Navigation
Search
New Comments
Handy Links
Syndication
« October Issue of The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist | Main | Local Events Roundup »
How to reject
On October 7, 2005 by Jamie Madigan
As many HR, staffing, and hiring folks know, one of the worst parts of the job can be telling applicants that they didn't get the job. Unless the applicant is a real jerk or something, then you don't feel bad about it. But most of the time you do.
Years ago when I was conducting assessment centers for a telecommunications company, we'd fill the first half of the day by doing interviews and a series of paper-and-pencil tests. The second half of the day was an elaborate (and expensive) role-play exercise, so if applicants failed the interview and/or tests we'd tell them so and send them home right after lunch. No phone calls, no letters, this was face to face rejection. I had people yell at me, refuse to accept the news, or burst out crying. In fact, one of my fellow assessors almost quit halfway through her first day on the job when she found out that she'd have to sit across from someone and tell them that they failed the morning's tests and had to go home.
Through it all, we were given or adopted a set of guidelines for giving this kind of feedback and breaking off the employment relationship. It kind of strikes me, though, how much these rules resembled About.com's rules for ending a romantic relationship. Here's a comparison:
Romantic Rejection
- Say there's no spark
- Say you don't want to mislead them
- Say they'll find someone new
- Don't be mean or spiteful
- Don't blame them
- Say it's about you
- Be firm and clear
Employment Rejection
- Say there's just not a fit
- Say that there's no point in setting them up for failure
- Say they'll find employment elsewhere
- Be sympathetic but professional
- Don't dwell on their weaknesses
- Say it's about what the company is looking for
- Be unambiguous and direct
Existing comments:
Posted by David Morris at October 12, 2005 9:30 PM:
Read an interesting side note about probability theory and decision making and thought it could be applied to hiring a candidate.
In his book titled, "Chance: A Guide to Gambling, Love, The Stock Market, & Just about Everything Else, Amir Aczel notes that a mathematical theorem has been developed to give us the best sampling and stopping rule for making decisions like finding a suitable mate, a great apartment, the cutest puppy, and related to selection, hiring the best candidate.
To quote Amir, he states that you will maximize your probability of finding the best [candidate] if you [interview] about thirty-seven percent of the available pool of candiates, and then [hire] the next candidate who is better than all previous ones.
He makes some assumptions such as where once you decide to pass over someone you cannot go back to them and give them a job offer (not totally unrealistic given a competitive labor market). He states this strategy gives you a 37 percent probability of making the best decision. Any other strategy--whether choosing earlier or later--significantly decreases your probability of success in finding the best candidate.
He provides several examples, all worth reading about. I just found it interesting and thought it may be applicable to selection. Although I've never come across it in the recruting or selection literature myself.
Posted by Jamie at October 13, 2005 7:21 AM:
Huh. That sounds interesting and I've put that book on my (way too long) wish list.
Seems like the scenario you describe would make an awful lot of assumptions about things like how much of the relevant talent, aptitude, or skill (say general intelligence or knowledge of Texas employment law) is distributed. If the distribution is very narrow,37% may be too many people to interview; if it's very spread out, 37% may be too few.
Post your own comment:
