[mgkimsal]

"Have you ever asked the people you have interviewed what they think about the process?", especially, perhaps, the people you didn't hire?

Almost without exception, people who don't get hired never hear back from a company as to why. Yes, I know all about "everyone's afraid to get sued for saying something wrong". So... develop a neutral feedback form to candidates as to why they were passed over, skills the interviewer(s) thought were lacking, etc. This will mean that people can get better, perhaps get another job (yes, maybe at a competitor, but also maybe somewhere else entirely), and continue to earn income, pay taxes, and contribute to society in a productive way. Some people can contribute without a job, sure, but right now most people need jobs.

Telling someone "we're sorry - we had 8 candidates apply for this position, and we ended up taking on someone with more experience in X, Y and Z compared to your experience level. We wish you the best of luck in your job search". This would be courteous, professional and helpful all at the same time. Between my own experience and that of several colleagues, fewer than 5% of employers ever provide something even remotely useful in terms of feedback.

How do we expect the job seeking population to get better without providing feedback mechanisms for them to learn from?

[yummyfajitas]

Telling someone "we're sorry - we had 8 candidates apply for this position, and we ended up taking on someone with more experience in X, Y and Z compared to your experience level.

And what about the cases where your reasons are not "more experience in X, Y, Z"? Cultural fit is a biggie - one might turn down a candidate who is more qualified because his banking attitudes would go over badly at a startup, for example.

[mgkimsal]

That's true, and in those cases, a more generic "we had other qualified candidates" letter/email would be fine. but all too often corporate america just ignores people altogether - won't return emails/phone calls, and basically leaves the person out to dry. Working via a recruiter, you at least have a person at the agency who might be sympathetic.

Companies don't seem to realize that treating applicants bad is just as detrimental in many cases as poor customer service. I've had bad experiences with job application processes, and I've told many people chapter and verse about the companies involved. If they can't even treat people well who want to work there, how will they treat customers after the money is received?

[yummyfajitas]

That's true, and in those cases, a more generic "we had other qualified candidates" letter/email would be fine.

If unskilled candidate X gets "other candidates had more specific skillz" while uncultured candidate Y gets "sorry, you suck for unspecified reasons", it sounds like a lawsuit risk.

[bobb3456]

Telling the candidate anything specifically negative invites argument and misinterpretation. In practice, the better companies always use the "other qualified candidates" letter. The worse ones tell you nothing.