Jamie, thank you for the great article. I hope you were able to find a role and org that you enjoy despite the tribulation.
I have hired folks for software engineering in an organization of 40-ish technical people. We would curate 2-3 candidates through a couple screening interviews then introduce them to the team on which they would work. The team would be able to veto any individual, though they always seemed to choose one candidate out of the group that they liked best. This is a time intensive process but we were all happy with the results.
I was usually very terse in my rejection letters, but would always respond to someone who made it through the initial screens. I wonder if "we decided to go with a different candidate" is better or worse than "we liked someone else better because they have more direct experience with x". You've given me something to think about regarding candidate rejection...
I did indeed find a role with an engineering organization I really like. Surprisingly, they were one of my lower-ranked picks for myself when I started the process but they ended up being my top pick by a mile. :-)
Regarding your rejection letters, telling a candidate why you chose another candidate could end up adding friction as they try to justify their knowledge, but the reality is that they don't know who the other candidate is and how much experience they have with X technology, so it's hard for them to argue. They'll probably ask, but at that point it's probably best to leave those interactions to the recruiter (assuming you have internal recruiters) so you can focus more on other candidates.
But to take it back a bit, a "we prefer them" rejection is often way better received by a candidate than a "we don't want you" rejection. :-)
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Jamie, thank you for the great article. I hope you were able to find a role and org that you enjoy despite the tribulation.
I have hired folks for software engineering in an organization of 40-ish technical people. We would curate 2-3 candidates through a couple screening interviews then introduce them to the team on which they would work. The team would be able to veto any individual, though they always seemed to choose one candidate out of the group that they liked best. This is a time intensive process but we were all happy with the results.
I was usually very terse in my rejection letters, but would always respond to someone who made it through the initial screens. I wonder if "we decided to go with a different candidate" is better or worse than "we liked someone else better because they have more direct experience with x". You've given me something to think about regarding candidate rejection...
I did indeed find a role with an engineering organization I really like. Surprisingly, they were one of my lower-ranked picks for myself when I started the process but they ended up being my top pick by a mile. :-)
Regarding your rejection letters, telling a candidate why you chose another candidate could end up adding friction as they try to justify their knowledge, but the reality is that they don't know who the other candidate is and how much experience they have with X technology, so it's hard for them to argue. They'll probably ask, but at that point it's probably best to leave those interactions to the recruiter (assuming you have internal recruiters) so you can focus more on other candidates.
But to take it back a bit, a "we prefer them" rejection is often way better received by a candidate than a "we don't want you" rejection. :-)