Why do employers think it’s okay to ghost job applicants?

A really good question, and one I have thought about a lot as I watch the spawn and their friends struggle with the job market. Of all the things that seem awful about the current climate, one of the worst is the indifference which sees many, many employers not even bothering to tell applicants that they have not got through to the next round. Or, in extreme cases, even going silent on people who had made it to the later stages. Is it any wonder young hopefuls get demoralised?

How difficult is it to send the most basic reply? You know, the one- or two-line e-mail that says something like, “Thank you for applying for whatever it is. I’m sorry your application has not been successful. Good luck for the future.” The above is not a good reply, but it does at least meet the basic standard of civility and letting someone know they should not keep hoping this one might work out. They could always scrap the “good luck” part if it feels like they are making too much effort.

Major firms are often among the worst culprits. A relative of mine, now happily employed, is still, technically speaking, waiting to hear from Goldman Sachs nearly two years on. His hunch is that they’ve probably gone with someone else. Surely a business of that calibre and size has the wherewithal to offer at least an automated rejection.

It’s hard to imagine those companies feeling satisfied if an applicant did not show up for the interview because they went another way. That would be annoying, wouldn’t it, the kind of thing that leaves employers complaining about young people’s attitudes to work?

I have seen a number of explanations for the ghosting of applicants and not one of them holds water. Those my age will remember getting rejections by post. Someone had to go to the effort of typing or printing and signing a letter, addressing an envelope, affixing stamps or sending it to the post room. Rejections required real effort, but I cannot ever recall not hearing.

One argument offered is that businesses are flooded with applications and that there isn’t time to reply to everyone. Others offer light-touch applications which are little more than uploading a CV and so, the argument runs, do not merit a response. This is self-serving twaddle.

The very technology that enables mass applications also enables mass responses. It is the simplest thing to send back a basic rejection to the e-mails of all those who have not made it through. Another reason is that companies hand the process to low-quality recruitment firms that lack the manners or incentive to bother.

Others argue that, particularly in the later stages, it is problematic offering reasons why someone has not been hired. Apparently this can lead to legal actions, though it does not say much about the hiring manager if they cannot offer a coherent explanation that doesn’t get them sued. Then again, you can tell someone they haven’t got the job but decline to offer feedback due to the volume of applications. Most feedback is pretty useless anyway. What can you learn from “You were great but there was a stronger candidate”, or “We went for someone who had a little more experience”?

Businesses could always make the effort to offer constructive feedback, especially after the later rounds, but this would require giving a damn.

I’ve also seen instances of people who have gone through multiple rounds but end up having to chase to find out they have not been hired. Sometimes this is about firms waiting to ensure the offer is accepted by the successful candidate. But this is a reason for delays, not long-term radio silence.

Ultimately, the only explanation which rings true is that employers have decided it is all too much effort and that, since they hold all the cards, they can get away with it.

I constantly hear business people lamenting the numbers of young people who are not “employment ready”. Sometimes they are talking about core skills such as literacy or numeracy, but often they mean the youngsters in question are unprepared for the basic demands of work life – amiability, punctuality, reliability, that sort of thing.

And yet, you have to wonder why they never consider their own lack of professional courtesy. What message do they think young applicants are picking up when their first experience of the job market is being treated with contempt and indifference by the people who then complain they lack the social skills for work? Financial Times