Employers don’t owe job seekers feedback

Hiring is a business solution, not a mentorship program for rejected applicants

Few things frustrate job seekers more than silence.

After submitting dozens of applications, enduring multiple interview rounds and investing hours preparing, many candidates find themselves staring at an inbox that never delivers an answer. When a rejection finally arrives, it’s often a generic email thanking them for their interest and wishing them success elsewhere.

The response is almost always the same:

“I just want feedback.”

It’s a reasonable request. It’s also one employers have little incentive to fulfill.

The problem is that employers don’t view hiring through the same lens as job seekers. Many candidates mistakenly believe hiring is a collaborative process. They believe employers have some responsibility to help unsuccessful applicants understand what went wrong and how they can improve.

Employers see things differently. Hiring exists to solve a business problem. Every interview, assessment and reference check is designed to answer one question: Is this person the right hire?

Once a hiring decision has been made, the employer’s objective has been achieved. Providing feedback to unsuccessful candidates is not part of the process. There are several reasons for that. The first is legal liability.

Employers operate in an increasingly litigious environment. Even well-intentioned feedback can create risk. In Canada, candidates who believe a hiring decision was discriminatory can file complaints with provincial human rights tribunals. Most employers see little upside in saying more than necessary.

Imagine a hiring manager telling a candidate that another applicant demonstrated stronger communication skills, appeared to be a better cultural fit or possessed more relevant experience. What the employer sees as honest feedback, the candidate may interpret as bias, discrimination or unfair treatment.

The issue isn’t whether such claims would succeed. The issue is that employers must spend time, money and resources responding to them. For employers, there is little benefit in providing detailed explanations and considerable risk in doing so.

As a result, many organizations have adopted a simple policy: provide no feedback beyond a standard rejection notice. Silence is not necessarily disrespect. Often, it is risk management.

The second reason feedback rarely happens is that hiring decisions are highly subjective. Job seekers often assume there is a single reason they weren’t hired. In reality, hiring decisions are rarely that straightforward.

One hiring manager may place enormous value on technical expertise. Another may prioritize communication skills. A third may focus heavily on team dynamics or personality fit. Two qualified candidates can interview for the same position and receive completely different evaluations from different interviewers.

In many cases, there isn’t a clear deficiency to identify. Another candidate was simply viewed as the stronger overall choice. Telling a candidate that someone else interviewed better, had a stronger network or seemed like a better fit for the team often provides little actionable insight.

The third reason is simple: most recruiters don’t have time to provide feedback, even if they wanted to. A single posting can attract hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of applicants.

Providing individualized feedback to every unsuccessful candidate would require an enormous investment of time. Even organizations that genuinely want to offer feedback often lack the resources to do so.

Hiring managers have teams to lead, projects to complete and business objectives to achieve. Conducting post-interview coaching sessions for rejected candidates rarely makes the priority list. The economics simply don’t work.

Then there is an uncomfortable truth many job seekers prefer not to acknowledge. Many candidates who demand feedback would reject the feedback they received.

Employers understand this.

Imagine receiving feedback that says:

“You appeared arrogant.”
“Your answers lacked specificity.”
“You seemed disengaged.”
“We questioned your judgement based on your online presence.”

Few candidates would welcome those observations. Many would argue with them. Some would become defensive. Others would insist the assessment was unfair.

Employers know that providing candid feedback often creates disagreement rather than understanding. The result is a conversation few organizations want to have.

Perhaps the biggest misconception surrounding feedback is the belief that it contains the answer job seekers are looking for.

Hiring decisions are often based on a combination of factors, many of which are difficult to quantify. A candidate may perform well and still not receive an offer. They may be qualified and still lose to someone slightly more qualified. They may interview effectively and still finish second. There is often no simple explanation to provide.

The hard truth is that employers do not owe job seekers feedback. They don’t owe rejected candidates coaching, mentorship or professional development advice.

What they owe themselves is making the best hiring decision possible while minimizing risk to the organization. That’s why most candidates will never receive the detailed feedback they want, no matter how often they ask for it.

Nick Kossovan is a syndicated columnist and career expert with over 20 years of experience in the corporate hiring landscape. He specializes in providing pragmatic, unsweetened advice on career navigation, workplace dynamics, and professional growth. Nick Kossovan decodes the psychological impact of AI and social media, helping us make sense of our evolving digital landscape.