I'd do it in person (with a member of HR present), I'd define how their employment was being terminated (firing, lay-off, given the opportunity to resign, contract not renewed, exercising initial probationary period termination, etc.) and I'd make sure they knew what information we release to future employers that may call to verify previous employment. Lastly I'd let them know their official standing with the company (re-hireable or not).

That said, I've seen companies that had as many as 30-60 employees and their HR department consisted of the owner, the owner's wife or just some secretary they were calling the HR department. Some companies even contract out 90% of HR duties to a 3rd party because its become so complicated and full of liability.