[wgerard]

Just explaining not defending: That's partially due to the volume seen with online applications.

Even 2-5 person companies will sometimes receive ~20-30 resumes a day for an open job, and 90% of them will be obviously inappropriate for the job even just from glancing at their resume.

It's a positive feedback loop: People have learned to "shotgun" their resume everywhere, and as a result even small companies have learned to process resumes as "efficiently" as possible (which often includes not sending responses to rejected candidates at that stage). This leads to more shotgunning, etc. etc.

[BoiledCabbage]

While a wonderful comment, it doesn't not address OPs concerns. If they are processing things as efficiently as possible by automating, when they decide a candidate isn't a fit and click a button to not consider them for the position, why not have it automatically send out a one line email so they are aware?

Or at bare minimum, automatically mail them when the position is set to closed?

None of that can be claimed due to efficiency.

[wgerard]

Two main reasons:

1. You're assuming they're using an ATS with that feature, which isn't as common as you'd think. You'd be surprised how many companies track incoming candidates using spreadsheets and email.

2. Part of that "efficiency" is not actually taking the 5 extra seconds to reject candidates, but instead just ignoring rejected candidates.

Think of it as leaving something read in your email inbox vs. choosing to archive it. Imagine you're getting 100 emails a day. Now imagine how many people you know (not necessarily you) who would leave those emails as unread in their inbox and quickly scan for important ones vs. choosing to go through each one and archive them as necessary.

> Or at bare minimum, automatically mail them when the position is set to closed?

Many places will leave positions open for opportunistic hires, e.g. see how many places are constantly hiring for "software engineer". Many job positions never actually close.

[wool_gather]

> Many places will leave positions open for opportunistic hires, e.g. see how many places are constantly hiring for "software engineer". Many job positions never actually close.

This is a good point, and while it's weird and a little frustrating from the outside, it's awesome from the inside:

The right time to hire is not when you're ramping something up or strapped for time and really need someone immediately. The right time to hire is when you've got someone awesome who is really interested in the job.

Keeping the req open gives you a better chance of grabbing that awesome person: whenever they are ready, the position is waiting. If you have to align the stars so that you're looking at the same time they are, you're going to miss some opportunities.

[lostapathy]

There's a difference between ignoring a resume and ignoring somebody who took the time to interview with you. I can see why you wouldn't want to reply to a bunch of resumes you just trashed, but if you bring somebody in for an interview, be a human and tell them they didn't get the job so they can move on.

[alistairSH]

That doesn't excuse neglecting to send a rejection notice for candidates that were initially considered. If a company contacts me, I expect the conversation to be concluded formally. I do not expect to be ghosted.

[yborg]

I don't expect to be contacted again after a screening conversation or a simple application, but if I am interviewed in-person by multiple people I consider it common courtesy to provide at least a from letter "No". This is becoming very uncommon these days for the various reasons given, as well as the fact that there is little downside to being rude - it's not like the candidate can do anything to the interviewing company.

However, in my own hiring I always send a thank you for the candidates time, because I'm old, and manners, etc. but also I consider it the long game. You never know when you will run into someone again and in what context, and the extra effort to email a "thanks for interviewing with us" is tiny compared to potential upside/downside.

[rleigh]

I agree with all you've said, but for this point:

> it's not like the candidate can do anything to the interviewing company

It's true to a point. However, when you ghost someone, you've effectively as a company burned your bridges with someone, all for want of a simple and not at all burdensome small amount of courtesy. Even if you're not interviewing them in person, a simple notification that the application will not be considered further means they aren't left hanging on pointlessly.

If you want to hire them in the future, they might just blow you off.

If they pass on their bad experience to others, your reputation has suffered and you'll make it harder to recruit others in their social circle.

You might be immune to the effects of rude behaviour in the short term, but it will come back to bite to some degree later. As an example, after some really rather abrupt telephone interviews with Google, and a really rude on-site interviewer, I told them never to contact me ever again. I have no intention of considering them again in the future.

I think your point about considering the long game is spot on. I had the dilemma of interviewing with two companies and getting two good offers. The company I ended up rejecting were really nice, made a really great effort to sell themselves, and I left with nothing but positive feelings. Nearly a year later, they would still love to have me on their team. Should I need to in the future, I'm fairly certain I could give them a call and start work the next day, all because they did a really good job of building a good relationship.

[alistairSH]

Phone screen from HR? Maybe not. Though I'd prefer a simple form email "sorry, not interested". As noted elsewhere, build it into the HRIS - as soon as the applicants status is flipped to "No", automatically generate the email.

Phone call with hiring manager or team members? I expect a rejection of some sort.