Imagine connecting with someone who caught your attention on a dating app.  You talk a couple of times over the phone, have a video conversation, and then they invite you to lunch.  You’re excited because you are really interested; and it sounds like they are, too. In preparation, you drop off a nice outfit at the cleaners, touch up your shoes, and visit your hair stylist.  You request half a vacation day that afternoon so you have plenty of time to talk. The day arrives, and you have what you think was a really nice time. They meet most of the items on your “checklist” of a compatible person, and you are looking for a long-term partner. It seems like they feel the same way, because their ending comments are that they enjoyed meeting you and will follow up soon.  Except that they don’t.

Weeks go by. You send emails and leave messages confirming your interest, all unanswered. Finally, after several months, you receive an impersonal email stating that while you have “some great attributes,” they’ve decided to move on with someone else. If this were you, how would you feel? Likely, at best highly annoyed, and if you had the opportunity to warn someone else who might consider dating them, you would probably tell that person to run the other way.

All too often, this scenario plays out in the “matchmaking game” of recruitment and selection.  Employers who at first show and send signals of interest to candidates abruptly cut off contact when they’ve made the determination not to advance a candidate in the process, often leaving them feeling confused and irritated. This is rarely intentional; more likely the result of busyness, a lack of process structure, or being inundated with interested job seekers.  But a lack of follow-up can do real damage to the employer brand. In the personal scenario above, the other party’s actions would undeniably be seen as rude and something to avoid. Why would that perception be anything else in the business context?

In a Greenhouse study, 61% of job seekers reported being ignored or “ghosted” after interviewing, with 44% listing not hearing back as a top frustration.  62% said that employer silence harmed their confidence and mental health. Ironically, 61% of job seekers admitted to ghosting companies themselves, a common complaint these days among employers, and 70% now feel it’s fair to ghost employers who ghost them. This appears to have brought us to an unhealthy cycle between hiring companies and candidates in which there are no winners. 

What’s clear is that ignoring candidates post-interview negatively impacts attitudes about that employer and can significantly tarnish its reputation.  One study revealed that 94% of ghosted candidates formed negative opinions of the company, with 27% saying that they would actively discourage others from applying. 32% of candidates said they would be less likely to buy from a company because they had been ghosted in the hiring process.  Sites like Glassdoor and Indeed equip disgruntled candidates with a far-reaching public bullhorn that may dissuade qualified candidates from applying.

There’s no doubt that providing feedback and updates can be an arduous process.  While recruiters may have the best intentions, their focus is often on forward-facing activities like identifying new candidates or presenting offers. Developing a proactive approach, however, can lead to improved communication and leave candidates with a sense of closure.  

Consider doing the following:

1. Foster a talent acquisition culture that prioritizes candidate respect and dignity. The average candidate invests 10 hours in the application and interview process. They deserve the courtesy of timely post-interview feedback. Reinforce that candidates may also be customers, and that those who have been treated carelessly in the selection process will likely tell others and have a negative influence on other job seekers – and consumers.
2. Create Standard Operating Procedures for candidate feedback.  Having a defined process with target timelines surrounding feedback delivery.  For example, set a day of the week (such as every Friday) as your “feedback day,” so that candidates in process receive regular communication.  
3. Set methods of feedback based on candidate involvement in the process.  A candidate who meets in-person with the hiring team for a 4-hour interview has different expectations for feedback than one who has just applied online.  A good rule of thumb is to make a phone call to those who have interviewed in-person, an email to those who have been screened via video or phone, and an electronic response to those who have applied. 
4. Utilize automation where possible.  Most job boards and applicant tracking systems offer automated feedback options that can be set to auto-respond to received and declined applications and are particularly useful in responding to online applications, which can be voluminous. Creating and sending these gives candidates confirmation and assurance that their application has been received and if utilized properly, where they stand in the process. 
5. Don’t be hesitant to give bad news – or no news.  While most of us don’t enjoy giving bad news, candidates will appreciate hearing where they stand in the process as soon as possible, even if the answer is “no” or “I don’t know yet.” They may have multiple positions they have interviewed for, and providing feedback will better equip them to make decisions about pursuing other opportunities. 

Sources: Greenhouse.com; Harvard Business Review; Newsweek