Posted

remote-working-concept

A common criticism from interviewers is that they don’t receive any feedback following their interviews.

Not so long ago, things were different. Giving applicants feedback and criticism has long been part of the usual procedure for interviews. The hiring manager or HR expert would be courteous in letting the applicants know what they did well and what they need to work on.

The input was offered with the best of intentions, and it was given without any strings attached. With regards to the candidate’s skill set, relevance of their past, and performance during the interview, the guidance would include some good features and constructive critiques. If the applicant was invited back for extra interviews, this would be highly beneficial and productive. Job seekers who aren’t selected will receive feedback on how to improve their performance in future interviews. The contenders could use this critical information and constructive criticism to their advantage in the competition.

Candidate self-assessment is critical in order to ensure that they are presenting themselves in the most favorable light. It’s like having a personal baseball hitting instructor to help you fine-tune your swing. Even if his suggestions aren’t always constructive, the end goal is to improve your baseball skills.

Unfortunately, due to the passage of time, this no longer holds true. In today’s job market, it’s rare to get any feedback at all. In general, there is little to no constructive criticism or feedback available. If you’re rejected from the interview process, you’re unlikely to receive a letter of rejection or any explanation from the employer as to why.

Nothing is pleasant or decent nowadays. Human resources will only contact you if they intend to proceed with your application; otherwise, you may expect to hear nothing.

What causes this to happen is explained here.

There Is Way Too Much Information

Job boards, job sites (such as Indeed, Glassdoor, and BlueRecruit), Google for Jobs, and corporate career portals have all proliferated rapidly. All of us carry around a smartphone with us at all times because of the widespread availability of job postings. This combination simplifies the process of looking for work and submitting an application. Many job searchers submit their résumés for a big number of positions, many of which they are unsuited for, but nevertheless want to give it a try.

Talent acquisition and HR professionals are inundated with résumés every day. It’s impossible to keep up, even with the applicant tracking systems that businesses have. The organization will be unable to respond to everyone who sends a resume. Your resume or application may receive a scripted email response, but that’s about it. Don’t expect to learn much about whether or not you’re a good fit for the position or organization from this interview.

Worry about Legal Actions

In today’s litigious society, employers are wary of saying anything that could be seen in a negative light to potential employees. Employers worry that providing negative comments to applicants may be construed as a form of discrimination.

Sexist, ageist, racist or any other type of discrimination might arise from seemingly innocuous comments made by interviewers. When it comes to costly and time-consuming litigation, corporate executives are on edge.

A social media backlash could result from something a worker said to a candidate, too. In order for a company’s reputation to be irreversibly damaged, all it takes is one disgruntled employee to post their fury on social media. The company’s legal and public relations teams prefer that customers refrain from providing criticism.

Holding Up

Executives in companies believe that there is a surplus of qualified individuals available. As a result, they incorrectly believe that if the HR department waits any longer, they will finally come up with a better candidate at a lower price.

Keeping you on the edge of your seat is what they’ll do. Because you’re still in the running, the corporation won’t give you a response about your candidacy or critique it because they’re secretly holding out for a better candidate. In order to keep you in the race, they don’t want to say anything that would cause you to drop out of the running. This is also a major factor in the length of some interviews.

HR departments have been slashed

Human resources, which does not generate revenue, was particularly hard hit by the financial crisis. Human resources (HR) professionals at the senior level, who were paid more, lost their jobs and were replaced by those at lower levels.

Many HR professionals have also been replaced by technology. As a result, HR departments now have fewer people to deal with a greater volume of work. Because of their busy schedules, they are unable to react to your inquiries and provide an honest appraisal of your abilities.

New Standards

As a result, the present generation of HR professionals only knows how to operate in the new, feedback-free environment. This is a generalization, but many young professionals are reluctant to call potential employees and share bad news with them. In the same vein, they find it difficult to notify a job applicant they have been passed over in a one-on-one conversation.

Outsourcing to a Third Party

Outsourcing recruiting functions to third-party providers has become a common practice for businesses. Many different companies use this HR approach, which uses mercenary recruiters who work for a different firms. Typically, these are short-term positions. As you might imagine, these recruiters aren’t interested in delivering feedback to prospects because they’ll be moving on in a few months and won’t have time to do so.

Rudeness

The fact that we live in a time when people are not very kind to one another should come as no surprise to you. Being disrespectful and ignoring candidates has become the norm.

In a competitive labor market, employers complain that they can’t find qualified candidates for their open positions. sarcastic and tone-deaf since their own actions of refusing feedback alienate, discourage, and dissuade potential applicants from applying