Look at it from the company perspective. Out of 10 people, you'll probably upset 5, or enter a discussion with them asserting they are actually good; maybe 4 actually accept criticism and are thankful, and one sues.
So for the most part, it's doing more damage than good to the company image (and from my personal experience, I guess the ratio of not-taking-criticism people is much higher), and might get you into trouble that is at least annoying (sued).
On the other hand, the company has exactly nothing to win from this. If the candidate really were good and only had to learn X, then they'd probably hire him anyway, and the negative image effects for many people certainly outweigh the positive for a few.
I'd like to emphasize this point. Any sort of personalized response is seen as an invitation to initiate a conversation. Which is fine if you want to have that conversation and the person on the other end isn't a sore loser or doesn't have an overinflated ego that you just bruised. Sore losers and overinflated egos aren't the majority, but they do seem to form a very large minority...
I agree - somewhat. I'd like to waive the legal stuff (see above, I'm just unconvinced that a lot of perfectly valid reasons to reject a candidate offer legal problems in a lot of places around the world). But obviously your 'why help someone that you don't want' point is valid. I'd say it still should be done:
- Just as it is a good idea for a person to think of "You'll always meet twice in life" I kind of think that a company should do the same. That guy might come around alot smarter and you do want him the second time. Or he might work elsewhere and be your contact when your company does a deal with that company.
- He talks about small companies. I kind of expect employers that probably offer 'transparency, lack of hierarchies, ..' to be more human.
I'm pondering a lot about the 'they'll take it badly' comments right now (not only from you, all over this HN thread). I was _sure_ that most people feel like the author of the blog entry, seriously missing out the honest feedback. Maybe I was too naive..
I've wanted that feedback as well, and I know others that do. I know I'd generally react favorably to the feedback, using it to improve. However, I think we (people who want this and talk about wanting it and wouldn't go off the deep end) are in a minority. We're writing and talking about it - we (here on HN and blogs and such) tend to have more self-awareness than others - or at least express that self-awareness more than others. But we're in the minority - people would sue, they'd stalk, they'd pester, they'd argue, etc.
Companies love NDAs - how about an NFOA - a Non Freak Out Agreement? Sign it before an interview. If you've signed it, we'll give you honest, open, critical feedback about how you do or don't fit in with the company's needs. Honestly, I do think sometimes I've not gotten a job it was more a personality/culture fit than anything else, but I'd like to know that as well (and frankly wouldn't mind giving them some feedback on their culture too!). But without knowing, perhaps I get too hung up on a linkedlist question and fret about that in future. And turning it around, perhaps the company could get some good feedback on their own operating culture ("no, being on call 24/7 to babysit broken code isn't worth $30k, but you didn't say that in the job description").
Comments
Look at it from the company perspective. Out of 10 people, you'll probably upset 5, or enter a discussion with them asserting they are actually good; maybe 4 actually accept criticism and are thankful, and one sues.
So for the most part, it's doing more damage than good to the company image (and from my personal experience, I guess the ratio of not-taking-criticism people is much higher), and might get you into trouble that is at least annoying (sued).
On the other hand, the company has exactly nothing to win from this. If the candidate really were good and only had to learn X, then they'd probably hire him anyway, and the negative image effects for many people certainly outweigh the positive for a few.
I'd like to emphasize this point. Any sort of personalized response is seen as an invitation to initiate a conversation. Which is fine if you want to have that conversation and the person on the other end isn't a sore loser or doesn't have an overinflated ego that you just bruised. Sore losers and overinflated egos aren't the majority, but they do seem to form a very large minority...
I agree - somewhat. I'd like to waive the legal stuff (see above, I'm just unconvinced that a lot of perfectly valid reasons to reject a candidate offer legal problems in a lot of places around the world). But obviously your 'why help someone that you don't want' point is valid. I'd say it still should be done:
- Just as it is a good idea for a person to think of "You'll always meet twice in life" I kind of think that a company should do the same. That guy might come around alot smarter and you do want him the second time. Or he might work elsewhere and be your contact when your company does a deal with that company. - He talks about small companies. I kind of expect employers that probably offer 'transparency, lack of hierarchies, ..' to be more human.
I'm pondering a lot about the 'they'll take it badly' comments right now (not only from you, all over this HN thread). I was _sure_ that most people feel like the author of the blog entry, seriously missing out the honest feedback. Maybe I was too naive..
I've wanted that feedback as well, and I know others that do. I know I'd generally react favorably to the feedback, using it to improve. However, I think we (people who want this and talk about wanting it and wouldn't go off the deep end) are in a minority. We're writing and talking about it - we (here on HN and blogs and such) tend to have more self-awareness than others - or at least express that self-awareness more than others. But we're in the minority - people would sue, they'd stalk, they'd pester, they'd argue, etc.
Companies love NDAs - how about an NFOA - a Non Freak Out Agreement? Sign it before an interview. If you've signed it, we'll give you honest, open, critical feedback about how you do or don't fit in with the company's needs. Honestly, I do think sometimes I've not gotten a job it was more a personality/culture fit than anything else, but I'd like to know that as well (and frankly wouldn't mind giving them some feedback on their culture too!). But without knowing, perhaps I get too hung up on a linkedlist question and fret about that in future. And turning it around, perhaps the company could get some good feedback on their own operating culture ("no, being on call 24/7 to babysit broken code isn't worth $30k, but you didn't say that in the job description").