I’m finding the hard way that finding another job is a grind: you invest time reading what they want to hire, you write a CV and an application.
Most of the time you don’t get an answer, meaning you are that irrelevant to them. Most of these times it is YOU the one who has to ask if they decided for or against. On the limited times they write you back, it’s a computed generated BS polite rejection letter.
I asked one of them how many candidates they considered and why they rejected me, but that only made them send me another computer generated letter.
I’d like to know how close I was and in what ways I can become a more interesting candidate, but nobody is going to give me a realistic answer.
It sucks having to need them more than they need you. And I should consider me lucky, because I have a job, but jesus christ, I feel for those who have to do this without stable income or a family that offers them a place to stay…
The same way you get over not knowing just about anything else.
Let it go.
Does it serve you in any way to continue to be bothered by not knowing?
You are irrelevant to them. Just like I’m irrelevant to you. That’s life.
Life is all about probabilities, you can do everything right and still lose (however doing everything"right" is nigh impossible). You lose if they have a better candidate, you lose if their department is suddenly not in need of the position, etc.
With that mentality, I don’t bother with CVs, and just use the time saved to apply to more jobs or maybe some kind of relevant project.
As someone who’s been on the hiring side there are some legalities involved on what to answer here. But I’ve always made a point of telling people who asked why. However I’m not in HR, so lots of people might get filtered before I even got a chance to interview them.
Also we asked candidates to do a take home and we talked about their solution during the interview, so most people got a good understanding of why they were rejected, but a couple of times people asked afterwards and I replied to them with the reasons we considered they were not at the level we were looking for, but that we would keep them in consideration for a more junior role if there ever was an opening.
I think your expectations are too high. They DO indeed care nothing for you, EVEN if they DO hire you.
You cope with this by understanding that and doing your best to make sure you NEVER need them more than they need you.
Because employers are opaque and their evaluation of you isn’t something that should be important to you. They’re not giving you a clear response oftentimes because they want to avoid legal issues.
Don’t take it personally, applying for a job is a game of chance as much as a game of merits. It’s simply a numbers game and luck whether your resume even gets looked at in the first place, even if you’re résumé how all their keywords. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of other resumes also hit their keywords.
If you’re lucky enough to get through the first sifting and get an interview with the hiring person (not an HR screener who doesn’t know anything about the job), then you can ask and maybe get a response on how you could have improved. (Don’t ask why you weren’t hired.)
Shiit so many comments here.
If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment
There’s actually multiple questions here.
The hiring process has an application “filter” layer, a candidate selection layer, and THEN the interview with the person/people who actually want to hire you. Sometimes there’s an extra technical interview after that.
These days, the filter layer is mostly automated. Asking the filter why it didn’t select you is like asking a Machine Learning model why it chose to do something a certain way — you aren’t going to get a useful response.
So the only way to figure it out is trial and error: vary your application in terms of structure and content until you find the combination that makes it last the current batch of filters.
OR
Find a way to skip the filters altogether by finding someone on the inside of the company to flag up your CV to the people looking to fill the position.
Once past the filter, you get to HR, and if you get this far, asking questions about why you didn’t get selected to continue will actually be met with a useful response (unless it’s a company you don’t want to work for). HR will tell you the basic things they’re looking for in an application, and possibly how you compared in certain criteria to the stronger candidates.
Next you get to the manager. If you get this far, you can usually have this discussion at the end of your interview. They’re looking for fit for the role, and you can ask questions about fit as part of the interview process.
And finally you get to the technical interview. If you get this far and don’t get the job, the reason why is usually fairly obvious: either they had someone who was both a better fit AND understood the problem domain / demonstrated an ability to learn and reflect the team culture better, or you failed to prove technical ability in a key area.
Send out so many applications and keep busy, so that every response is a surprise. Only after a response can you set a reminder to reach out after a week. After a reminder, send a message and do not set a reminder. Keep applying to other jobs.
I just lose track of jobs I applied to in my head. If they aren’t responding, they don’t care and neither should you.
My current company makes the effort to at least tell whether you’re still under consideration but I don’t think they’re allowed by legal to give any details.
At least in the US, it’s fine to not give a reason but if you do give a reason you’re liable for it. What company wants to risk that?
Looks like a major loophole to me haha
Giving you feedback opens them up to liability if you sue.
Not being dickheads when hire people make suing unnecessary
You think people only sue when necessary?
You’re assuming no candidates are dickheads.
Company has to watch out for
- maybe a candidate was a dickhead
- maybe one of the interviewers was a dickhead
- maybe something changed so it looks misrepresented
If job candidates are suing because they believe a company is being particularly inappropriate, that is at direct cost to the candidate who 99/100 times has less resources than a company. And they will be snuffed out in court in a jury trial if they are clowning around with the legal system.
The company will also pay, but in that same 99/100 times the company will have more resources to fight in court in most states. It’s in the best interests of communities, culture, and the people’s right to force the legal battle upwards instead of downwards
I’d like to know how close I was and in what ways I can become a more interesting candidate, but nobody is going to give me a realistic answer.
I can tell you from the employer side there is nothing to gain by answering this question asked by a candidate, and everything to lose which is why you the candidate almost never hear a response.
There are some legally protected reasons you cannot be turned down for a job. Its all the stuff you’d think of: race, religion, marital status, sex, age, etc. The likelihood you were turned down because of one of these illegal reasons is usually very low in the USA. I’m proud to say for the hiring efforts I’ve been a part of, these have never been considered criteria for disqualifying a candidate. Its always been for things like lack of knowledge/education, criminal history (example multi-DUI for a job that requires driving or conviction of embezzling when put in charge of company finances ), etc.
However, any documented reason a prospective employer gives back to a candidate becomes a liability. Will that candidate sue the company claiming that they weren’t hired because they think the position required some not married, which would be a crime of the employer?
I saw a job posting for a court domestic violence advocate and they would probably reject men on principle.
Legally they cannot. Also, domestic violence happens to men too.
I know
Legally they cannot.
gender supremacists:
“Hold my beer and watch me do exactly that. Again and again and again without any censure or pushback, purely because I am being a gender bigot against men, and for no other reason. We have full societal and legal ability to employ open misandry, because opposition of any kind is misogyny by default.”
domestic violence happens to men too.
71% of non-reciprocal (only one person being abusive) physically violent (actually striking) domestic violence involves women striking men.
As in, 71% of those victims are men.
And under those same conditions (non-reciprocal physically violent DV), two-thirds of victims that were injured seriously enough to require hospitalization were men, yet almost 100% were also arrested as the “perps”, even though they were the only victims.
Losts of people have problems with these facts. Wild how bad anti-reality ideological indoctrination has gotten.
If you are based in Europe you could always try a GDPR subject access request to see the notes they’ve taken. Not sure if you can try something like that wherever you are though!
Something I picked up over the years. The reasons are potentially personal or emotional.
Skills, experience and education are important.
But they are also concerned with cohesion.
“Is this someone I can have a beer with and have a good time”
“Will this person enjoy the company of the staff under my charge”
“That guy drove in with a insert political message on their bumper sticker. :/”
“Gross they used random font”
“We got too many Marks at this company”
Reminds me of one team I was on that had Karthic, Karthik, and Karthick. THEY JUST KEPT HIRING THEM.
HR is playing pokemon trying to catch em all
I mean what else can you do?
