If you don’t provide applicants with feedback, is your system broken?

There are a growing number of recruiters who seem to believe that employers shouldn't have to "give feedback" or explain why they didn't bring you in for an interview."

Not surprisingly, a long line of other recruiters fully supported her. They embraced her argument that “the recruiter doesn’t work for you” (the candidate). True, but you do work for the brand and this attitude could have ramifications.

In a post on LinkedIn, one recruiter noted she had been sued by an applicant who had filed for bankruptcy two years before applying and the company had a policy of not hiring anyone for a finance or accounting role that had filed within the past seven years. I assume here that the policy wasn’t included in the job description, which might have led to not applying.

She pointed out that “the average number of applicants PER JOB is between 118-250 people, the average email length is 125 words, and writing 125 words will take about 3.1 minutes for the average writer typing on a keyboard.”

She also says applicants might not like the feedback and that she’s “had job seekers argue with me over the feedback I gave them. That's all I'm going to say.”

She does concede that job seekers who have done “three rounds of in-person interviews, [met] with the CEO or Board of Directors or whoever, and [committed] a significant amount of time and headspace for the opportunity” deserve to know why they weren't selected. But I’m sure Legal may have some say over the nature of that feedback.

Here are my thoughts:

• You're the face of the company and caught in the middle here. Your silence allows the applicant to think the worst -- not necessarily about you but about the company and its hiring process. The communications team could probably help here and look at your processes.

• If you're sending e-mails five minutes after receiving the application using a phrase like "after careful consideration, you won't be moving forward," your process is broken.

• If you receive a referral from a senior executive for a candidate and don't respond to both, your process is broken.

• If you're publishing a job posting for a job that doesn't exist or that you already know is going to be filled internally, your process is broken.

• If applicants have an interview of any kind (including a screening call) and don't get any response, your process is broken. This also goes for outside recruiters.

• If your ATS requires a distinct application for any open role and doesn’t match qualifications for a potentially better fit, your process is broken (from my friend, Lance Finnan in the comments to this post).

How to Fix the Process

You could reduce this problem with a couple of form letters that say things like "a review of your resume indicates you're underqualified (or overqualified) for this position.

 You could reduce this problem by letting your ATS system hold a response for 24-48 hours after receiving the application. Or you could even send out a computer-generated letter that says the position has been filled. Or you could see if there’s anything you can do about job postings to keep going up on platforms like LinkedIn long after you have your candidates.

The couple of minutes you spend writing that note is nothing compared to the time applicants spend submitting it (including re-inputting their resume info because your company didn't care to buy a decent application system).

I get it. HR is a production line similar to the one Lucy Ricardo faced in the candy factory (here’s a link for the younger generations). But there are things they can do to reduce their application volume or at least make it easier to provide decline reasons (e.g., post the salary range, write a job description that asks for entry-level people but posts job requirements for people with 7-10 years of experience).

HR Could Ask for Help

I get back to my first bullet. You may be way too “inside” the process. Ask your communications team to review how applicants are treated, or reach out to someone who works with companies to fix broken customer touchpoints.

Recruiters and hiring managers are keepers of the brand. If the website talks about the value the company places on people, the way you treat job applicants reflects on that brand promise.

Applicants who feel mistreated (or “ghosted) will tell others. That's bad for the brand.

Everyone needs to think of themselves as good brand stewards. For recruiters, it should be part of the job beyond filling the open role. If you’re irritating “between 118-250 people per job” opening, you’re impacting revenue and goodwill.

And that’s unfortunate if you couldn’t spend 3.1 minutes to be a good person (or your employer couldn’t fix its hiring processes).

What else could recruiters do to protect the brand without losing too much time reviewing applications?