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).
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.
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.