RE: The Results (Long)

["Kirsch, Gabrielle" <Gabrielle -dot- Kirsch -at- wamu -dot- net>]

I cannot agree enough with this statement.

I once wrote what I thought was a completely innocuous rejection letter
for a temporary trainer position and had the applicant threaten a
lawsuit on account of ageism. I can't remember exactly what I said, but
it was something like "we have decided to go with an applicant who has
blankety-blank experience." The rejected guy insisted that he also had
blankety-blank experience (which, by the way, he didn't).

He was clearly an angry person (spent a great deal of time in the
interview bashing his previous employers) which was why I didn't hire
him in the first place, even though we were desperate for trainers. From
then on all my rejection letters were simple "thanks, but no thanks"
notes.

-gabrielle

-----Original Message-----
From: Marguerite Krupp [mailto:mkrupp -at- cisco -dot- com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 8:44 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: RE: The Results (Long)



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"
candidate.

Marguerite

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
anyway.