Ask HN: Why has ghosting candidates become so prevalent

[nalleyne]

I don’t really understand why or see the reason behind why companies ghost, especially after take-home challenges. I had an opportunity I was really looking forward to, and they didn’t give me any feedback or anything about the challenge. I thought I had done a pretty good job on the coding part, maybe not as well as I could have with the system design. But I didn’t receive any feedback at all? It’s slightly soul-crushing, but it seems to be pretty commonplace, and I don’t really get why.

[HashiramaInc]

There's about 2x more people on the market right now vs pre pandemic around 2019 and at least 1/3 as many positions available.

So it's at least 5 times as many applicants per position.

When you got 10 people to pass step 1, and 5 people to pass step 2, and 3 people to pass step 3, its not that hard to send a "thanks but we need someone with xyz skill".

Now, the reasons are even more random and arbitrary.

Now you might have 100 people pass step 1, and 50 people to pass step 2, and 30 people to pass step 3. So companies are pickier, but also they tend to reject you more randomly.

I've done a few interviews and they would say stuff that basically said "i'm not really listening just browsing reddit while you're talking"

Kinda sad

[nalleyne]

I mean, even a generic rejection would be preferable to radio silence. It keeps my hopes up, thinking I'll eventually hear something back with enough time/patience. This whole process is just brutal

[nextos]

It's extremely unprofessional they don't send generic rejections using some applicant tracking system.

IMHO, organizations that behave like this tend to be dysfunctional. I am sure they are also more likely to ignore customer complaints, etc.

[filoleg]

> organizations that behave like this tend to be dysfunctional

Disagreed. The only thing this means is that their recruiting process is dysfunctional. That doesn’t mean that it would automatically lead to poor hiring decisions and suboptimal candidates getting hired (and thus making the company dysfunctional). A dysfunctional recruiting process could also be biased towards high false negatives (aka a lot of deserving candidates not getting hired) without being accompanied by high false positives (aka a lot of bad candidates getting hired).

> I am sure they are also more likely to ignore customer complaints

This is not directly relevant to the experience of an employee at such a company.

Look, I do not approve of those practices. I believe that every candidate deserves a closure on the status of their application, even if it is something as low-bar as an automated rejection. I also believe that good customer support is a sign of a company being enjoyable to work at. However, the absence of those is not necessarily an indicator of a good workplace imo. And the opposite could be true as well. E.g., Amazon customer support being top notch and going above and beyond what I expected of them as a user, but they also have by far the most obnoxious recruiting experience I’ve ever encountered. And the stories from my friends who worked there just made me never consider working there ever, just from the quality of it as a workplace.

And, for context, the list of companies I have on that list is so tiny, it could be counted on half of a singular hand.

[nextos]

Obviously it's not perfect indicator, but if a company lacks standard procedures it is a probable sign of mismanagement or lack of management.

Maybe it is still nice to work there, but it will slowly fall apart.

[HashiramaInc]

It could be better. On the bright side, if you have a good fit with the right startup, it could be like 2-3 weeks from first contact to offer.

Lots of tiny shops move quick, but may need some sort of differentiator (highly relevant experience, a blog, cool portfolio/project, etc)

[meiraleal]

So the problem lies in your expectation

[karrieberrie553]

Yeah, the courtesy to reply to people who engaged with your hiring process. Such high expectations

[nalleyne]

Yeah I mean I don’t really feel like it’s asking for too much to get a no. I understand companies are worried about the legal implications that could stem from giving specifics, but hearing “we chose to move forward with another candidate” doesn’t seem like too much to ask for lol

[meiraleal]

Yeah now think about the people you left hanging some times in your life.

You can't remember? Maybe it is because you don't care about them too.

[mattbrewsbytes]

This isn't anything new. Been working for a couple decades and the only times I would hear feedback was for internal job postings at a large company. And that's because you might run into those folks in the hallway or end up working together on a project later on.

There are time constraints on the hiring manager/team with the numbers of applicants and legal ramifications for the company if something is misstated or could be construed as against hiring laws.

[throwaway425933]

It is just better to assume that ghosting is usual practice and any deviation is a welcome change. You, as a candidate, are trying to make a sale. Buyer has not obligation to get back to you, just like when you take a quote from someone for home repairs.

[amerkhalid]

> just like when you take a quote from someone for home repairs.

Is that considered normal?

Maybe I am too polite but I always let contractors know if I am going with someone else or not proceeding with home repair.

[cableshaft]

I don't always get back to people after I get a quote from them, no. I do agree it's the nice thing to do, I just tend to be terrible about contacting people (outside of my job or friends) in general. Chances are good I put off contacting someone just to get that quote for months or possibly even years already.

[tomcam]

Younger people are making hiring decisions. Young people today tend to be afraid of confrontations of any kind.

[dustingetz]

let me share the hiring manager side when you’re at a medium sized company without a super organized process - writing that email takes 20 mins of hard focus (to very carefully give feedback without blowback) assuming they even remember the interview, and that the person writing the email even made the decision. most interviews are ambiguous and the hiring manager is doing 3 to 5 interviews over a few weeks, by which point earlier candidates are forgotten, and hiring manager is staring at a list of candidates to reject that they don’t even remember and this is the least important thing on their todo list that day. very easy to just close that laptop and go home

[marcuskane2]

Nobody is asking you to write a 20 minute email with careful feedback.

A templated rejection email sent from whatever tool you're using to manage resumes/interviews is fine.

"Dear applicant, we have decided not to move forward with your application. Thank you for your time. We appreciate your interest and wish you the best" is far better than getting ghosted.

[iamatoool]

Aren't most using a SaaS to manage the process? In addition don't most have job criteria they are ranking against. You could give good feedback with just the data in the DB in 5 minutes using a template and stock answers. This assumes a well organised fair process of course. An internal or external recruiter could deliver the news.

[nalleyne]

This perspective makes it more understandable, but after 1-2 follow-ups, does that usually remain the case?

[austin-cheney]

Consider the organization. If all steps are managed by the dev team expect to be ghosted. If there is a HR staff involved expect to receive a response.

Developers, despite everything they claim, are more likely to fear confrontation. Denying a person a job is highly confrontational even when exceptionally polite. On the other side of the table it will likely be viewed as an unnecessary inconvenience.

I try to think about this optimistically. I wouldn’t want to work with people who are cowardly about talking to people or expressing business concerns openly. If it’s how they behave during hiring it’s how they will behave at work.

[siamese_puff]

That’s a very positive view of HR and this is NOT my experience working with large companies. It’s very hit or miss, some recruiters ghost and it blows my mind. I’m talking corporate and non-contract recruiters. Ghosted after doing 5+ hours of multi day interviews.

[CM30]

It's baffling to be honest, since it feels like there's less feedback the further you get into the interview process, not more. About 40-50% of jobs I've failed to get to the first stage in have sent rejection emails in at least some form, yet somehow far less of those where I've reached the second, third or even fourth stage in have sent a rejection letter.

That doesn't make sense to me. You'd think candidates you don't even care to interview would be the ones you'd ignore/ghost, not the ones who are probably in the last 5 or so candidates for the role.

But hey, I guess that sort of strange behaviour isn't entirely new. I still remember getting ghosted by a company that gave me two phone interviews and two in person interviews in the office.

[P_I_Staker]

It makes some amount of sense. I wouldn't be shocked if they are more concerned about lawsuits, as you get further.

Also, it seems that they also have some incentive to drag it along for candidates that drop out of the process, so you have a back up.

Plus, you're now busy onboarding and so it's like you already ate your meal.

[ffhhj]

Lots of companies are posting fake positions:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/27/4-in-10-companies-say-theyve...

Recruiters strike again.

[yen223]

Ghosting requires no effort, but giving any response requires some effort.

[paulcole]

> they didn’t give me any feedback or anything about the challenge

Reason 1: It’s generally safer, liability wise to ghost. The more information you share, the more information that can be used against you.

Reason 2: They give feedback and you want to debate why you’re right and why their feedback isn’t valid. They’ve got a job to do that isn’t going back and forth with you.

Reason 3: They just found somebody they liked better for whatever reason and don’t care enough to tell you.

I always write, “Thanks for your time and interest but we’re moving ahead with other candidates.” Any response I get where the first words aren’t “Thank you” gets insta-deleted.

[akagusu]

> It’s slightly soul-crushing

You already answered.

You see yourself as a human being, but companies see you as an asset.

Assets don't have a soul, they don't need feedback, they are just assets, things to be used in their strategy to make profits.

When companies give you feedback they are just saying you are or can be useful for them to reach their goals,just that.

[nextn]

Ghosting cost is low.

Increasing this cost can make non-ghosting prevalent.

[aborsy]

Because it takes time, return nothing and people are busy.

[throwawaysleep]

I prefer it frankly, as notifications that my app is not proceeding are not useful for my time and attention. I just keep applying constantly under all circumstances. Job hunting is eternal.

[nalleyne]

I've started applying a lot less frequently as of late. Finding a batch of companies that post on smaller forums like this usually nets me a better response rate because I can speak to an actual person. Keeping it open-ended makes me think I'll eventually hear something back, even after a few weeks. Mentally exhausting

[meiraleal]

It is because people only remember the time they were ghosted, not when they ghost.