"When firms reject job applicants, they usually don’t ghost them" Actually, this isn't true, I've applied to hundreds of jobs and they almost always ghost.
"When firms reject job applicants, they usually don’t ghost them" Actually, this isn't true, I've applied to hundreds of jobs and they almost always ghost.
Not only is Bryan wrong here, he's *egregiously* wrong. Ghosting happens all the time when applying to jobs. It even happens pretty frequently after an interview has happened.
[Came to this post very late so - first off - apologies for tagging my comment onto yours (to get it near the top) even though it's not particularly related.]
Bryan's graphs get something ELSE wrong....something that almost all journalism gets wrong about the mating market. The problem is the bogus notion of the unitary 'Man' and 'Woman' stereotype. Let me explain:
In order to be really revealing OK Cupid's stats would need to distinquish between how the most pretty women rate men and how the least pretty rate them. (that would almost certainly reveal a huge difference.
Similarly the 'how 'men' rate women would need to distinguish between the ratings of the 'babe magnet' alpha male at one extreme and the nerdy 'beta' males at the other. Only then would these graphs really paint an accurate picture.
".... a theme that gets very little attention in journalism about sexual pair bonding – the huge difference between the fortunes of what one might term the More and the Less Desired of each sex. Opinion pieces, sometimes serious and sometimes coy, on the subject of unfair sex are to be found in abundance. What always strikes me when I read this kind of journalism is how it is always framed in terms of a generic species called ‘Women’ and a generic species called ‘Men’; as if the perceived ‘unfair’ asymmetries under discussion are entirely ones between the sexes. The huge intra-sexual differences between the experiences of pretty women and ‘plain’ ones; and between confident ‘alpha’ males and ‘betas’ – this never gets considered."
This is true, but online blast emails are extremely easy to set up. I was doing those with Lotus Notes twenty years ago. The large firm I worked with still sent physical letters to candidates that interviewed in person, unless they went through a recruiter (the recruiter handled all of that, which I learned after upsetting one by sending such a letter).
I don't think it's that onerous to at least contact candidates who were interviewed. But in the years I've been working it seems to be ever more common not to bother even with that.
That is truly shameful. I think executives need to think carefully about that. Many firms intelligently use their recruiting, especially campus recruiting, as a form of marketing ("we hire the best and the brightest"). It is an extremely powerful tool (see McKinsey, Bain, the bulge-bracket investment banks, hedge funds,...), and the big law firms do this as well. Needlessly upsetting people strikes me as bad business. It probably does not matter for CPG or manufacturing, but for professional services firms it would be deeply foolish to not take the time to send out a physical letter, or at least an email, stating that they applicant is no longer under consideration. That is an oversight that signals internal drift. Bad HR is often an indicator of internal problems at a firm (most execs throw boring stuff to cost centers such as HR, and not overseeing that they are doing their job probably means other cost centers are flailing as well).
I expect the calculation is that as it becomes normal throughout workplaces not to send rejection letters, even for those who have interviewed, people take less affront to it. Although conversely the rarer it becomes, the easier it is to distinguish your company through the basic courtesy of following up.
I'm assuming that what Bryan means by "ghosting" is radio silence after an interview, or at least after some level of personal (eg not a form letter) communication with the employer. Obviously when you're sending out applications you'll be lucky to hear back from 10-15%, and that sucks but it's not the same thing.
That said I still think Bryan's priors are a bit out of date. I wouldn't call ghosting the norm, exactly, but it's very common, even well into the recruiting process. And I've applied to jobs in many fields, from shitty service work to Big 4 positions for which I was very much qualified. It can be tough.
So true. Of the 87 applications I sent out in my recent job search, (all for jobs that I was fully qualified for), exactly one sent a form email turning me down. Not a peep from the other 88. Finally, I answered a job ad where I could apply in person. They hired me on the spot. Good thing, because it's a great job.
"When firms reject job applicants, they usually don’t ghost them" Actually, this isn't true, I've applied to hundreds of jobs and they almost always ghost.
Not only is Bryan wrong here, he's *egregiously* wrong. Ghosting happens all the time when applying to jobs. It even happens pretty frequently after an interview has happened.
[Came to this post very late so - first off - apologies for tagging my comment onto yours (to get it near the top) even though it's not particularly related.]
Bryan's graphs get something ELSE wrong....something that almost all journalism gets wrong about the mating market. The problem is the bogus notion of the unitary 'Man' and 'Woman' stereotype. Let me explain:
In order to be really revealing OK Cupid's stats would need to distinquish between how the most pretty women rate men and how the least pretty rate them. (that would almost certainly reveal a huge difference.
Similarly the 'how 'men' rate women would need to distinguish between the ratings of the 'babe magnet' alpha male at one extreme and the nerdy 'beta' males at the other. Only then would these graphs really paint an accurate picture.
I wrote about all this in this essay 'The Less Desired': https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired
".... a theme that gets very little attention in journalism about sexual pair bonding – the huge difference between the fortunes of what one might term the More and the Less Desired of each sex. Opinion pieces, sometimes serious and sometimes coy, on the subject of unfair sex are to be found in abundance. What always strikes me when I read this kind of journalism is how it is always framed in terms of a generic species called ‘Women’ and a generic species called ‘Men’; as if the perceived ‘unfair’ asymmetries under discussion are entirely ones between the sexes. The huge intra-sexual differences between the experiences of pretty women and ‘plain’ ones; and between confident ‘alpha’ males and ‘betas’ – this never gets considered."
Glad I'm married... and glad I work for myself!
Seems especially cruel after an interview.
Ghosting must be by far the most common response to job applications – partly because the barriers to applying for many roles are so low.
This is true, but online blast emails are extremely easy to set up. I was doing those with Lotus Notes twenty years ago. The large firm I worked with still sent physical letters to candidates that interviewed in person, unless they went through a recruiter (the recruiter handled all of that, which I learned after upsetting one by sending such a letter).
I don't think it's that onerous to at least contact candidates who were interviewed. But in the years I've been working it seems to be ever more common not to bother even with that.
That is truly shameful. I think executives need to think carefully about that. Many firms intelligently use their recruiting, especially campus recruiting, as a form of marketing ("we hire the best and the brightest"). It is an extremely powerful tool (see McKinsey, Bain, the bulge-bracket investment banks, hedge funds,...), and the big law firms do this as well. Needlessly upsetting people strikes me as bad business. It probably does not matter for CPG or manufacturing, but for professional services firms it would be deeply foolish to not take the time to send out a physical letter, or at least an email, stating that they applicant is no longer under consideration. That is an oversight that signals internal drift. Bad HR is often an indicator of internal problems at a firm (most execs throw boring stuff to cost centers such as HR, and not overseeing that they are doing their job probably means other cost centers are flailing as well).
I expect the calculation is that as it becomes normal throughout workplaces not to send rejection letters, even for those who have interviewed, people take less affront to it. Although conversely the rarer it becomes, the easier it is to distinguish your company through the basic courtesy of following up.
I'm assuming that what Bryan means by "ghosting" is radio silence after an interview, or at least after some level of personal (eg not a form letter) communication with the employer. Obviously when you're sending out applications you'll be lucky to hear back from 10-15%, and that sucks but it's not the same thing.
That said I still think Bryan's priors are a bit out of date. I wouldn't call ghosting the norm, exactly, but it's very common, even well into the recruiting process. And I've applied to jobs in many fields, from shitty service work to Big 4 positions for which I was very much qualified. It can be tough.
He obviously meant after an interview.
So true. Of the 87 applications I sent out in my recent job search, (all for jobs that I was fully qualified for), exactly one sent a form email turning me down. Not a peep from the other 88. Finally, I answered a job ad where I could apply in person. They hired me on the spot. Good thing, because it's a great job.