RE: The Results (Long)

Subject: RE: The Results (Long)
From: "Marguerite Krupp" <mkrupp -at- cisco -dot- com>
To: "'TECHWR-L'" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:44:15 -0400

Victoria Nuttle suggests telling the prospects why they were not hired.

Having been a hiring manager for 17 years (now in extended recovery
<G>), I would strongly advise against this. The manager needs to make
sure that responses to candidates do not leave the company open to
lawsuits. Such liability is a major reason for such bland responses as,
"We found a candidate who seems to be a better fit for our needs." Some
rejected candidates can be highly argumentative when you give such
specifics. There is nothing wrong, IMHO, with keeping a private, mental
list of those who seem way out of bounds, as well as of those who are
"almost" right for the job.

IME, most hiring decisions are of the "best fit" variety anyway, what
ever the criteria for "fit" are. Seldom does one find the "perfect"


P.S. I did see some "real turkeys" -- the feathered kind -- in the
parking lot on my way in to work this morning. But we're not hiring

RE: The Results (Long): From: eric . dunn

Previous by Author: Re: Print-ready Graphics Problem
Next by Author: RE: Please explain this phrase? (take II)
Previous by Thread: Re: The Results (Long)
Next by Thread: RE: The Results (Long)

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads