Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i think it's great that you can have empathy for the woman, and i think this is a perfect example of why the "if you get rejected, it's a problem with YOU" attitude can be harmful. certainly people should always be looking for ways to improve as candidates, and in this case the candidate had a clear-cut reason why she wasn't selected. but it's also a fact that the numbers are against you, and qualified people do get rejected without even a phone screen, let alone later in the process. accepting that can make rejection easier to take, and lessen the chances of the frustration building up til you lose it and freak out on a hiring manager, which is never a good idea.
like, i'm a finalist for a job right now, and i'm waiting to hear back from them. i know they really like me, all of my references have said they sound really interested in me. i feel like my chances are good. but i don't know who my competition is. if i get rejected, i'll be upset, and i'll evaluate myself and maybe ask for feedback (realizing i may not get it) to see if there was anything i could have done differently. but in the end i'll do my best to not take it personally. i know i'm a great candidate for this position. but that doesn't mean there isn't someone else just as good or better out there.
You can look at it in multiple ways. Yours is one and it is healthy especially given you have some evidence that you are a quality candidate via actually getting interviewed. You can also be confidently delusional, perhaps like this woman is since she thinks she meets the criteria, yet she OP says she deficient according to her resume. Thinking there's a problem with you when there's not, can be problematic, but it's nowhere near as problematic as thinking there's nothing wrong with you when there is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seain dublin
Why have empathy for the woman? She didn't get selected for an interview, she didn't put the time and energy into the interview and than never hear back.
She took a few minutes and emailed her resume and I assume a cover letter, and got a form letter back stating she wasn't what they were looking for. She should be lucky she even heard back from them. That is unheard of these days, that just sending in a resume gets you any feedback.
There are people posting on here who go on 2 and even 3 interviews for a position, and than never hear back. Or travel a long distance and never hear back.
She has no reason to be angry or needs any empathy. She probably spent less than 5 minutes sending off this resume/cover letter.
IMO it sounds like she is looking to file a lawsuit against this company, which is why she contacted the OP by email. She was hoping something in the response would have her running to a lawyer.
If she was that upset she would have called, she was trying to trap them by sending the email. The OP was smart to ignore her and turn it over to HR.
Empathize - To understand and share the feelings of another".
I have applied for jobs for which I (correctly or not) felt that I satisfied every single requirement. I received the standard rejection letter, and I was in disbelief wondering what the gap could possibly have been; therefore, I empathize with her because I understand what it feels like to be in her situation. I hope you understand that empathizing with her and agreeing with her actions are two different things. Like Chris Rock re: OJ: "Now I'm not saying he shoulda killed her.....but I understand".
We have no idea if she called or not, and we have no idea as to her true motivation for emailing OP, but I believe I was very clear that he notify HR about the incident....another reason I don't understand why you think I agree with the woman's actions.
Cowherjaw, thanks I know what empathy means...LOL.
The OP was very detailed in their posts, if the woman had called they would have mentioned that. They said they didn't even know who she was, so there was no phone call.
At least she heard back from them, as I stated earlier that is not the norm these days, and certainly not for someone who didn't even interview.
I have "empathy" for people who take the time and effort who get dressed up, go on an interview, sometimes two or more interviews and than aren't even given the common courtesy of whether they got the job or not.
I along with others suspect she sent the email because she is angry and is now hoping to "trap" the company into some type of discrimination suit. She is hoping to get something back in writing to use against them. No, we don't know that for sure, but it is very possible.
We had a job open. HR sent us a group of pre-screened resumes. We interviewed and made our pick. The candidate is excellent.
Today I got an email from someone I never heard of (how they found me I am still investigating) disputing the form letter HR sent them last week saying that they didn't have the qualifications we were looking for. This woman sent me a very vehement email saying she wanted "specific details of the process and factors that prevented (her) resume from being referred (to me)" and that "I DISAGREE with the statement in the email sent to me that I am not qualified for your position. My goal is to secure an interview with your company."
I asked for her resume and took a look but she is missing 2 out of the 5 things we stated we were looking for. I am floored by the gall of this woman. We had over 100 applicants for this job. I had a 18 excellent resumes forwarded to me. This woman would not have made that cut if I or anyone on our team were looking at her credentials. She just doesn't have it.
Has anyone ever behaved in this way? I have no intention of interviewing this person and frankly if I see her name again, I will put her application in the trash. How on earth could anyone think these sorts of rude demands could lead to a job?
You are being too harsh, the best way to deal with that is to give her a reality check. Not in a rude way but just tell her how in her resume she isn't qualified SPECIFICALLY BY HIGHLIGHTING the areas she is not qualified in. I don't see what is wrong with someone wanting to know why they were not hired. She probably did not realize the 2 parts she is not qualified in
Cowherjaw, thanks I know what empathy means...LOL.
The OP was very detailed in their posts, if the woman had called they would have mentioned that. They said they didn't even know who she was, so there was no phone call.
At least she heard back from them, as I stated earlier that is not the norm these days, and certainly not for someone who didn't even interview.
I have "empathy" for people who take the time and effort who get dressed up, go on an interview, sometimes two or more interviews and than aren't even given the common courtesy of whether they got the job or not.
I along with others suspect she sent the email because she is angry and is now hoping to "trap" the company into some type of discrimination suit. She is hoping to get something back in writing to use against them. No, we don't know that for sure, but it is very possible.
The OP stated he has no idea how this lady got his email/information. Why you automatically assume she didn't call some general number or another employee at the firm that she may know, I am not sure.
You and I just have different cut-off levels for empathy I guess. I'm not arguing right or wrong because there is none. You didn't understand how I could have empathy for her. I tried to explain. If it doesn't meet your standard for being empathy-worthy, oh well. I understand your position, and now you understand mine. I am actually someone who made it to the final round interviews with senior executives and didn't get a call nor an email indicating anything about the position, so you actually empathize with me.
I also don't understand why you keep arguing about the trap and litigate position with me. I probably have the most strongly worded message to the OP telling him to disclose the whole situation to HR so he can protect himself and company.
we are moving into a different direction. the EEOC is moving out of the back of the officer where they used to deal with employees and now moving to the front of the office where they do the hiring.
2 basic questions. are u hiring, why are u not hiring me.
Just to clear up a point of contention-- she did not call me. She emailed me.
As a HM in a very sought after and competitive industry, I certainly understand what it is like to want to break in. I worked for years trying to get a foot in the door. I know it can be harsh. I am not attempting to add to that harshness. But we do have a very competent HR staff who screens well and sends me the candidates who make the cut. We define clearly our needs and list them on announcements. Some roles are very technical and have a need for the ability to operate certain equipment or hold certifications. Others are more consultative and soft-skill oriented. This particular job was technical. The candidate's resume was lacking the information our HR team was looking for.
Its not cost effective to tell every single applicant why they were not selected. If orgs did that, they would do nothing else. A form letter is usually sent. If a candidate refuses to read the announcement or pay attention to the screening criteria its my feeling that it is on him/her to do their own research and draw conclusions as to why they weren't interviewed. If they truly don't understand, they can call HR. Not me.
Its not cost effective to tell every single applicant why they were not selected. If orgs did that, they would do nothing else. A form letter is usually sent. If a candidate refuses to read the announcement or pay attention to the screening criteria its my feeling that it is on him/her to do their own research and draw conclusions as to why they weren't interviewed. If they truly don't understand, they can call HR. Not me.
well said. i think your company should be commended for even letting applicants who didn't interview know that they were rejected. that's rare.
and it's true that in this case, the information she needs to see why she was rejected is available to her. she doesn't need to have her hand held.
I work in the film industry and the job in question is a highly technical one. EVERYONE wants to break in. I understand being aggressive. But this is rude and demanding, entitled even. What makes her think she is any different than the 80 odd other candidates who were rejected? Why should I take time out of my day to assuage her ego? Research her resume? Reconstruct the hiring process?
Its a tough old world out there. You get more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Rude and demanding, in the entertainment industry. We can't have that.
Let's us know if you do find out how she was able to contact you. An applicant does want to make a good first impression and it's seems she did cross the line in being overly aggressive.
Still I understand why she might want to know where she is lacking on her resume. It can be frustrating not knowing why you were rejected.
Today I got an email from someone I never heard of (how they found me I am still investigating) disputing the form letter HR sent them last week saying that they didn't have the qualifications we were looking for. This woman sent me a very vehement email saying she wanted "specific details of the process and factors that prevented (her) resume from being referred (to me)" and that "I DISAGREE with the statement in the email sent to me that I am not qualified for your position. My goal is to secure an interview with your company."
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatisthedealwith
As a HM in a very sought after and competitive industry, I certainly understand what it is like to want to break in. I worked for years trying to get a foot in the door. I know it can be harsh. I am not attempting to add to that harshness. But we do have a very competent HR staff who screens well and sends me the candidates who make the cut. We define clearly our needs and list them on announcements. Some roles are very technical and have a need for the ability to operate certain equipment or hold certifications. Others are more consultative and soft-skill oriented. This particular job was technical. The candidate's resume was lacking the information our HR team was looking for.
Its not cost effective to tell every single applicant why they were not selected. If orgs did that, they would do nothing else. A form letter is usually sent. If a candidate refuses to read the announcement or pay attention to the screening criteria its my feeling that it is on him/her to do their own research and draw conclusions as to why they weren't interviewed. If they truly don't understand, they can call HR. Not me.
Not to beat this dead, but I partially disagree with the bolded sections and potentially disagree with the cost effective part. I don't know what HR system OP's company uses, but many available today automatically send the rejection form letter as automatically as they send the standard "resume received" form letter. That's not the major point of contention because I have no idea what business rules have been programmed into their recruiting system but the notion that it is expensive time-consuming or cost-prohibitive shouldn't be assumed.
As far as the bolded components go, if those statements are all true. then your HR needs to revise its form letter. If you specifically tell a candidate that they do not meet qualifications, then they probably have a right to ask for those specifics. This is why most rejection letter simply state that after reviewing your qualifications, that they are pursuing other candidates at this time. Now there is nothing that says that all qualified candidates will be interviewed, but your company puts itself at risk (at least to a nuisance) when they directly state that someone is not qualified.
I get your situation, and people like her are the reason none of us get any helpful, actionable feedback to make us better candidates, but at least entertain the possibility that your company processes and/or templates can be improved to avoid a similar situation in the future.
[quote=cowherjaw;30276577]Not to beat this dead, but I partially disagree with the bolded sections and potentially disagree with the cost effective part. I don't know what HR system OP's company uses, but many available today automatically send the rejection form letter as automatically as they send the standard "resume received" form letter. That's not the major point of contention because I have no idea what business rules have been programmed into their recruiting system but the notion that it is expensive time-consuming or cost-prohibitive shouldn't be assumed.
As far as the bolded components go, if those statements are all true. then your HR needs to revise its form letter. If you specifically tell a candidate that they do not meet qualifications, then they probably have a right to ask for those specifics. This is why most rejection letter simply state that after reviewing your qualifications, that they are pursuing other candidates at this time. Now there is nothing that says that all qualified candidates will be interviewed, but your company puts itself at risk (at least to a nuisance) when they directly state that someone is not qualified.
I get your situation, and people like her are the reason none of us get any helpful, actionable feedback to make us better candidates, but at least entertain the possibility that your company processes and/or templates can be improved to avoid a similar situation in the future.[/quote]
Here is what I notice when I get requests for "helpful actionable feedback":
1. The candidate DID NOT READ the job announcement. ALL of the information someone needs to apply is clearly stated in our announcements. They say what we are looking for, what you need to have to apply, how to submit your application materials and even what NOT to submit, our review process and an estimate of how long it will take for you to hear about whether or not you made the cut. Our announcements are thorough, but not that much different than many other companies out there. When applicants fail to get attention, it is honestly 90% of the time because either they 1) don't read everything or 2) ignore what is clearly stated. Please understand that when you apply to a job, the organization will tell you what they want. If they say "we require these three things" don't think they will make an exception because you have 2.5 of the 3. I can't tell you how much heartache would be saved if people read and believed what they read.
2. The resume is TERRIBLE. Our HR forwards us all the resumes that meet the criteria we post without prejudice to spelling or format. Many HMs will just throw out those that are hard to understand, full of typos or generally unappealing in format.
3. The cover letter is generic. Often, I will see cover letters that mention one of my competitors by name. These packages go in the trash. If you are submitting a cover letter (which managers really don't read all the time, FYI) PLEASE pay attention.
4. People put stupid objectives in their resume. Objectives are old school and no longer valid. Think about it-- if you say OBJECTIVE: To have a rewarding career with room for growth..who doesn't want that? This is silly-- its too vague. Likewise if you say that your objective is a career in digital editing, but you have answered an ad for production accounting, we will say "too bad. This person wants a different kind of position." Objectives are either too broad or too limiting. So they are useless.
It is not a HM's job to give every applicant feedback about how to be a better applicant. Our job is to hire THE BEST applicant FOR OUR POSITION. End of story. There are resume writing services, job coaches and career counselors who can help give general guidance with a job search. Employers are self-interested, not altruistic. Complaining that you did not get a one-on-one debrief after each application is a waste of energy.
Last edited by whatisthedealwith; 07-01-2013 at 10:49 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
