{"id":56332,"date":"2020-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-02-09T21:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/blog\/blog_prohoster\/pochemu-tak-vazhno-soobshhat-soiskatelyu-chto-poshlo-ne-tak-na-sobesedovanii-i-kak-eto-sdelat-pravilno"},"modified":"2020-02-18T14:04:35","modified_gmt":"2020-02-18T11:04:35","slug":"pochemu-tak-vazhno-soobshhat-soiskatelyu-chto-poshlo-ne-tak-na-sobesedovanii-i-kak-eto-sdelat-pravilno","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/news\/pochemu-tak-vazhno-soobshhat-soiskatelyu-chto-poshlo-ne-tak-na-sobesedovanii-i-kak-eto-sdelat-pravilno","title":{"rendered":"Why it is important to inform the candidate what went wrong during the interview (and how to do it correctly)","gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"text"}]},"content":{"rendered":"

One of the most frustrating aspects of technical interviews is that they are a black box. Candidates are only informed whether they have progressed to the next stage, without any details on why that decision was made.<\/p>\n

The lack of feedback or constructive criticism not only frustrates candidates but is also detrimental to businesses. We conducted thorough research on feedback and found that many candidates consistently underestimate or overestimate their skill levels during interviews. Something like this:<\/p>\n

\"Why
\n<\/a><\/noindex>
\nStatistics have shown a clear correlation between a person's confidence in the success of their interview and their desire to continue working with you. In other words, in every interview cycle, some candidates lose interest in the company simply because they believe they performed poorly, even if everything actually went well. This creates a cruel twist: if a person is nervous and suspects they did not do well, they tend to engage in self-blame and to escape this unpleasant state, they start to rationalize and convince themselves that they weren't really that eager to get the job anyway.<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Practically speaking, timely feedback to successful candidates can work wonders, significantly increasing the number of job vacancies filled.<\/b><\/p>\n

Furthermore, in addition to increasing the likelihood of attracting successful candidates to your team right now, feedback is crucial in maintaining relationships with candidates you aren't ready to hire immediately. However, this same candidate may fill a critical vacancy in six months. The results of technical interviews are extremely ambiguous. According to our data, only about 25% of job seekers consistently pass through all stages from one interview to the next. Why is this important? Because if the results are ambiguous, there is a high probability that a candidate who is not accepted by you today may become a valuable addition to the team later. Therefore, it is in your best interest to establish a good relationship with them now, to shape their professional profile, and to avoid many complications during your next hiring process.<\/p>\n

I think this tweet perfectly captures my feelings about it.<\/p>\n

\"Why
\nGreat teams treat candidate rejections with the same attention as approvals. It's crazy to see people make fatal mistakes, especially concerning young talent. Why? You have no idea how these kids will grow in 18 months. Just to put it in perspective, you just benched Michael Jordan in high school.
\n<\/i><\/p>\n

So, despite the clear benefits of detailed feedback after interviews, why do most companies prefer to delay it or not provide it at all? To understand why everyone who has ever been trained as an interviewer is strongly advised not to give feedback, I conducted a survey among founders, HR managers, recruiters, and employment lawyers (and asked a few questions about the topic on Twitter as well).<\/p>\n

It turns out that feedback is devalued primarily because many companies fear lawsuits on this basis... And because interviewers fear aggressive defensive reactions from potential candidates. Sometimes feedback is overlooked simply because companies deem it unimportant and trivial.<\/p>\n

The sad truth is that hiring practices do not align with modern market realities. The recruiting approaches that are taken for granted today emerged in a world with an excess of candidates and a significant shortage of jobs. This affects every aspect of the process, from unnecessarily lengthy test assignments for candidates to poorly written job descriptions. Naturally, feedback after interviews is no exception. How explains<\/a><\/noindex> Gail Lacob MacDowell, author of 'Cracking the Coding Interview' on Quora:<\/p>\n

Companies are not trying to create the most perfect process for you. They are trying to hire \u2014 ideally efficiently, cheaper, and effectively. This is about their goals, not yours. Maybe when it\u2019s easy they\u2019ll help you too, but really this whole process is about them\u2026 Companies do not believe it helps them to give candidates feedback. Frankly, all they see is downside.<\/p>\n

Translation: \u201cCompanies do not try to create a convenient process for you. They aim to hire employees as efficiently, cheaply, and effectively as possible. It's about their goals and convenience, not yours. Perhaps if it costs them nothing, they might help you, but in reality, the whole process is about them... Companies don\u2019t believe that feedback will help them in any way.\u201d\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

By the way, I used to do the same. Here is a rejection letter I wrote while working as the head of technical recruiting at TrialPay. Looking at it makes me want to go back in time and warn myself against future mistakes.<\/p>\n

\"Why
\nHello. Thank you very much for taking the time to consider the opportunity to collaborate with TrialPay. Unfortunately, we currently do not have any vacancies that match your current skills. We will keep your application on file and contact you if something suitable arises. Thank you once again for your time, and we wish you all the best in your future endeavors.
\n<\/i><\/p>\n

In my opinion, such a written rejection (which is undoubtedly better than remaining silent and leaving someone hanging) can only be excused if you have an infinite stream of disposable candidates. It is completely inappropriate in the modern, new world, where candidates have as much leverage as companies do. However, since HR in the company is primarily tasked with reducing risks and cutting costs (rather than increasing profits, where the goal is, for example, to improve service quality), and also because technical specialists often have many other concerns beyond their job responsibilities, we continue to move forward on autopilot, perpetuating outdated and harmful habits like this one.<\/b><\/p>\n

In such a hiring climate, companies need to shift towards a new approach that gives candidates a new, better interview experience. Is the fear of lawsuits and the associated discomfort justified enough for companies to abandon feedback? Does it make sense to optimize costs this way, out of fear and influence from a few unlucky instances in a climate of severe shortages of qualified technical specialists? Let\u2019s delve into it.<\/p>\n

Is there even a point in fearing potential lawsuits?<\/h2>\n

\nIn analyzing this question and wanting to know how often constructive feedback from a company after an interview (i.e. not \"uh, we didn't hire you because you're a woman\") regarding a rejected candidate led to legal action, I spoke with several labor lawyers and searched for information in Lexis Nexis.<\/p>\n

You know what? NOTHING! SUCH CASES HAVE NEVER HAPPENED. NEVER.<\/h3>\n

\nAs some of my legal contacts noted, many cases are resolved outside of court and getting statistics on them is much more difficult. Nonetheless, in this market, creating a negative impression of the company for the candidate just to protect against something highly unlikely seems at best irrational and at worst destructive.<\/p>\n

What about the candidates' reactions?<\/h2>\n

\nAt some point, I stopped writing banal rejection letters like the aforementioned, but I still adhered to my employer's rules regarding written feedback. Also, as an experiment, I tried giving candidates verbal feedback over the phone.<\/p>\n

By the way, I had an unusual hybrid role at TrialPay. Although the position of \"Head of Technical Recruiting\" entailed quite typical responsibilities for this field, I had to perform an additional unconventional task. Since I had been a software developer beforehand, in order to alleviate the burden on our beleaguered programming team, I served as the first line of defense in technical interviews and conducted around five hundred of them just last year.<\/p>\n

After numerous daily interviews, I became significantly less shy about ending them early if I was clear that the candidate's qualifications did not meet the required level. Do you think ending the interview early led to disappointment on the part of the candidate?<\/p>\n

\"Why
\nIn my experience, providing feedback after the interview was often perceived as an invitation to discussion or, even worse, to an argument. Everyone claims they want feedback after the interview, but that\u2019s not really the case.<\/i><\/p>\n

From my observations, the silence and unwillingness to explain to the candidate what specifically led to the rejection disappoints candidates far more and turns them against you than explaining what went wrong. Certainly, some candidates take a defensive position (and in that case, it's better to politely end the conversation), but others will be willing to listen. constructive<\/b> feedback, and in such cases, it is essential to clearly convey what went wrong, recommend books, point out the candidate's weaknesses, and suggest areas for improvement, such as in LeetCode \u2014 and many will be grateful for it. My personal experience providing detailed feedback was simply amazing. I enjoyed sending books to candidates, and with many of them, I developed strong relationships; some eventually became the first users of interviewing.io a few years later.<\/p>\n

In any case, the best way to avoid negative reactions from candidates is constructive feedback. That's what we'll discuss next.<\/p>\n

So, if feedback doesn't pose serious risks but only benefits, how can we do it right?<\/h2>\n

\nThe launch of interviewing.io was the culmination of my experiments while working at TrialPay. I clearly realized that feedback elicits positive responses from candidates, and in this market reality, that means it is beneficial for companies as well. Nonetheless, we still had to grapple with the irrational fears of potential client companies, such as the notion that most candidates come to interviews with a tape recorder and a lawyer on speed dial.<\/p>\n

To provide context, the interviewing.io portal is a job marketplace. Before moving on to direct contact with employers, specialists can attempt to undergo anonymous interviews and, if successful, unlock our job portal where they can bypass the usual hurdles (submitting online applications, speaking with recruiters or 'talent managers', seeking friends who can refer them) and book actual interviews with companies like Microsoft, Twitter, Coinbase, Twitch, and many others \u2014 often the very next day.<\/p>\n

The main advantage is that both trial and real interviews with employers take place within the interviewing.io ecosystem, and I will explain why this is important.<\/p>\n

Before starting full-scale operations, we spent some time debugging our platform and conducting all necessary tests.<\/p>\n

For trial interviews, our feedback forms looked like this:
\n\"Why
\nThe feedback form filled out by the interviewer.<\/i><\/p>\n

After each trial interview, interviewers fill out the form above. Candidates fill out a similar form rating their interviewer. When both parties complete their forms, they can see each other's responses.<\/p>\n

For those interested, I recommend checking out our examples of trial and real feedback<\/a><\/noindex>. Here\u2019s a screenshot:<\/p>\n

\"Why
\n
\nBy attracting employers, we offered them this format of feedback after the interview and asked them to leave reviews about candidates to help them improve and minimize unpleasant experiences from unsuccessful interviews.<\/p>\n

To our surprise and delight, employers easily left their feedback. As a result, specialists on our platform could see whether they had passed or not, and why specifically that happened, and most importantly \u2014 they received feedback literally a few minutes after the interview ended, avoiding the usual anxiety of waiting and the cycle of self-criticism after the interview. As I mentioned, this increases the likelihood of talented candidates accepting offers.<\/b><\/p>\n

\"Why
\nA real, successful interview with a company on interviewing.io<\/i><\/p>\n

Now, if a candidate fails an interview, they can see the reason and what they need to work on. Perhaps for the first time in the history of interviews.<\/p>\n

\"Why
\nA real, unsuccessful interview with a company on interviewing.io <\/i><\/p>\n

Anonymity makes feedback easier<\/h2>\n

\nOn interviewing.io, interviews are anonymous: the employer knows nothing about the candidate before and during the interview (you can even enable the real-time voice masking feature<\/a><\/noindex>). The candidate's identity is revealed only after a successful interview and after leaving feedback from the employer.<\/p>\n

We emphasize the importance of anonymity, as around 40% of the top candidates on our platform are not white heterosexual men from Western Europe, which leads to bias. Anonymity in interviews significantly reduces the possibility of discrimination based on age, gender, or background. We strive for maximum constructive feedback, meaning the only information required from the employer is how well the candidate performs their duties in the interview. Moreover, while anonymity gives the specialist a fair chance at an excellent job, it also protects the employer \u2014 building a discrimination case based on feedback is much harder when the candidate's identity is unknown to the employer.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, by observing the interview process, we repeatedly saw how anonymity makes individuals more sincere, relaxed, and benevolent, enhancing the quality of interviews for both candidates and employers.<\/p>\n

Implementing feedback practices after interviews in your company<\/h2>\n

\nEven if you do not use our service, based on the facts mentioned above, I highly recommend adopting this technique and providing constructive feedback via email to each candidate, regardless of whether they passed the interview or not.<\/p>\n

Here are some tips on providing constructive feedback:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Clearly inform the candidate that the answer is 'no' if they did not pass the interview. Uncertainty, especially in a stressful situation, causes the most negative feelings. For example: Thank you for applying for our position. Unfortunately, you did not pass the interview.<\/i><\/li>\n
  2. After you have conveyed that the interview was unsuccessful, say something encouraging. Highlight something you appreciated during the interview process \u2014 a response given or how the specialist analyzed the problem \u2014 and share that with the candidate. They will be significantly more receptive to your next words when they feel you are on their side. For example: Even though nothing came of it this time, you really did well with {a, b, and c}, and I believe that in the future, you will start to do even better. Here are a few points to work on.<\/i><\/li>\n
  3. When pointing out mistakes, be specific and constructive. Avoid telling the candidate that they messed everything up and should consider another profession. Highlight specific areas where the person could improve. For example: \u201cRead up on the big 'O'. It may sound intimidating, but it's not difficult and is often asked about in interviews like this one.\u201d Do not say, \u201cyou are stupid and your work experience is stupid and you should be ashamed.\u201d <\/li>\n
  4. Recommend study materials. Is there a book that the candidate should read? If the specialist shows promise but lacks knowledge, it would be wise for you to send them that book.<\/li>\n
  5. If you see that the candidate is continuously developing and you recognize their potential (especially if they take your recommendations and advice!), suggest reaching out to you again in a few months. This way, you will build good relationships with people who, even if they don\u2019t become your employees in the future, will surely speak positively about you. And if their professional level eventually meets the required standards, you will be a preferred employer for them.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \"Why
    \n<\/a><\/noindex><\/p>\n

    Follow our developer on Instagram<\/h3>\n

    \n\"Why<\/a><\/noindex><\/p>\n

    Only registered users can participate in the survey. Please log in<\/a><\/noindex>, please.<\/p>\n

    Do you provide detailed feedback after the interview?<\/h2>\n