We are going to give far less detailed feedback.
Streamlining Feedback in Recruitment: Embracing a More Efficient Approach
As the leader of an in-house recruitment team, I’ve learned some valuable lessons about the efficacy of detailed candidate feedback in the hiring process. Our team operates under strict Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that ensure candidates receive regular communication, typically no later than one week after their interview. While maintaining transparency is important, I’ve come to realize that the depth of feedback we provide may need reevaluation to optimize our resources and candidate experience.
Historically, my team has made a point to give constructive feedback to every candidate who meets with us. This often involved softening the hiring managers’ initial criticisms and sharing reasons for rejection in hopes of assisting candidates’ growth. However, this well-intentioned approach has frequently led to unintended consequences.
The Challenges of Over-Detailing Feedback
-
Time-consuming Disputes: Many candidates engage in lengthy email exchanges, challenging the feedback or attempting to leverage it to reopen their application. These conversations consume significant time and divert focus from more productive activities.
-
Negative Publicity: We’ve received negative reviews that explicitly criticize individual recruiters — even labeling them as “stupid.” Interestingly, those leaving the most vitriolic reviews are often candidates who were not selected.
-
Escalations to Senior Leadership: On multiple occasions, I’ve had to explain to our upper management, including the Managing Director and Chief People Officer, why they’re receiving angry emails from candidates about their interview experience. A recent incident involved a candidate, after participating in a two-stage interview for a junior role, who submitted a harsh review and emailed the CEO, trying to get a recruiter reprimanded.
-
Unfounded Accusations: In one notably absurd case, a candidate accused me of racial bias — a claim far removed from the job specifications and context.
A Shift Toward a More Pragmatic Approach
Given the challenging job market and the demanding nature of candidate expectations, I’ve concluded that providing overly detailed or personalized feedback is often not worth the effort. Moving forward, we will adopt a more streamlined communication strategy, delivering brief, uniform refusals such as: “We have chosen another candidate who demonstrated stronger skills in key areas,” or similar concise responses. This approach is truthful, respectful, and less likely to provoke negative reactions or consume excessive time.
Conclusion
In recruitment, balancing transparency with efficiency is crucial. While offering feedback can sometimes be beneficial, it’s important to recognize when simplicity and brevity serve both our team and candidates better. By adopting a more standardized, less detailed feedback process, we can save valuable resources, minimize misunderstandings, and maintain a positive reputation—both internally and externally.
Author’s note: Effective recruitment communication evolves, and sometimes, doing less can be more.