[CoffeeOnWrite]

Some kind of minimal helpful feedback upon request after an unsuccessful on-site is the big one for me. The hiring manager can share one sentence of filtered feedback with the recruiter, the recruiter can share that one sentence with the candidate over the phone. Five minutes per candidate all in. If you say "but legal liability" you have no courage.

[spike021]

I don't see why companies can't have some kind of waiver the candidate signs in order to get feedback. We already sign NDA's before most interviews to not provide the interview questions and stuff to people. Feels like something we should be able to trade for.

[oarabbus_]

Best case scenario, they get some good word of mouth... which doesn't matter as FAANGs have more applicants than roles anyway. Worst case scenario they have an angry rejected candidate attempting to dispute the feedback. I doubt any large tech company would consider doing this.

[troutwine]

I've always had an interest in giving people feedback and have pushed for it at a few employers. What I've been told -- and I have no way to check this, considering I am not a lawyer -- is that giving post-interview feedback is legally fraught, contingent on the localities involved and would impose a review burden on the feedback which would, necessarily, be delayed by some weeks, carefully scrubbed and written.

Dunno how accurate that is, but I've been told it at more than one shop.

[spike021]

Again, like I said in the comment that this parent comment replied to: provide a waiver that basically says the candidate can't use the feedback legally. It's a similar thing with the NDA on the reverse end.

[oarabbus_]

Firstly, NDAs and waivers are not bulletproof and may not hold up in court. And even with a rock-solid NDA guaranteeing a victory, going into a courtroom is not a desirable situation for any person who isn't being paid to be there.

Like I asked in the comment replying to your previous one: what benefit does this give the business whatsoever? This will cost money, time, and very possibly headaches (whether reputational or legal), and for no benefit to the business. Why would they consider this?

[ornornor]

> Why would they consider this?

Common courtesy? Same with being nice and polite, saying hello/goodbye, etc. It wastes time because you could get to the point faster but it’s nicer and makes the interaction more pleasant. That’s it. No other reason. Just make the world a slightly better place with a tiny action.

[CoffeeOnWrite]

In your next employer, if your recruiter is game, just do what I suggest upthread, don't bother asking permission.

[troutwine]

No thanks. What I'm interested in is a _structured_ program for providing feedback and going off-script into potentially legally problematic territory as an individual doesn't tip the cost/benefit ratio in the right direction.

[CoffeeOnWrite]

Ah that's fair. I do it for the warm and fuzzies, not for my own self-interest.

[spike021]

I was surprised that I got feedback from my recruiter a few weeks ago when I finished an on-site at Google. To be honest I think she was only fine with providing feedback if we were on a call, since there's no paper trail.

[saagarjha]

I’d love for this to happen, but I feel like the outcome here may be someone signs one of these and gets told “we didn’t hire you because you looked like you were [protected class]”.