In reply to Laura Fazackarley:

Hi Laura,

I have found your comment quite unpleasant and aggressive, you have jumped into conclusions without understanding the full context. First of all, you don't know how many candidates we have interviewed and secondly, you don't know anything about the requirements of the role.

Kind regards,

Iwona.

In reply to Lesley:

Thank you Lesley.

In reply to Peter:

Thank you for your post.

In reply to Robey:

It sounds like a great idea, I completely agree with you that we should provide feedback after interveiwing a candidate.

In reply to David Perry:

Thank you David.

The hiring manager felt that he wasn't really interested in the role as he didn't ask questions about the team, the main challenges they face etc. I am not a hiring manager.

In reply to Iwona Nowak:

Hi Iwona

Sorry to throw back selective quotes from your posts, but you said that:

the hiring manager was concerned that the individual might not be able to communicate effectively with the team while under pressure.

and

the hiring manager felt that he wasn't really interested in the role as he didn't ask questions about the team, the main challenges they face etc. I am not a hiring manager.

 

The authority of 'HR' of course varies enormously between organisations, but I have to say that you seem content to allow 'the hiring manager' as you put it absolute authority and in effect yourself to opt out / wash your hands of selection decision-making. 

Even if the ultimate selection decision might lie with the candidate's direct line manager, what's the point of having any HR input at all into the process if you're prepared to give totally free rein to 'the hiring manager' to make such apparently highly-unsound decisions? 

Even though we as you rightly say don't know the full context, the unanimous response of all your colleagues here has been that this appears to be a very dysfunctional means of selection, for not just one but for all manner of reasons: for just an important one of the many reasons, wouldn't a lot better evidence of unsuitability be needed than the fleeting and not necessarily representative impressions of a single, subjective 'hiring manager' at a very brief interview?

- you may already have attempted to voice your concerns / misgivings to the decisionmakers in your organisation and / or you may have taken on board some of the many things pointed out by colleagues: but you don't say whether or not you have: on the contrary, you appear to be absolving yourself of most if not all responsibility for what seems to be a mishandled state of affairs.

The main purpose of this Forum is surely to tap into the collective wisdom and experience of professional colleagues? not at all unconstructively to criticise or to apportion blame. But there needs to be an open flow of communication for this effectively to happen.  

In reply to Iwona Nowak:

Hi Iwona - I have to take issue with your suggestion that Laura's comment was "quite unpleasant and aggressive". I rarely comment quite so firmly... but that is completely unjustified in this instance.

Iwona,

In your opening post you said:

"We felt that he was a great cultural fit, he had relevant experience; however he was nervous throughout the whole interview and didn't ask enough questions about the role itself, the team etc."

Those of us who responded did so on the basis of the information you gave us.

Later on, in your response to David, you added...

"The fact that the candidate was very nervous was not the main reason why he was rejected."

I can only then assume the main reason was the fact this person didn't ask enough questions (in the view of the hiring manager).

I think the very short answer to your opening question is therefore - yes, you should say so in your feedback to the candidate. 'It was a very close thing, we felt you would fit in well, but another candidate just edged it... good luck, etc.'

I still think Samantha's suggestion of "getting them back in for a brew with the team/co-workers to see how they are when they are relaxed" is a good one... but it sounds like you've made a decision.

In reply to Steve Bridger:

I think the other point that has to be made is that many managers become irritated by candidates asking many questions, other than those relating directly to issues raised, on a "who's interviewing whom?" basis. (Although a good interview should be to some degree a two-way street) It may also have been that issues he had pre-prepared to ask about, relating to the company and its activities, had been answered by the interview and associated discussions.

I would be the first to admit that I used to hate being interviewed, set alongside other listed candidates, since I found most interviews poorly focused on the role and more often about the "halo effect" likes and dislikes of the interviewer than the job. (Give me a three or four-person panel every time). I even once had a situation (for an six-month interim position) where I ended up explaining in some detail to the interviewer what information they needed to know from me, as many of their questions related to longer-term issues and strategies I would not be involved with.... and yes, I was offered the role).

So your candidate may simply have been, like me, someone who was awaiting the "How would you carry out external cardiac massage on a baby elephant?" smart-question, or had already "done their homework" extensively regarding the company and its activities; so had no relevant questions to ask.

The first qualification for appointment should not be: "To read the mind of the interviewer." :-)

P

In reply to Iwona Nowak:

I've just read this thread with interest. We have a situation where a candidate has attended an interview and trial day in our manufacturing site. He came across as polite and personable, he had the potential physical skills for the role but the overwhelming impression that was gleaned quite independently by various staff members involved in this process was that he would be too laid back and unreliable. He misinterpreted some emailed instructions regarding the duration of the trial day, (requesting a 1pm start for a trial day clearly stated to be running 9-5) was then late to the trial day itself and couldn't confirm whether his train was late or he'd missed the earlier one. From various comments he made throughout the day the impression was gained that he would too laid back in his approach and casual towards punctuality which would not fit within a very busy section working to tight deadlines. How do you give feedback on that without causing offence?

In reply to Claire :

You be honest. This isn't about being laid back its about his ability to be reliable. He should be made aware of the impression he is creating. Tell him this. It may help him far more in the long term than some well meaning polite vague feedback

In reply to Keith:

Thanks for your swift feedback Keith, it is much appreciated

In reply to Keith:

I completely agree; there are times when the "right" news is the "bad" news, and an empathic explanation of where his faults lie will be far better than a load of evasive waffle (however well intended) that will leave him making the same errors again.

In reply to Peter:

Thank you Peter, I'm preparing what I hope is a balanced and constructive feedback response to cover the positives and negatives which hopefully he will find helpful going forward.