Neat followup: ask the companies who declined for a little insight.
Particularly now that you've found a position and they know you're not going to argue with them about their conclusions (that'd be my worry, as the interviewer, if someone was asking this kind of question), many of the interviewers might be able to shed some light on that decision.
There might have been cultural differences (though that's sometimes really hard to gauge in a short time...), or maybe random errors you made that concerned them (but nervous people make odd mistakes...), or they may have found another good developer who didn't need to relocate (the need to relocate probably would count against you by default, even though you were dying to move).
If this is possible, I'd be curious to hear what they say.
> Neat followup: ask the companies who declined for a little insight.
The main reason you aren't going to be getting any answers is anything the companies say can be extrapolated to prove discrimination. No one is going to invite lawsuits by giving you constructive feedback. The reasoning that you already have a position doesn't matter.
"The main reason you aren't going to be getting any answers is anything the companies say can be extrapolated to prove discrimination."
That might be part of it. Another part of it is that many people are loathe to criticize anyone, and would find it uncomfortable to give a negative, but honest evaluation of someone to their face (or even through email).
Another reason for not giving evaluations to rejected applicants is that people are busy, and feel like their own time would be wasted for the benefit of someone who's not a part of their company.
A related reason is that the employers feel it would not benefit them in any way to give a rejected applicant an evaluation. It would only benefit the applicant.
Finally, I think a lot of people just don't really care much about others. This goes double for people who they barely know, have no business relationship with, and will probably never see or hear from again.
I thought of both of these things -- but look at the places he interviewed. They spent a lot of time with him (sometimes several days!) and he was largely dealing with technical folk, not HR people.
I'll bet if he asked them all in the right tone -- and without demanding a lot of time -- he'd get at least a few responses.
I know it's possible, because I've read several posts in the past from people both saying they've done this (and providing some details), plus others on the hiring side saying they'll generally give useful feedback if asked at the end of the interview process.
What are the laws and/or precedents which establish the risks you're claiming here? Why does giving a candidate general feedback on their interview presentation expose a company to accusations of discrimination?
I have received straight-up feedback on job applications in the past, so I don't think every employer sees it the way you do.
Here in the UK they do it all the time. If you use a (good) agent, you get feedback on what the company liked/disliked during the interview and why they declined. Help you prepare for the next interview (if you gave a wrong impression).
I guess the things are much easier in Europe than in USA in this regard. Not facing a huge risk of being sued by a candidate you've turned down due to their lack of skills is liberating both for the employer and the potential employee. I personally have been frustrated on more than one occasion with the complete lack of feedback and transparency from USA (or multinational) companies.
Working in Europe, on the other hand, I've tried to be open and honest to the candidates about their chances. I've personally called all the candidates I've had an interview with and told them if they've been rejected. I still think it was better for them to be updated so they could make informed decisions regarding their strengths and weaknesses, and their upcoming interviews.
If you use a (good) agent, you get feedback on what the company liked/disliked during the interview and why they declined
I guess the things are much easier in Europe than in USA in this regard
Unfortunately my experience is not the same: i've done several job interviews in the past months here in Italy and I had difficulties also having negative replies (they just dont tell you anything and after weeks/months you're supposed to know that you're not ok for them)
I can sometimes understand it when they "process" tons of candidates (for one position a firm got 500 applications on a well known job site, they interviewed 2-300 persons and during the interview they said "if we dont call you by the next week, w're sorry you're not going to the next step") but it happened to me also a couple of times when i was first interviewed by an head hunter, and then send to talk to the employer (in one occasion i did 2 or 3 interviews with the employer). And then.. nothing, I tried to ask the HH if she had news.. vague responses, from which you cant understand if they've decided not to hire anyone, wait some months and evaluate other candidates, or they've just hired someone else.
Maybe it's just an italian problem, but I think it's quite sad, generally you lose hours/days of your current job to go to this interviews, it would be just a sign of correctness to give at least a negative reply (a feedback probably would be asking too much)
Unfortunately my experience is not the same: i've done several job interviews in the past months here in Italy and I had difficulties also having negative replies (they just dont tell you anything and after weeks/months you're supposed to know that you're not ok for them)
By saying that the things are easier in Europe I don't mean they're perfect, and my experience is limited to two countries - Bulgaria and Spain. What I was trying to say is that I was allowed, and didn't worry too much about possible problems, to give feedback to the candidates. By the comments on HN I'm left with the impression that in USA this would be a big no-no and the company risks being sued for doing it.
On the other hand, the lack of feedback is not uncommon in Europe either. I think that eventually, it's about being more human and less a resource than anything. And since I've been in the position waiting in vain for feedback I know it doesn't feel good. So I try to treat fellow human beings the way I want to be treated - nicely.
Put in another perspective, we're not infallible and the person could apply for another position or at a later time, where/when his (possibly) improved abilities could be appreciated. You don't build reputation as a good place to work by gaining bad karma :).
> Maybe they should able to do that to anybody. Nobody wants to work for racists, assholes, or sexists.
I don't follow.
It's not that the employers are racist, sexists or assholes(they might or might not be; that's not what that matters here). It's just that anything they say can be used as a basis for a lawsuit.
One of the possible reasons it took the companies two or more weeks to give a negative answer to Matt (OP) would be that usually the candidates are "ordered" by preference. When you get several strong candidates you propose to the one you consider the best fit (culturally, as specific strengths needed for the team, or professional abilities). Unfortunately, after you make the offer it usually takes some time for the person to consider the conditions you propose (salary, equity, bonuses, perks, etc.). One has to keep in mind that there is additional time involved in signing the contract. During this time it's a tough call closing the door on the other strong candidates in the backlog. Because of this, if you're not the primary candidate it could take some time before they give you a "no" or make you an offer, if the negotiations with the alpha candidate fell through.
That's an unfortunate side effect of trying to recruit the best talent. On the one occasion I had to interview and select candidates I informed two of the people that I liked that there is another candidate that we're currently talking with, but if the things don't work out with him I might get back to them in the next 15 days after the interview. Luckily we managed to reach an agreement with the guy that I considered the best fit, so I called the backups and told them that $COMPANY will not be able to hire them. They sounded grateful for the extra information and not being kept in the dark, but I'm still not 100% sure that it was the best decision, given the circumstances. What would have happened if I had to call one of the guys and tell them that we didn't reach an agreement with the primary candidate?
Have any of you guys and girls handled and solved this problem?
Particularly now that you've found a position and they know you're not going to argue with them about their conclusions (that'd be my worry, as the interviewer, if someone was asking this kind of question), many of the interviewers might be able to shed some light on that decision.
There might have been cultural differences (though that's sometimes really hard to gauge in a short time...), or maybe random errors you made that concerned them (but nervous people make odd mistakes...), or they may have found another good developer who didn't need to relocate (the need to relocate probably would count against you by default, even though you were dying to move).
If this is possible, I'd be curious to hear what they say.