[ryanSrich]

Stories like this make absolutely no sense to me, and yet I hear them all the time about Stripe.

Why not just tell the candidate that they aren't getting an offer? Why make up elaborate stories about headcount? Why say you're going to follow up? It's clearly not a bandwidth issue since they took the time to respond anyway.

Even something like "We've filled all positions. Your application was strong, but not strong enough. It's unlikely we'll reach back out."

That's 1000x better than getting ghosted after being told they WOULD reach back out. Complete bullshit on their part and a total lack of integrity. There's really no excuse for it.

[mytailorisrich]

Saying that they ran out of headcount is both telling that they won't offer and offering a reason, which is exactly as your example: they filled all the positions. It's a polite and somewhat sugar-coated reason instead of bluntly saying that they thought the person was not good enough, but it's standard to be polite when rejecting candidates.

[Judgmentality]

Going back to nsenifty:

> A week later, instead of the offer, they just said they ran out of headcount. Never heard back from them again (even though they said they'll reach out when they get headcount back).

Saying you'll get back to a candidate, especially when that candidate has already been told to expect an offer, and then ghosting is not polite. Any framing of this as acceptable behavior, be it polite or impolite, is unacceptable. You can say "oh that's just the way it is" and there's some truth to that, but that doesn't mean it isn't pure fucking bullshit and deserving of condemnation.

[borroka]

It is unacceptable in theory, in practice it sounds like most of the ghosted in this thread would gladly work there, given the opportunity. Money and visibility (and beauty) make many sins forgiven.

I had terrible interview experiences (rudeness, ghosting, and making zero sense) with Lyft, Airbnb, Twitter, but if they make the right offer, I might say yes (although I have quite a strong memory).

[wolco2]

Catch the next wave. The interesting problems may have moved on but the aura around those names continue.

[mytailorisrich]

They did not ghost him.

They came back to him to tell him his application was rejected. That was obviously the end of it.

I don't understand the anger here.

[Judgmentality]

No - you are being far too generous towards Stripe here. If they say they cannot hire due to headcount, after saying they were going to make an offer, and they'll reach out again once they have headcount again - they are ghosting if they never follow up.

They lied, full stop, don't apologize for how "polite" it is (and it's not polite, it's disrespectful).

[ALittleLight]

How is it polite to mislead candidates? Surely it can be uncomfortable to hear that you aren't up to par for a job or didn't interview well - but if that is the truth it is better to hear that truth than to hear some platitude about headcount. If I believed the "headcount" story I might invest time waiting to see if headcount opened up, or hold out hope that I'd potentially get an offer. On the other hand, if I heard that I had gaps X, Y, and Z I'd probably start working on X, Y, and Z - or at least think through how I could demonstrate my aptitude in those areas better or mitigate my weakness there and so on.

It's like if your doctor tried to be polite to you by not mentioning some serious disease because he was afraid it would make you feel bad. It might indeed make the candidate feel bad to hear about their (perceived) deficiencies - but if they do hear about it then they can do something about it!

[ryanSrich]

If a recruiter or hiring manage wants to sugar coat a rejection then go for it. It's a coward move, but not a straight up lie.

Telling the candidate that you'll reach back out, and then not doing that, is complete bullshit.