On Careers

Why Companies Don't Respond to Job Seekers

By Alison Green

Posted: November 10, 2008

One of the biggest complaints I hear from job seekers who write to me at Ask a Manager is about companies that don't respond to job applicants: no rejection, nothing.

There's a real divide on the issue. Job seekers think it's incredibly rude, while many companies feel perfectly justified in not putting resources into dealing with candidates they're no longer interested in hiring.

Personally, I think it's inexcusable—throughout the hiring process but particularly after a company has engaged with an applicant in some way, like a phone interview or an in-person interview. It's callous and dismissive and lacks any appreciation for the fact that the candidate is anxiously waiting to hear an answer—any answer—and keeps waiting and waiting, long after a decision has been made.

Some companies defend this practice by claiming they couldn't possibly find time to respond to all the tens of thousands of applications they get. I call BS on that. Have an intern send out a form letter by E-mail. It's fast, and it's free. If your company is so large—and thus your applicant pool so mammoth—that an intern would be overwhelmed by the project, then you're large enough that you're probably using some kind of database to track applicants. Use it to E-mail them a rejection, too.

But if nothing else, employers have an obligation to warn candidates that they may not hear anything: If you're committed to being rude, at least state clearly on your website that you won't get in touch unless you're interested in talking more with an applicant, so that at least people know what to expect.

And for the record, my organization makes a point of responding (often with a form letter, granted, but it's a response) to each and every applicant who approaches us. I am amazed by the number of rejected candidates who E-mail us back to thank us for simply letting them know they are out of the running. Goodwill isn't a bad thing to generate among people we might want to hire in the future, to say nothing of it simply being the right thing to do.

Alison Green is chief of staff for a medium-size d nonprofit where she oversees day-to-day management of the staff as well as hiring, firing, and staff development. She is working with the Management Center to coauthor a book on nonprofit management. Her writings have been published in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Maxim, and dozens of other newspapers. She blogs at Ask a Manager.

Applicant Response

I'm sorry, but I would have to disagree here. Considering the amount of resumes we receive, I can't imagine how a company that cannot afford (or does not buy into the value of) a resume management system, could handle responding to every single resume. We do have an automated response saying that we received the person's resume, but I have worked in companies that don't, and we would have had to hire a full-time person to simply send "we received your resume" letters/e-mails for 40 hours/week if we had to respond to every single one.

In addition, it's true that 90% of the resumes we receive do not even meet our posted qualifications, they are just applying to "see what happens". (Let's be honest, nothing will happen if you don't meet the minimum qualifications)

For those people who we have contacted, interviewed, etc., there is a different standard of response required of course.

Just another HR lady... @ Jan 02, 2009 10:10:17 AM

Wait a second here...

Lest we forget about all the crazy people who apply to jobs they're completely unqualified for. If you don't meet the qualifications, that I've spent the time to outline and paid money to post, I refuse to further waste my time to tell an applicant that they didn't read the job post, or that the job does not allow for telecommuting, or that their request for a six figure salary as an admin is insane. If I have personal contact with a candidate (phone screen, interview, etc) I'll always follow up. Why? Well, those are generally the candidates who met the minimum requirements.

But on the occasional instances that I have contacted applicants to tell them that they are not a match for our current needs, they tend to write back asking for specifics (How can I not be!!). Do you really want to hear that you mispelled my company's name in your cover letter, or perhaps, forgot to follow the application instructions? I simply don't have time for that kind of ignorance. Perhaps that makes me a "meanie," but if you weren't contacted at all, it's generally because you didn't meet the minimums. Perhaps you forgot a cover letter, maybe it's because you made no mention of the position you were applying for...who knows, the list is endless. But to expect a company to respond to thousands of applicants (90% of whom are not qualified) is ridiculous.

Frustrated recruiter. of NY @ Nov 11, 2008 16:35:41 PM

If the applicant follows up on his or her resume submission ...

... with an e-mail or phone call, for instance, that may be the trigger that would obligate me - as a matter of courtesy - to follow up if I were to decide to not consider the person for the job. But if I see a potential fit for another position, it would be my responsibility to keep the applicant in mind.

On the other hand, simply sending a resume and not following up is like saying you're not *that* interested in the job. Having said that, I've sent resumes to a few organizations, never followed up, and received kind rejection letters in return months later - and it left me wondering what job I applied for because I lost interest. Yet I appreciated the professionalism in sending a letter.

Rick of MA @ Nov 11, 2008 12:51:27 PM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

On Careers

On Careers

Find savvy job advice from the brains behind top careers blogs, including Jobacle, Ask a Manager, What Would Dad Say, Newly Corporate, Cheezhead, Evil HR Lady, The M.A.P. Maker and Execupundit.

advertisement

advertisement

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!