Do you think job application feedbacks for denied applications should be made mandatory?
Posted by Cautious-Cow-3526@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 59 comments
I think the UK government needs to make it mandatory for employers to provide thoughout non generic feedback as to why they denied job apps.
Lets say If I was eager to work at "Goldman Sachs" I would wanna know why my app got declined. It's effective to know whethere I need to build more skills, or take on some specific projects to be more competitive. Hell I might just get another degree.
But if we're getting no feedback and they're fast-tracking the rejection process with ATS how then are we to compete.
I'm interested to know what others think though.
d3ad-and-buri3d@reddit
Yes because why tf was I rejected from card factory
NewtRider@reddit
Feedback for those who got to the final stages and failed would be good. But feedback for applications that didn't get past round 1 ... No.
The amount of work and time for that would be insanely bad
wheresmyhat8@reddit
Probably gonna get downvoted for this, but I'm a team manager at a tech startup, so I do a fair bit of hiring, and unfortunately, this just isn't practical. I had 257 applications for one of my open roles recently. That was one of 5 jobs I have open at the same time. Hiring is only one part of my job. I literally don't have time to write individual feedback for each application I get.
I have 2 rules to deal with this in as fair a way as I feasibly ca: 1) when I'm doing an initial CV screen, I group applications into rejection reasons and send a generic but at least reasoned rejection per group (of course sent individually). 2) the time i invest is proportional to the time I ask them to invest. Anyone who I bring forward to speak with gets personalised rejection at that stage with feedback as to why we don't move forward. Anyone who gets as far as our take home assessment gets detailed feedback from their assessment panel.
Tbh It would be less of a problem if people actually evaluated themselves against the criteria in the job spec so there was less to filter through. I would say 75% are desk rejects because they're nowhere close to the requirements. Each still takes a couple of mins to review and that's time I could otherwise dedicate to writing feedback.
MmmThisISaTastyBurgr@reddit
This sounds totally fair, tbh. Sorry about all the time wasters.
niteninja1@reddit
no.
because sometimes jobs get 1000s of applicants. you’ll just create a industry of people providing feedback
MmmThisISaTastyBurgr@reddit
Loads of people here are complaining about being inundated with applications that don't meet the basic criteria. If that's the bulk of your applications, all you need to do is send a blanket email rejection stating does not meet minimum criteria: visa/qualifications.
That's as hard as hitting reply-paste-send and could very easily be automated into a list to make it even quicker.
Save any more detailed feedback for the candidates that make it through the basic sift, which will be a much smaller group. "Shortlisted candidates had X years of experience in this or similar role" is the obvious one. It's not hard to set out your basic criteria in a short email and, again, this could be automated.
All people are asking for is their effort to be acknowledged and, ideally, to get some constructive feedback. If you have opened applications for a job, you should be expected to respond to those applying. It's lazy and unprofessional to ghost applicants and I do think we do need to force hirers to do it, as it's clearly not something they can be bothered with otherwise.
kingsindian9@reddit
Also if this law was passed, youd just get some mass produced waffle thats cookie cutter.
salmonboy5@reddit
exactly, any "feedback" i've been given has just been from a template anyway.
wreckinballbob@reddit
Agreed individual feedback when there are 100+ applicants might be a bit much but a simple, we won't be taking your application further email wouldn't be beyond reasonable.
fernofry@reddit
Exactly. I dread having to rehire anyone already, it eats up my entire work time. 95% if applications are basically spam because people are desperate or want sponsorship when I can't offer it
insomnimax_99@reddit
And then 1000s of libel cases.
BitterOtter@reddit
Absolutely this.
violettkidd@reddit
well, then there'd be some more jobs at least
OneCheesecake1516@reddit
No as a former Head of HR most HR departments already have enough on their plates and besides that it is doubtful you will get to hear the truth. A lot like exit exit interviews very few times does the leaver ever tells the truth as to why they are leaving.
Puelc@reddit
Ex headhunter here: no to government legislating. If anything, it will create more red tape etc. Businesses are drowning under the stuff which is impacting the job market. So the less red tape and bureaucracy, the better.
That said:where possible, all companies should provide feedback. Especially if the candidate has come for interview. And I personally would support a form of business “best practice”/ code of ethics / framework all can adhere to.
Sorry for long answer but this was a huge bug bear for me in my job. If any employers read this and it helps candidates, I’m happy!
A number of reasons feedback is important (not exhaustive list):
- it protects your employer brand. Candidates do research companies (Glassdoor etc) and companies with poor interview processes are flagged. Companies with poor hiring practices do eventually lose out on top talent;
- it keeps the door open: both in the sense that the candidate not being right today does not mean they won’t be tomorrow. Or be a client in the future or a potential source of business / candidates;
- professional courtesy: the candidate has put in time and effort. It costs nothing to show appreciation;
- I have experienced situations it protected us and the clients from accusations of discrimination;
- it helps the reflection process: are you applying for the right jobs and is the client looking for the right candidate;
- lastly but certainly NOT least: if you care about candidates and talent, you want them to succeed, even somewhere else. One way to help is to share learnings. Especially in this tough job market
Sometimes you can’t though: volume of applicants; or the feedback is unprofessional / incomplete/ inconsistent/ other.
PS: as a professional recruiter, I hate HATE ATS systems. In theory they are brilliant. It reality, the AI is flawed, the teams are not trained, …. Until they improve, they only benefit the lazy.
Good luck with your search! It’s tough out there and I recognise how soul destroying it is. Hang in there!
mdzmdz@reddit
No.
In our current recruitment round we had over 400 applications. I don't have time to write 400 lots off feedback - but also my initial sift isn't going to be that in-depth, and may reflect my personal taste.
There is perhaps a need/market for more or better assistance in applying for jobs. One example is that in IT "someone" is telling candidates they need to have a GitHub, LinkedIn, etc. on their CVs but if you actually check they're often blank, which puts the candidate at more of a disadvantage than had they not included it.
StarShipYear@reddit
No, but you're onto something. I think it would be better to make feedback mandatory depending on the effort required during the application. For example, if the application itself requires something like various rounds of online questions, long form input and so on, then it should be a requirement. Likewise, first round interviews/tests should require a higher level of feedback, and so on. So for example, if it's just a case of uploading your CV, that would not require feedback if it's rejected, because the time spent by the candidate is minimal.
Jassida@reddit
There should definitely be a way for candidates who tick all the boxes on paper to be assured an interview and feedback
If the requirements are let’s say, working in a certain industry doing a certain role for a certain amount of time with the right qualifications, software experience and location, you should definitely get an interview and only not get the job if you are outperformed in a measurable way or are late, show poor attitude etc.
This can never be implemented of course but I can dream
liseusester@reddit
I mean, this is basically impossible. Last time I had a role out I got 80 applications and then asked HR to close it on the portal. I will do feedback on request if people didn't succeed at interview, because that's manageable.
However, I kind of want this to happen because I would really love to contact applicants with feedback like "please run this through spell check", "please at least try to answer the question", "please don't use examples of how you've handled a difficult situation that are wildly racist/sexist/homophobic [once all three!]", "please don't say you want a job that will be low stress because you need to devote your time to homeschooling your children", etc etc etc. I think it would be very pleasing for me.
Sustainable_Twat@reddit
Denied Applications - No
Failed Interviews - Yes
BBMcGruff@reddit
As others have said, it would be impossible and could easily sink smaller People/Talent teams.
But considering the embedding of AI in ATS services these days, automatic AI feedback on screening/flagging should be easily possibly. Not great by any means, but it would be something more individual at least.
For larger jobs with multiple phases of interviews etc, personal feedback isn't unusual.
mudual@reddit
I have managed to get feedback in a roundabout way by asking for a DSARS to get the information from the interview. Although depending on the company, they may redact some information.
sockhead99@reddit
Only if we can use AI to write it like 95% of the candidates did when they applied.
AnnieByniaeth@reddit
Whether there should be legally or not, it's a good idea to give feedback. If people feel snubbed, they are less likely to want to do business with you again. And they're more likely to tell their mates about their experience, which will also give a negative impression to them about the organisation.
Obviously this doesn't always apply (eg it's difficult to avoid the NHS or your county council).
I read an article about this 15 years or so ago, and it's very true. It should be standard business practice.
FishermanWorking7236@reddit
I disagree, with the advent of online and especially one-click applications it’s common to get very literally hundreds of applications to a single position. I don’t mind giving feedback to people that made it to interview, expecting personalised feedback for 300 people is an insane expectation.
Striking-Two-746@reddit
Not feasible! I used to screen 75 software engineers per day, as well as check on interview feedback for others to either move them forward, or reject. They did get real time feedback at the coding challenge stage. If people make it all the way to the final round, they deserve feedback, but even then, it’s usually as simple as, you were fantastic and would be a great fit but the other person was marginally better. Big tech companies especially would literally have to hire a whole extra team for recruitment just to have the bandwidth to provide feedback.
As a candidate, it makes more sense just to research how others are standing out or really think outside the box about how you can. Job searching is way harder than having a job, sadly! It’s very much an employers market.
navagon@reddit
No. Vacancies getting 3 figure applications is now the norm. That said people they've interviewed certainly deserve to know the outcome. Even then I don't really see how you make that mandatory as the candidate is not subject to employee rights.
Euphoric_Rough_5245@reddit
I don’t think they should be mandatory. But if you’ve interviewed at a small company I don’t think it’s unreasonable to phone or email asking for feedback.
buy_me_a_pint@reddit
When my Grandad was hiring years ago , before he sold the business, became ill and passed away in 2024
Him and is team made an effort of replying back to every application , including those which came from those on those job centre courses (I think it was New Deal or Flexible New Deal)
sihasihasi@reddit
Only if it's made mandatory that people applying for jobs must be qualified and capable
KonkeyDongPrime@reddit
I do this as a matter of principle for all applications. Even ones when I’m not obliged like applicants without a valid visa.
Aromatic_Tourist4676@reddit
We regret to inform you that AI has not submitted your CV because you have met the specified job requirements and we are not interested in the skills you as a person bring beyond the expected qualifications even though you’d likely bring something fresh that the company is desperate for.
caffeinated_photo@reddit
At the initial application stage, no. But after an interview, when numbers are much smaller, yeah, I think they should.
I'm contemplating going back to employment from self-employment and I had an interview recently, I was turned down but the 15 mins of feedback was very useful.
Proper_Emu_2296@reddit
Would you like your taxes to be used on this for public sector employers at least? As you would absolutely need to employ more people just to do this. 300-400 applications per role is not unusual.
T_raltixx@reddit
It'll just be a generic letter from a template in most cases.
JakeBees@reddit
No but I think etiquette needs to get better around this. Recently had an interview through a recruiter who was put me forward for a couple of moderately senior roles. Last one I was one of only 2 applicants. The first applicant had been rejected. I had my interview and didn’t have high hopes as it wasn’t really the right role for me but the recruiter had insisted I should try.
The interview went reasonably well.
That was a month ago. No feedback, no rejection, no follow up… from a recruiter who invited me to apply.
Next time they refer me for a role I will find it online and apply directly. I certainly won’t be using them if I have any roles to fill.
JakeBees@reddit
To actually answer your question. No it shouldn’t be mandatory but I think as a curtesy they should let you know of they’re not taking your application forward even if this a template rejection. If you’ve been interviewed they absolutely should let you know they’re not progressing. Second stage and beyond I’d expect some level of feedback proportionate to the level of the role and the extent of the hoops they’ve had you jump through
mattymattymatty96@reddit
Unfortunately you didnt have friends/family in the right places
Powerful-Comment-113@reddit
No way. We give feedback to those who were unsuccessful at interview IF they ask for it, but giving feedback to every application received would be impossible.
Additional-Guard-211@reddit
I work for a LA, and I have been on the other side, and whilst this doesnt sound like you, we got people sending blank/ very low effort application forms, people applying for roles they clearly cannot do, and at worst i know colleagues who will have applicants who apply for roles like social work roles when they don’t have the degree or registration- a requirement set in legislation. I haven’t done it for a bit, but i would imagine there are plenty of application written by AI that are gibberish and clearly not been checked. So at least, maybe meaningful feedback, but proportionate to application made. This would require records and policing, so i don’t think it would happen.
Vladamir_pootinn@reddit
Not for applications but I would agree that if you get called for an interview you should get feedback. This would stop company’s holding interview processes with 100 people with only 2 job openings… it might make them actually read the CVs before accepting
WelshBen@reddit
We don't need more red tape fucking with efficiency and customer service budgets.
Physical-Bear2156@reddit
No way.
Small firms can get 1000s of applications for some desirable jobs.
EvilTaffyapple@reddit
No.
When I worked in Recruitment for a council we would frequently get 2000+ applications for basic roles. A lot of these had no right to work in the UK, or didn’t have the minimum criteria set out in the advert.
No business is going to reply back to someone who hasn’t met the basic criteria of a role.
Sixforsilver7for@reddit
Feedback should be mandatory following interviews but if I had to provide feedback for the 100+ “applications” for the last role I advertised when they barely even added basic details about previous roles then I wouldn’t be able to do my job.
BronxOh@reddit
I’d say post 1st interview, yes. After an application, no.
My place had 300 applications for 1 job and they couldn’t give feedback to all of them.
littleboo2theboo@reddit
Absolutely not
grumpyaskate@reddit
Some jobs get hundreds of applications that are just auto applying and aren't nearly qualified. Loads of people just apply for the sake of it. It would take employers literally thousands of extra hours to provide such feedback when it's usually going to be "someone has more relevant experience and/or qualifications than you".
Most good employers provide feedback if you made it to interview stage so are at least well suited to the job on paper, if not automatically then by request.
these_metal_hands@reddit
No.
Frankly I think it's a stupid idea to legally mandate something like this.
If I was pissed of with a company I would just fire off a thousand applications to each of their open roles to completely bury them in paper work.
another_awkward_brit@reddit
No.
I work for a moderate sized CS agency. We get well over a thousand applications for every vacancy of a particular position. Giving feedback (more than is already given on CS jobs, which is basically a score against the measured criteria) to every single declined application would take a collosal amount of time and take a huge amount of staff away from frontline work.
WiseBelt8935@reddit
It would be nice, but I don’t see a realistic way of doing it. With the number of job postings and people applying, it just devolves into a pure numbers game. The most likely reason it got declined was that you were unlucky.
Worse, what if they give you feedback that cuts deep? I remember I got some from a manufacturing company, and my god, it hurt it honestly made me want to give up
Serberou5@reddit
No it would be impossible. I recruited for a 16 hour retail position and got 560 applicants within 24 hours it wouldnt be feasible in the slightest to feedback them all.
banwe11@reddit
You've clearly never advertised a job and had to sift through the hundreds of nonsense applications. Providing feedback to everyone is unfeasible and would cost a lot of time/money.
LilacScentedStoat@reddit
Impractical.
If you've ever worked in a position that takes applications and looks at CVs etc.
Even 15 years ago, we'd get 100+ applications for each position.
To type out a thorough reasoning as to why we said no, it'd have taken way too long.
Though I do think companies should at least send a generic "sorry" over not sending anything at all.
DiscoDoberman@reddit
Have you ever hired before?
It's an exhausting, very time-consuming process.
Some jobs get 100s of applications.
No, they don't have time to give everyone personalised feedback. If you want it - ask, but don't expect a response or a useful one.
Different if you did 2-3 rounds of interviews, then I think individual feedback would be a more reasonable request.
If you're getting denied for lots of similar jobs try talking to a manager or recruiter in the industry to get feedback, see what they look for.
QueSeRawrSeRawr@reddit
Absolutely, the amount of effort people put into job applications it's the least they can do. Surely they have to record the comments and reasoning anyway so it should be right there to provide.
OsitaHunter5168@reddit
I think so much of it would be something like “we’ve gone with a more qualified/experienced candidate” and no more.
transliorights@reddit
Unfortunately I think this is probably what would happen - they would copy and paste the same thing and say it was non generic. If they can lie when you ask them stuff they'll lie if they're made to respond.
AutoModerator@reddit
Please help keep AskUK welcoming!
When replying to submission/post please make genuine efforts to answer the question given. Please no jokes, judgements, etc. If a post is marked 'Serious Answers Only' you may receive a ban for violating this rule.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.