I was following a discussion recently on LinkedIn regarding whether or not a hiring manager can and/or should disclose to an interviewee why he/she wasn’t hired, if asked. Initially, I was surprised that there would be so much discussion around this. When I understood why, it quickly became evident that there are two main groups of participants – those that are most concerned about risk and potential discrimination suits and those that are more focused on transparency and doing the right thing. This is not to say that those who strongly consider risk are unconcerned about doing the right thing or that those who want to be transparent don’t care about lawsuits. But those participating in the conversation are passionate about one of these two positions and this weighs in heavily when choosing whether or not it is a good idea to explain to candidates why they didn’t get the job.
As I read through the many comments, it became fairly obvious that there are far fewer reasons NOT to give specifics than there are reasons to provide honest feedback. The main reasons not to include:
- The fear of legal ramifications. This is by far the most commonly cited reason for not giving specific explanations on why someone didn’t get the job.
- There are just so many candidates for each position it is unrealistic to think that detail can be provided to them all.
- Arguing or further “selling” of qualifications to the interviewer delivering feedback that results in time wasted for both parties.
- In many cases, particularly for high level positions, there are multiple candidates that are equally qualified and the decision comes down to chemistry. It is not possible to relay that to a candidate in a way that mitigates risk.
Now let me list some reasons to give feedback to an interviewee:
- The candidate receives useful information that can help them with the job search and in future interviews.
- It is good manners and common courtesy and HR is supposed to be about people. Also, it is about respect. The candidate has spent time completing applications and preparing for interviews and this should be acknowledged with feedback.
- The company improves its reputation by being honest. Candidates learn that there is a transparent culture and will spread the word. Current employees will learn about this behavior as well and these facts results in an employer brand and corporate culture based around trust. Trust increases engagement and retention, which boosts productivity. It also helps attract high quality candidates.
- Giving specific feedback shows your organization has nothing to hide. And those that feel discriminated against and intend to take legal action are going to move forward no matter what you say them.
- Well-trained hiring managers can effectively word these points in a way that mitigates risk of lawsuits. It is possible to provide feedback specific to the interview that is based on fact and supported by documentation, but your employees need to be trained to do it properly.
- No feedback on why a candidate was not hired allows the candidate to presume it was based on some discriminatory reason such as age, race, gender, etc. If you provide specific examples of what went wrong, a candidate can no longer assume discrimination is responsible for he/she not getting the job.
- In the future, the interviewee may be highly qualified for a different role within your company. The way you treat the candidate now has everything to do with how a conversation will go later.
My take on all this is that the rewards for giving specific explanations to an interviewee far outweigh the risks. Maybe I am too idealistic, but are there really that many people out there interviewing who are looking to position themselves to win a lawsuit? Is it really that time-consuming if you are only providing detailed information to those who not only interviewed, but also asked for it? Can’t the hiring manager control the conversation to ensure this doesn’t turn into another interview when the candidate tries to resell his/her qualifications? Aren’t there ways to explain chemistry without discriminating, such as letting the candidate know he/she lacked excitement or energy in the interview or that another candidate was more proactive in offering solutions during the interview? Doesn’t this just come down to properly training your managers?
What are your thoughts as HR professionals? Do you mitigate risk at all costs or do you lean toward openness and honestly? Is this working or can you name a time when it turned out to be the wrong move?
