Rejected Candidate showing up to the office [on hold]
We do interviews then send selected candidates to panel interviews.
Considering the following scenario:
If an applicant comes into the building after they receive a rejection letter, and asks you in person why they were not selected to continue on in the interviewing process.
What would be a suitable response or course of action if this happens?
employer
New contributor
christen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as unclear what you're asking by gnat, TheSoundDefense, Rory Alsop, Sandra K, Thomas Owens 10 hours ago
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
We do interviews then send selected candidates to panel interviews.
Considering the following scenario:
If an applicant comes into the building after they receive a rejection letter, and asks you in person why they were not selected to continue on in the interviewing process.
What would be a suitable response or course of action if this happens?
employer
New contributor
christen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as unclear what you're asking by gnat, TheSoundDefense, Rory Alsop, Sandra K, Thomas Owens 10 hours ago
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
14
Is this a thing that happened?
– TheSoundDefense
2 days ago
2
This seems awfully vague. Depends on details, how the applicant is behaving and their age and sex, location, what is the office like and who are present... Any answer can't be anything but speculation.
– hyde
yesterday
add a comment |
We do interviews then send selected candidates to panel interviews.
Considering the following scenario:
If an applicant comes into the building after they receive a rejection letter, and asks you in person why they were not selected to continue on in the interviewing process.
What would be a suitable response or course of action if this happens?
employer
New contributor
christen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
We do interviews then send selected candidates to panel interviews.
Considering the following scenario:
If an applicant comes into the building after they receive a rejection letter, and asks you in person why they were not selected to continue on in the interviewing process.
What would be a suitable response or course of action if this happens?
employer
employer
New contributor
christen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
christen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 17 mins ago
solarflare
5,46821232
5,46821232
New contributor
christen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 days ago
christenchristen
8813
8813
New contributor
christen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
christen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
christen is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as unclear what you're asking by gnat, TheSoundDefense, Rory Alsop, Sandra K, Thomas Owens 10 hours ago
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as unclear what you're asking by gnat, TheSoundDefense, Rory Alsop, Sandra K, Thomas Owens 10 hours ago
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
14
Is this a thing that happened?
– TheSoundDefense
2 days ago
2
This seems awfully vague. Depends on details, how the applicant is behaving and their age and sex, location, what is the office like and who are present... Any answer can't be anything but speculation.
– hyde
yesterday
add a comment |
14
Is this a thing that happened?
– TheSoundDefense
2 days ago
2
This seems awfully vague. Depends on details, how the applicant is behaving and their age and sex, location, what is the office like and who are present... Any answer can't be anything but speculation.
– hyde
yesterday
14
14
Is this a thing that happened?
– TheSoundDefense
2 days ago
Is this a thing that happened?
– TheSoundDefense
2 days ago
2
2
This seems awfully vague. Depends on details, how the applicant is behaving and their age and sex, location, what is the office like and who are present... Any answer can't be anything but speculation.
– hyde
yesterday
This seems awfully vague. Depends on details, how the applicant is behaving and their age and sex, location, what is the office like and who are present... Any answer can't be anything but speculation.
– hyde
yesterday
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
First, the person would actually have to get into the building. To do this, they typically need to pass the front desk, and there is no reason for the front desk to let them in. That's neither rude nor inappropriate, but perfectly normal when someone shows up without an appointment for whatever reason (interview related or not). "Sorry, the people you want to see are busy".
If they try to force their way in, call security or the police.
16
Some people are adept at social engineering, and can get past most front desks without force.
– David Thornley
2 days ago
1
Ask them to leave. If they don't, call security or the police.
– Caleb Jay
2 days ago
1
You can't know how hard it is to get into the particular building or office premises, so this answer appears to be just speculative.
– hyde
yesterday
1
@DavidThornley: then they are trespassing. If someone would show up at my desk unannounced I'd escort them out of the building and have charges filed. Hasn't happened once in my 30+ years. Most front desks know how to do their jobs
– Hilmar
yesterday
add a comment |
Give them no information. If they press, refer them to the information in the rejection letter or refer them to contact the recruiter they were working with at your company (assuming it wasn't you). If there are signs that make you uncomfortable, do not hesitate to call your building security or the local police or law enforcement.
Giving ANY information is not going to benefit you personally or your employer. Your employer has already covered all the bases they care about in the rejection letter. That process exists for a purpose, you should respect that. Giving the candidate info likely won't benefit the candidate, either - if they're not fit for the job, giving them info on why won't suddenly get them hired. And if they want to "improve for the future" they certainly can, and should, focus on getting employment support elsewhere (ie a third party recruiter, job training, etc), not from an employer who has rejected them. Your obligation to interact with this individual ended when they got the rejection letter.
Job interviews and hiring processes can be stressful on candidates, and can bring out the worst in people who aren't equipped to handle the stress. You don't know their mental state or how they handle negative feedback, and in a situation where they've just randomly shown up and confronted you, they're already showing signs that they may not be the most stable, by-the-book person. Think of your own personal safety first and do what you can to de-escalate, end the discussion, and get outside help from security or police as needed.
And this is just one reason why interviewers generally do not give out their contact information to the interviewee. (Though sometimes it is easily guessable or discoverable, like an email address.) The interviewer is not the one on the hook for the legal elements that must be considered, nor is he typically trained on it - but if he volunteers something to the rejected candidate then he may become so, and there's no upside to him for that!
– davidbak
yesterday
add a comment |
Provide feedback if you feel comfortable doing so. If you don't simply say you can't divulge that information or give them some sort of canned answer like "we felt other candidates were better suited for this position" and usher them out the door. If you're worried this candidate might get angry and come back with a machine gun or something then alert the appropriate authorities.
This answer seems the best. Even though it is not a typical behaviour for companies, every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected -- ideally in their rejection letter. I wouldn't think upfront that such person is a threat or in a bad mental state or talking about weapons... Major words. I would say: try to address its request if you can and be polite to that person while doing so. Then, when leaving, apologise and make sure s/he leaves.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
12
@Kiddo "every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected" Companies tend not to elaborate because it opens them up to all kinds of legal liability if the candidate doesn't like the answer.
– Blrfl
2 days ago
@Blrfl: allowing them to know that they failed the interview because they were deemed not fit because of X (e.g., one of the requisites of the offer) or they failed an assignment because of Y (they did wrong this or that). These are objective replies that I fail to see how they could be used legally to claim anything like damage or abuse. Instead, it provides clarity on the process. They (should) have some KPIs, the candidate did not meet some of them. I know that in some kind of countries they love tending to legal matters, but even so I fail to see how they could "corrupt" such replies.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
4
Providing specific feedback is a dangerous, slippery slope, which is why many (most?) employers won't do so, directly to a candidate. There's nothing for the employer to gain, and by saying anything specific, you're opening yourself up for potential backlash (ie you unintentionally give them ammo for a discrimination lawsuit).
– dwizum
2 days ago
5
Agree with @Blrfl on this, the company has zero upside and only potential downsides to even having this conversation. A rejected candidate randomly showing up at the office is very abnormal behavior, and is not the type of person you want to give any possible legal fodder to.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
Your organisation should have a process for this. Usually the information they can be given is exactly the same as that they would have received in the letter turning them down, or also quite commonly they will be turned away unless they have an appointment.
In the UK we have a requirement to provide interview notes to the interviewer if they ask, but typically that is all.
add a comment |
I think it goes without saying that this kind of behaviour is unusual and probably inappropriate in most cultures, but I don't think that needs to preclude giving the person the information that they're seeking. Perhaps even more so in this situation as the individual might not be aware that they're breaching social norms - in all likelihood their social blind spots didn't help them during the interview process either.
I don't think there is any harm in having a conversation with them, and using the time to explain your decision and what the can do to improve their chances in future. Who knows, they might impress you down the road and the positive conversation might lead them to succeed at getting a job at your organisation in the future.
This would also be a good time to point out how inappropriate it is for them to show up like this, and that they would have improved their chances by simply calling or sending an email for further clarification.
I think the other answers are needlessly paranoid; there are plenty of completely innocent explanations for this. Disclaimer: I don't live in the US.
New contributor
quant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
6
-1 Someone who things turning up in this fashion after already being rejected, shouldn't be indulged
– motosubatsu
yesterday
1
@motosubatsu I fail to see why this is a big deal. Obviously it's not appropriate or socially acceptable, but I don't think that should necessitate being rude to them or locking them out of the building.
– quant
yesterday
3
Why reward rude and entitled behaviour? All that will do is encourage it. I'm not saying you should be rude to them or lock them out, but politely and firmly turn them away.
– motosubatsu
yesterday
@motosubatsu locking someone out of a building and refusing to talk to them on the basis that their behaviour is outside of social norms strikes me as more "rude and entitled" than what the candidate is doing.
– quant
11 hours ago
I think this is the right answer, but I think my explanation wasn't particularly good, so I've tried to clarify the rationale a bit. @motosubatsu I think your response is a bit arbitrary. Can you point to something other than social norms that would justify the way you're proposing to behave in this scenario?
– quant
10 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
First, the person would actually have to get into the building. To do this, they typically need to pass the front desk, and there is no reason for the front desk to let them in. That's neither rude nor inappropriate, but perfectly normal when someone shows up without an appointment for whatever reason (interview related or not). "Sorry, the people you want to see are busy".
If they try to force their way in, call security or the police.
16
Some people are adept at social engineering, and can get past most front desks without force.
– David Thornley
2 days ago
1
Ask them to leave. If they don't, call security or the police.
– Caleb Jay
2 days ago
1
You can't know how hard it is to get into the particular building or office premises, so this answer appears to be just speculative.
– hyde
yesterday
1
@DavidThornley: then they are trespassing. If someone would show up at my desk unannounced I'd escort them out of the building and have charges filed. Hasn't happened once in my 30+ years. Most front desks know how to do their jobs
– Hilmar
yesterday
add a comment |
First, the person would actually have to get into the building. To do this, they typically need to pass the front desk, and there is no reason for the front desk to let them in. That's neither rude nor inappropriate, but perfectly normal when someone shows up without an appointment for whatever reason (interview related or not). "Sorry, the people you want to see are busy".
If they try to force their way in, call security or the police.
16
Some people are adept at social engineering, and can get past most front desks without force.
– David Thornley
2 days ago
1
Ask them to leave. If they don't, call security or the police.
– Caleb Jay
2 days ago
1
You can't know how hard it is to get into the particular building or office premises, so this answer appears to be just speculative.
– hyde
yesterday
1
@DavidThornley: then they are trespassing. If someone would show up at my desk unannounced I'd escort them out of the building and have charges filed. Hasn't happened once in my 30+ years. Most front desks know how to do their jobs
– Hilmar
yesterday
add a comment |
First, the person would actually have to get into the building. To do this, they typically need to pass the front desk, and there is no reason for the front desk to let them in. That's neither rude nor inappropriate, but perfectly normal when someone shows up without an appointment for whatever reason (interview related or not). "Sorry, the people you want to see are busy".
If they try to force their way in, call security or the police.
First, the person would actually have to get into the building. To do this, they typically need to pass the front desk, and there is no reason for the front desk to let them in. That's neither rude nor inappropriate, but perfectly normal when someone shows up without an appointment for whatever reason (interview related or not). "Sorry, the people you want to see are busy".
If they try to force their way in, call security or the police.
answered 2 days ago
HilmarHilmar
26.7k66481
26.7k66481
16
Some people are adept at social engineering, and can get past most front desks without force.
– David Thornley
2 days ago
1
Ask them to leave. If they don't, call security or the police.
– Caleb Jay
2 days ago
1
You can't know how hard it is to get into the particular building or office premises, so this answer appears to be just speculative.
– hyde
yesterday
1
@DavidThornley: then they are trespassing. If someone would show up at my desk unannounced I'd escort them out of the building and have charges filed. Hasn't happened once in my 30+ years. Most front desks know how to do their jobs
– Hilmar
yesterday
add a comment |
16
Some people are adept at social engineering, and can get past most front desks without force.
– David Thornley
2 days ago
1
Ask them to leave. If they don't, call security or the police.
– Caleb Jay
2 days ago
1
You can't know how hard it is to get into the particular building or office premises, so this answer appears to be just speculative.
– hyde
yesterday
1
@DavidThornley: then they are trespassing. If someone would show up at my desk unannounced I'd escort them out of the building and have charges filed. Hasn't happened once in my 30+ years. Most front desks know how to do their jobs
– Hilmar
yesterday
16
16
Some people are adept at social engineering, and can get past most front desks without force.
– David Thornley
2 days ago
Some people are adept at social engineering, and can get past most front desks without force.
– David Thornley
2 days ago
1
1
Ask them to leave. If they don't, call security or the police.
– Caleb Jay
2 days ago
Ask them to leave. If they don't, call security or the police.
– Caleb Jay
2 days ago
1
1
You can't know how hard it is to get into the particular building or office premises, so this answer appears to be just speculative.
– hyde
yesterday
You can't know how hard it is to get into the particular building or office premises, so this answer appears to be just speculative.
– hyde
yesterday
1
1
@DavidThornley: then they are trespassing. If someone would show up at my desk unannounced I'd escort them out of the building and have charges filed. Hasn't happened once in my 30+ years. Most front desks know how to do their jobs
– Hilmar
yesterday
@DavidThornley: then they are trespassing. If someone would show up at my desk unannounced I'd escort them out of the building and have charges filed. Hasn't happened once in my 30+ years. Most front desks know how to do their jobs
– Hilmar
yesterday
add a comment |
Give them no information. If they press, refer them to the information in the rejection letter or refer them to contact the recruiter they were working with at your company (assuming it wasn't you). If there are signs that make you uncomfortable, do not hesitate to call your building security or the local police or law enforcement.
Giving ANY information is not going to benefit you personally or your employer. Your employer has already covered all the bases they care about in the rejection letter. That process exists for a purpose, you should respect that. Giving the candidate info likely won't benefit the candidate, either - if they're not fit for the job, giving them info on why won't suddenly get them hired. And if they want to "improve for the future" they certainly can, and should, focus on getting employment support elsewhere (ie a third party recruiter, job training, etc), not from an employer who has rejected them. Your obligation to interact with this individual ended when they got the rejection letter.
Job interviews and hiring processes can be stressful on candidates, and can bring out the worst in people who aren't equipped to handle the stress. You don't know their mental state or how they handle negative feedback, and in a situation where they've just randomly shown up and confronted you, they're already showing signs that they may not be the most stable, by-the-book person. Think of your own personal safety first and do what you can to de-escalate, end the discussion, and get outside help from security or police as needed.
And this is just one reason why interviewers generally do not give out their contact information to the interviewee. (Though sometimes it is easily guessable or discoverable, like an email address.) The interviewer is not the one on the hook for the legal elements that must be considered, nor is he typically trained on it - but if he volunteers something to the rejected candidate then he may become so, and there's no upside to him for that!
– davidbak
yesterday
add a comment |
Give them no information. If they press, refer them to the information in the rejection letter or refer them to contact the recruiter they were working with at your company (assuming it wasn't you). If there are signs that make you uncomfortable, do not hesitate to call your building security or the local police or law enforcement.
Giving ANY information is not going to benefit you personally or your employer. Your employer has already covered all the bases they care about in the rejection letter. That process exists for a purpose, you should respect that. Giving the candidate info likely won't benefit the candidate, either - if they're not fit for the job, giving them info on why won't suddenly get them hired. And if they want to "improve for the future" they certainly can, and should, focus on getting employment support elsewhere (ie a third party recruiter, job training, etc), not from an employer who has rejected them. Your obligation to interact with this individual ended when they got the rejection letter.
Job interviews and hiring processes can be stressful on candidates, and can bring out the worst in people who aren't equipped to handle the stress. You don't know their mental state or how they handle negative feedback, and in a situation where they've just randomly shown up and confronted you, they're already showing signs that they may not be the most stable, by-the-book person. Think of your own personal safety first and do what you can to de-escalate, end the discussion, and get outside help from security or police as needed.
And this is just one reason why interviewers generally do not give out their contact information to the interviewee. (Though sometimes it is easily guessable or discoverable, like an email address.) The interviewer is not the one on the hook for the legal elements that must be considered, nor is he typically trained on it - but if he volunteers something to the rejected candidate then he may become so, and there's no upside to him for that!
– davidbak
yesterday
add a comment |
Give them no information. If they press, refer them to the information in the rejection letter or refer them to contact the recruiter they were working with at your company (assuming it wasn't you). If there are signs that make you uncomfortable, do not hesitate to call your building security or the local police or law enforcement.
Giving ANY information is not going to benefit you personally or your employer. Your employer has already covered all the bases they care about in the rejection letter. That process exists for a purpose, you should respect that. Giving the candidate info likely won't benefit the candidate, either - if they're not fit for the job, giving them info on why won't suddenly get them hired. And if they want to "improve for the future" they certainly can, and should, focus on getting employment support elsewhere (ie a third party recruiter, job training, etc), not from an employer who has rejected them. Your obligation to interact with this individual ended when they got the rejection letter.
Job interviews and hiring processes can be stressful on candidates, and can bring out the worst in people who aren't equipped to handle the stress. You don't know their mental state or how they handle negative feedback, and in a situation where they've just randomly shown up and confronted you, they're already showing signs that they may not be the most stable, by-the-book person. Think of your own personal safety first and do what you can to de-escalate, end the discussion, and get outside help from security or police as needed.
Give them no information. If they press, refer them to the information in the rejection letter or refer them to contact the recruiter they were working with at your company (assuming it wasn't you). If there are signs that make you uncomfortable, do not hesitate to call your building security or the local police or law enforcement.
Giving ANY information is not going to benefit you personally or your employer. Your employer has already covered all the bases they care about in the rejection letter. That process exists for a purpose, you should respect that. Giving the candidate info likely won't benefit the candidate, either - if they're not fit for the job, giving them info on why won't suddenly get them hired. And if they want to "improve for the future" they certainly can, and should, focus on getting employment support elsewhere (ie a third party recruiter, job training, etc), not from an employer who has rejected them. Your obligation to interact with this individual ended when they got the rejection letter.
Job interviews and hiring processes can be stressful on candidates, and can bring out the worst in people who aren't equipped to handle the stress. You don't know their mental state or how they handle negative feedback, and in a situation where they've just randomly shown up and confronted you, they're already showing signs that they may not be the most stable, by-the-book person. Think of your own personal safety first and do what you can to de-escalate, end the discussion, and get outside help from security or police as needed.
answered 2 days ago
dwizumdwizum
12.1k52747
12.1k52747
And this is just one reason why interviewers generally do not give out their contact information to the interviewee. (Though sometimes it is easily guessable or discoverable, like an email address.) The interviewer is not the one on the hook for the legal elements that must be considered, nor is he typically trained on it - but if he volunteers something to the rejected candidate then he may become so, and there's no upside to him for that!
– davidbak
yesterday
add a comment |
And this is just one reason why interviewers generally do not give out their contact information to the interviewee. (Though sometimes it is easily guessable or discoverable, like an email address.) The interviewer is not the one on the hook for the legal elements that must be considered, nor is he typically trained on it - but if he volunteers something to the rejected candidate then he may become so, and there's no upside to him for that!
– davidbak
yesterday
And this is just one reason why interviewers generally do not give out their contact information to the interviewee. (Though sometimes it is easily guessable or discoverable, like an email address.) The interviewer is not the one on the hook for the legal elements that must be considered, nor is he typically trained on it - but if he volunteers something to the rejected candidate then he may become so, and there's no upside to him for that!
– davidbak
yesterday
And this is just one reason why interviewers generally do not give out their contact information to the interviewee. (Though sometimes it is easily guessable or discoverable, like an email address.) The interviewer is not the one on the hook for the legal elements that must be considered, nor is he typically trained on it - but if he volunteers something to the rejected candidate then he may become so, and there's no upside to him for that!
– davidbak
yesterday
add a comment |
Provide feedback if you feel comfortable doing so. If you don't simply say you can't divulge that information or give them some sort of canned answer like "we felt other candidates were better suited for this position" and usher them out the door. If you're worried this candidate might get angry and come back with a machine gun or something then alert the appropriate authorities.
This answer seems the best. Even though it is not a typical behaviour for companies, every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected -- ideally in their rejection letter. I wouldn't think upfront that such person is a threat or in a bad mental state or talking about weapons... Major words. I would say: try to address its request if you can and be polite to that person while doing so. Then, when leaving, apologise and make sure s/he leaves.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
12
@Kiddo "every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected" Companies tend not to elaborate because it opens them up to all kinds of legal liability if the candidate doesn't like the answer.
– Blrfl
2 days ago
@Blrfl: allowing them to know that they failed the interview because they were deemed not fit because of X (e.g., one of the requisites of the offer) or they failed an assignment because of Y (they did wrong this or that). These are objective replies that I fail to see how they could be used legally to claim anything like damage or abuse. Instead, it provides clarity on the process. They (should) have some KPIs, the candidate did not meet some of them. I know that in some kind of countries they love tending to legal matters, but even so I fail to see how they could "corrupt" such replies.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
4
Providing specific feedback is a dangerous, slippery slope, which is why many (most?) employers won't do so, directly to a candidate. There's nothing for the employer to gain, and by saying anything specific, you're opening yourself up for potential backlash (ie you unintentionally give them ammo for a discrimination lawsuit).
– dwizum
2 days ago
5
Agree with @Blrfl on this, the company has zero upside and only potential downsides to even having this conversation. A rejected candidate randomly showing up at the office is very abnormal behavior, and is not the type of person you want to give any possible legal fodder to.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
Provide feedback if you feel comfortable doing so. If you don't simply say you can't divulge that information or give them some sort of canned answer like "we felt other candidates were better suited for this position" and usher them out the door. If you're worried this candidate might get angry and come back with a machine gun or something then alert the appropriate authorities.
This answer seems the best. Even though it is not a typical behaviour for companies, every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected -- ideally in their rejection letter. I wouldn't think upfront that such person is a threat or in a bad mental state or talking about weapons... Major words. I would say: try to address its request if you can and be polite to that person while doing so. Then, when leaving, apologise and make sure s/he leaves.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
12
@Kiddo "every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected" Companies tend not to elaborate because it opens them up to all kinds of legal liability if the candidate doesn't like the answer.
– Blrfl
2 days ago
@Blrfl: allowing them to know that they failed the interview because they were deemed not fit because of X (e.g., one of the requisites of the offer) or they failed an assignment because of Y (they did wrong this or that). These are objective replies that I fail to see how they could be used legally to claim anything like damage or abuse. Instead, it provides clarity on the process. They (should) have some KPIs, the candidate did not meet some of them. I know that in some kind of countries they love tending to legal matters, but even so I fail to see how they could "corrupt" such replies.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
4
Providing specific feedback is a dangerous, slippery slope, which is why many (most?) employers won't do so, directly to a candidate. There's nothing for the employer to gain, and by saying anything specific, you're opening yourself up for potential backlash (ie you unintentionally give them ammo for a discrimination lawsuit).
– dwizum
2 days ago
5
Agree with @Blrfl on this, the company has zero upside and only potential downsides to even having this conversation. A rejected candidate randomly showing up at the office is very abnormal behavior, and is not the type of person you want to give any possible legal fodder to.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
Provide feedback if you feel comfortable doing so. If you don't simply say you can't divulge that information or give them some sort of canned answer like "we felt other candidates were better suited for this position" and usher them out the door. If you're worried this candidate might get angry and come back with a machine gun or something then alert the appropriate authorities.
Provide feedback if you feel comfortable doing so. If you don't simply say you can't divulge that information or give them some sort of canned answer like "we felt other candidates were better suited for this position" and usher them out the door. If you're worried this candidate might get angry and come back with a machine gun or something then alert the appropriate authorities.
answered 2 days ago
Lee AbrahamLee Abraham
1,4881221
1,4881221
This answer seems the best. Even though it is not a typical behaviour for companies, every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected -- ideally in their rejection letter. I wouldn't think upfront that such person is a threat or in a bad mental state or talking about weapons... Major words. I would say: try to address its request if you can and be polite to that person while doing so. Then, when leaving, apologise and make sure s/he leaves.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
12
@Kiddo "every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected" Companies tend not to elaborate because it opens them up to all kinds of legal liability if the candidate doesn't like the answer.
– Blrfl
2 days ago
@Blrfl: allowing them to know that they failed the interview because they were deemed not fit because of X (e.g., one of the requisites of the offer) or they failed an assignment because of Y (they did wrong this or that). These are objective replies that I fail to see how they could be used legally to claim anything like damage or abuse. Instead, it provides clarity on the process. They (should) have some KPIs, the candidate did not meet some of them. I know that in some kind of countries they love tending to legal matters, but even so I fail to see how they could "corrupt" such replies.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
4
Providing specific feedback is a dangerous, slippery slope, which is why many (most?) employers won't do so, directly to a candidate. There's nothing for the employer to gain, and by saying anything specific, you're opening yourself up for potential backlash (ie you unintentionally give them ammo for a discrimination lawsuit).
– dwizum
2 days ago
5
Agree with @Blrfl on this, the company has zero upside and only potential downsides to even having this conversation. A rejected candidate randomly showing up at the office is very abnormal behavior, and is not the type of person you want to give any possible legal fodder to.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
This answer seems the best. Even though it is not a typical behaviour for companies, every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected -- ideally in their rejection letter. I wouldn't think upfront that such person is a threat or in a bad mental state or talking about weapons... Major words. I would say: try to address its request if you can and be polite to that person while doing so. Then, when leaving, apologise and make sure s/he leaves.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
12
@Kiddo "every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected" Companies tend not to elaborate because it opens them up to all kinds of legal liability if the candidate doesn't like the answer.
– Blrfl
2 days ago
@Blrfl: allowing them to know that they failed the interview because they were deemed not fit because of X (e.g., one of the requisites of the offer) or they failed an assignment because of Y (they did wrong this or that). These are objective replies that I fail to see how they could be used legally to claim anything like damage or abuse. Instead, it provides clarity on the process. They (should) have some KPIs, the candidate did not meet some of them. I know that in some kind of countries they love tending to legal matters, but even so I fail to see how they could "corrupt" such replies.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
4
Providing specific feedback is a dangerous, slippery slope, which is why many (most?) employers won't do so, directly to a candidate. There's nothing for the employer to gain, and by saying anything specific, you're opening yourself up for potential backlash (ie you unintentionally give them ammo for a discrimination lawsuit).
– dwizum
2 days ago
5
Agree with @Blrfl on this, the company has zero upside and only potential downsides to even having this conversation. A rejected candidate randomly showing up at the office is very abnormal behavior, and is not the type of person you want to give any possible legal fodder to.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
This answer seems the best. Even though it is not a typical behaviour for companies, every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected -- ideally in their rejection letter. I wouldn't think upfront that such person is a threat or in a bad mental state or talking about weapons... Major words. I would say: try to address its request if you can and be polite to that person while doing so. Then, when leaving, apologise and make sure s/he leaves.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
This answer seems the best. Even though it is not a typical behaviour for companies, every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected -- ideally in their rejection letter. I wouldn't think upfront that such person is a threat or in a bad mental state or talking about weapons... Major words. I would say: try to address its request if you can and be polite to that person while doing so. Then, when leaving, apologise and make sure s/he leaves.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
12
12
@Kiddo "every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected" Companies tend not to elaborate because it opens them up to all kinds of legal liability if the candidate doesn't like the answer.
– Blrfl
2 days ago
@Kiddo "every candidate should have the right to know why they were rejected" Companies tend not to elaborate because it opens them up to all kinds of legal liability if the candidate doesn't like the answer.
– Blrfl
2 days ago
@Blrfl: allowing them to know that they failed the interview because they were deemed not fit because of X (e.g., one of the requisites of the offer) or they failed an assignment because of Y (they did wrong this or that). These are objective replies that I fail to see how they could be used legally to claim anything like damage or abuse. Instead, it provides clarity on the process. They (should) have some KPIs, the candidate did not meet some of them. I know that in some kind of countries they love tending to legal matters, but even so I fail to see how they could "corrupt" such replies.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
@Blrfl: allowing them to know that they failed the interview because they were deemed not fit because of X (e.g., one of the requisites of the offer) or they failed an assignment because of Y (they did wrong this or that). These are objective replies that I fail to see how they could be used legally to claim anything like damage or abuse. Instead, it provides clarity on the process. They (should) have some KPIs, the candidate did not meet some of them. I know that in some kind of countries they love tending to legal matters, but even so I fail to see how they could "corrupt" such replies.
– Kiddo
2 days ago
4
4
Providing specific feedback is a dangerous, slippery slope, which is why many (most?) employers won't do so, directly to a candidate. There's nothing for the employer to gain, and by saying anything specific, you're opening yourself up for potential backlash (ie you unintentionally give them ammo for a discrimination lawsuit).
– dwizum
2 days ago
Providing specific feedback is a dangerous, slippery slope, which is why many (most?) employers won't do so, directly to a candidate. There's nothing for the employer to gain, and by saying anything specific, you're opening yourself up for potential backlash (ie you unintentionally give them ammo for a discrimination lawsuit).
– dwizum
2 days ago
5
5
Agree with @Blrfl on this, the company has zero upside and only potential downsides to even having this conversation. A rejected candidate randomly showing up at the office is very abnormal behavior, and is not the type of person you want to give any possible legal fodder to.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
Agree with @Blrfl on this, the company has zero upside and only potential downsides to even having this conversation. A rejected candidate randomly showing up at the office is very abnormal behavior, and is not the type of person you want to give any possible legal fodder to.
– Nuclear Wang
2 days ago
|
show 2 more comments
Your organisation should have a process for this. Usually the information they can be given is exactly the same as that they would have received in the letter turning them down, or also quite commonly they will be turned away unless they have an appointment.
In the UK we have a requirement to provide interview notes to the interviewer if they ask, but typically that is all.
add a comment |
Your organisation should have a process for this. Usually the information they can be given is exactly the same as that they would have received in the letter turning them down, or also quite commonly they will be turned away unless they have an appointment.
In the UK we have a requirement to provide interview notes to the interviewer if they ask, but typically that is all.
add a comment |
Your organisation should have a process for this. Usually the information they can be given is exactly the same as that they would have received in the letter turning them down, or also quite commonly they will be turned away unless they have an appointment.
In the UK we have a requirement to provide interview notes to the interviewer if they ask, but typically that is all.
Your organisation should have a process for this. Usually the information they can be given is exactly the same as that they would have received in the letter turning them down, or also quite commonly they will be turned away unless they have an appointment.
In the UK we have a requirement to provide interview notes to the interviewer if they ask, but typically that is all.
answered 2 days ago
Rory AlsopRory Alsop
5,79512442
5,79512442
add a comment |
add a comment |
I think it goes without saying that this kind of behaviour is unusual and probably inappropriate in most cultures, but I don't think that needs to preclude giving the person the information that they're seeking. Perhaps even more so in this situation as the individual might not be aware that they're breaching social norms - in all likelihood their social blind spots didn't help them during the interview process either.
I don't think there is any harm in having a conversation with them, and using the time to explain your decision and what the can do to improve their chances in future. Who knows, they might impress you down the road and the positive conversation might lead them to succeed at getting a job at your organisation in the future.
This would also be a good time to point out how inappropriate it is for them to show up like this, and that they would have improved their chances by simply calling or sending an email for further clarification.
I think the other answers are needlessly paranoid; there are plenty of completely innocent explanations for this. Disclaimer: I don't live in the US.
New contributor
quant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
6
-1 Someone who things turning up in this fashion after already being rejected, shouldn't be indulged
– motosubatsu
yesterday
1
@motosubatsu I fail to see why this is a big deal. Obviously it's not appropriate or socially acceptable, but I don't think that should necessitate being rude to them or locking them out of the building.
– quant
yesterday
3
Why reward rude and entitled behaviour? All that will do is encourage it. I'm not saying you should be rude to them or lock them out, but politely and firmly turn them away.
– motosubatsu
yesterday
@motosubatsu locking someone out of a building and refusing to talk to them on the basis that their behaviour is outside of social norms strikes me as more "rude and entitled" than what the candidate is doing.
– quant
11 hours ago
I think this is the right answer, but I think my explanation wasn't particularly good, so I've tried to clarify the rationale a bit. @motosubatsu I think your response is a bit arbitrary. Can you point to something other than social norms that would justify the way you're proposing to behave in this scenario?
– quant
10 hours ago
add a comment |
I think it goes without saying that this kind of behaviour is unusual and probably inappropriate in most cultures, but I don't think that needs to preclude giving the person the information that they're seeking. Perhaps even more so in this situation as the individual might not be aware that they're breaching social norms - in all likelihood their social blind spots didn't help them during the interview process either.
I don't think there is any harm in having a conversation with them, and using the time to explain your decision and what the can do to improve their chances in future. Who knows, they might impress you down the road and the positive conversation might lead them to succeed at getting a job at your organisation in the future.
This would also be a good time to point out how inappropriate it is for them to show up like this, and that they would have improved their chances by simply calling or sending an email for further clarification.
I think the other answers are needlessly paranoid; there are plenty of completely innocent explanations for this. Disclaimer: I don't live in the US.
New contributor
quant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
6
-1 Someone who things turning up in this fashion after already being rejected, shouldn't be indulged
– motosubatsu
yesterday
1
@motosubatsu I fail to see why this is a big deal. Obviously it's not appropriate or socially acceptable, but I don't think that should necessitate being rude to them or locking them out of the building.
– quant
yesterday
3
Why reward rude and entitled behaviour? All that will do is encourage it. I'm not saying you should be rude to them or lock them out, but politely and firmly turn them away.
– motosubatsu
yesterday
@motosubatsu locking someone out of a building and refusing to talk to them on the basis that their behaviour is outside of social norms strikes me as more "rude and entitled" than what the candidate is doing.
– quant
11 hours ago
I think this is the right answer, but I think my explanation wasn't particularly good, so I've tried to clarify the rationale a bit. @motosubatsu I think your response is a bit arbitrary. Can you point to something other than social norms that would justify the way you're proposing to behave in this scenario?
– quant
10 hours ago
add a comment |
I think it goes without saying that this kind of behaviour is unusual and probably inappropriate in most cultures, but I don't think that needs to preclude giving the person the information that they're seeking. Perhaps even more so in this situation as the individual might not be aware that they're breaching social norms - in all likelihood their social blind spots didn't help them during the interview process either.
I don't think there is any harm in having a conversation with them, and using the time to explain your decision and what the can do to improve their chances in future. Who knows, they might impress you down the road and the positive conversation might lead them to succeed at getting a job at your organisation in the future.
This would also be a good time to point out how inappropriate it is for them to show up like this, and that they would have improved their chances by simply calling or sending an email for further clarification.
I think the other answers are needlessly paranoid; there are plenty of completely innocent explanations for this. Disclaimer: I don't live in the US.
New contributor
quant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I think it goes without saying that this kind of behaviour is unusual and probably inappropriate in most cultures, but I don't think that needs to preclude giving the person the information that they're seeking. Perhaps even more so in this situation as the individual might not be aware that they're breaching social norms - in all likelihood their social blind spots didn't help them during the interview process either.
I don't think there is any harm in having a conversation with them, and using the time to explain your decision and what the can do to improve their chances in future. Who knows, they might impress you down the road and the positive conversation might lead them to succeed at getting a job at your organisation in the future.
This would also be a good time to point out how inappropriate it is for them to show up like this, and that they would have improved their chances by simply calling or sending an email for further clarification.
I think the other answers are needlessly paranoid; there are plenty of completely innocent explanations for this. Disclaimer: I don't live in the US.
New contributor
quant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 11 hours ago
New contributor
quant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
quantquant
993
993
New contributor
quant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
quant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
quant is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
6
-1 Someone who things turning up in this fashion after already being rejected, shouldn't be indulged
– motosubatsu
yesterday
1
@motosubatsu I fail to see why this is a big deal. Obviously it's not appropriate or socially acceptable, but I don't think that should necessitate being rude to them or locking them out of the building.
– quant
yesterday
3
Why reward rude and entitled behaviour? All that will do is encourage it. I'm not saying you should be rude to them or lock them out, but politely and firmly turn them away.
– motosubatsu
yesterday
@motosubatsu locking someone out of a building and refusing to talk to them on the basis that their behaviour is outside of social norms strikes me as more "rude and entitled" than what the candidate is doing.
– quant
11 hours ago
I think this is the right answer, but I think my explanation wasn't particularly good, so I've tried to clarify the rationale a bit. @motosubatsu I think your response is a bit arbitrary. Can you point to something other than social norms that would justify the way you're proposing to behave in this scenario?
– quant
10 hours ago
add a comment |
6
-1 Someone who things turning up in this fashion after already being rejected, shouldn't be indulged
– motosubatsu
yesterday
1
@motosubatsu I fail to see why this is a big deal. Obviously it's not appropriate or socially acceptable, but I don't think that should necessitate being rude to them or locking them out of the building.
– quant
yesterday
3
Why reward rude and entitled behaviour? All that will do is encourage it. I'm not saying you should be rude to them or lock them out, but politely and firmly turn them away.
– motosubatsu
yesterday
@motosubatsu locking someone out of a building and refusing to talk to them on the basis that their behaviour is outside of social norms strikes me as more "rude and entitled" than what the candidate is doing.
– quant
11 hours ago
I think this is the right answer, but I think my explanation wasn't particularly good, so I've tried to clarify the rationale a bit. @motosubatsu I think your response is a bit arbitrary. Can you point to something other than social norms that would justify the way you're proposing to behave in this scenario?
– quant
10 hours ago
6
6
-1 Someone who things turning up in this fashion after already being rejected, shouldn't be indulged
– motosubatsu
yesterday
-1 Someone who things turning up in this fashion after already being rejected, shouldn't be indulged
– motosubatsu
yesterday
1
1
@motosubatsu I fail to see why this is a big deal. Obviously it's not appropriate or socially acceptable, but I don't think that should necessitate being rude to them or locking them out of the building.
– quant
yesterday
@motosubatsu I fail to see why this is a big deal. Obviously it's not appropriate or socially acceptable, but I don't think that should necessitate being rude to them or locking them out of the building.
– quant
yesterday
3
3
Why reward rude and entitled behaviour? All that will do is encourage it. I'm not saying you should be rude to them or lock them out, but politely and firmly turn them away.
– motosubatsu
yesterday
Why reward rude and entitled behaviour? All that will do is encourage it. I'm not saying you should be rude to them or lock them out, but politely and firmly turn them away.
– motosubatsu
yesterday
@motosubatsu locking someone out of a building and refusing to talk to them on the basis that their behaviour is outside of social norms strikes me as more "rude and entitled" than what the candidate is doing.
– quant
11 hours ago
@motosubatsu locking someone out of a building and refusing to talk to them on the basis that their behaviour is outside of social norms strikes me as more "rude and entitled" than what the candidate is doing.
– quant
11 hours ago
I think this is the right answer, but I think my explanation wasn't particularly good, so I've tried to clarify the rationale a bit. @motosubatsu I think your response is a bit arbitrary. Can you point to something other than social norms that would justify the way you're proposing to behave in this scenario?
– quant
10 hours ago
I think this is the right answer, but I think my explanation wasn't particularly good, so I've tried to clarify the rationale a bit. @motosubatsu I think your response is a bit arbitrary. Can you point to something other than social norms that would justify the way you're proposing to behave in this scenario?
– quant
10 hours ago
add a comment |
14
Is this a thing that happened?
– TheSoundDefense
2 days ago
2
This seems awfully vague. Depends on details, how the applicant is behaving and their age and sex, location, what is the office like and who are present... Any answer can't be anything but speculation.
– hyde
yesterday