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.
seain dublin, Years ago, offices were overstaffed. Managers had secretaries whose true function was to make them feel important as they had direct staff. Today, with offices lean, and most likely filling dozen of spots annually, 2 letters of rejection times dozens is time not available.as the secretary who had nothing to do 90% of the time has been eliminated.
PLus, if corps sent out rejections, those cut before the final round would feel entitled too. Now we are up to 97 letters/emails per opening.
Just not a prudent use of time. I'm glad the OP got closure, but its not possible to provide that with the lean staffing levels necessary today.
Sometimes they screw up the rejection letters. I had a scheduled on-site interview and got a generic reject email the day prior. I quickly called the HR person to confirm the interview and discuss the rejection email.
I was told to ignore the letter - they just filled the original position I had applied for, but there was another similar position they were interviewing me for.
Yep, I was in the top 3 out of 100 applicants and did a sample presentation and several interviews and the lady told me "We don't have time to inform the ones we don't select."
Two people is too many to inform????
need to look at the bigger picture. The above still means 99 didn't make it... for this one position. Assuming they were hiring for 6 positions at that time and each had similar responses. You are now looking at potentially sending out almost 600 rejection letters. Not saying they couldn't have multiple rejection letters based on how far you got... but at some point, it becomes time consuming. Especially when its fairly normal for all communications between the hiring organization and candidates to go through HR.
Again, not defending their actions. Some will send a template letters...others will only respond to those that make it. But just saying that its not just a few letters here and there.
To the OP - I think many have already pointed it out. It's nothing personal. Move on, and hopefully you get what you're after soon enough.
seain dublin, Years ago, offices were overstaffed. Managers had secretaries whose true function was to make them feel important as they had direct staff. Today, with offices lean, and most likely filling dozen of spots annually, 2 letters of rejection times dozens is time not available.as the secretary who had nothing to do 90% of the time has been eliminated.
PLus, if corps sent out rejections, those cut before the final round would feel entitled too. Now we are up to 97 letters/emails per opening.
Just not a prudent use of time. I'm glad the OP got closure, but its not possible to provide that with the lean staffing levels necessary today.
Bob, in this scenario mentioned it involved sending out two e-mails.
That takes less than 2 minutes. It's a sign of the times and bad manners.
need to look at the bigger picture. The above still means 99 didn't make it... for this one position. Assuming they were hiring for 6 positions at that time and each had similar responses. You are now looking at potentially sending out almost 600 rejection letters. Not saying they couldn't have multiple rejection letters based on how far you got... but at some point, it becomes time consuming. Especially when its fairly normal for all communications between the hiring organization and candidates to go through HR.
Again, not defending their actions. Some will send a template letters...others will only respond to those that make it. But just saying that its not just a few letters here and there.
To the OP - I think many have already pointed it out. It's nothing personal. Move on, and hopefully you get what you're after soon enough.
Not all 100 applicants were interviewed. You don't need to send rejection e-mails to people who haven't even been seen.
But when someone comes in for 2 and 3 interviews, it is basic common courtersy to just let them know their status.
A quick e-mail which takes very little time is appropriate.
Not all 100 applicants were interviewed. You don't need to send rejection e-mails to people who haven't even been seen.
But when someone comes in for 2 and 3 interviews, it is basic common courtersy to just let them know their status.
A quick e-mail which takes very little time is appropriate.
I just want to add a fact that the group has 8 personnel and 1 Administrative Assistant. I communicated with the Assistant throughout the hiring process from phone calls to the meet and greet. The Assistant had plenty of time to call or send me a personalize email.
seain, 2 or 3 might have gone to ALL interviews, but 25-30 might have gone to 1 interview. They invested time, too.
Sending emails is a slippery slope; you seem to think the 2 or 3 are owed one. Next, someone rejected in the round of 25-30 interviewed expects one. Multiply that hundreds of times per year, and its time not available.
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.
