I especially like that you shared key takeaways, and I strongly approve of “Evaluate applications one question at a time (rather than one applicant at a time),” “Conduct a mock interview with another team member before the real interviews start,” and “Use a form that prevents people from submitting answers longer than the word limit.”
Regarding feedback, one idea I’ve been considering is to simply include a checkbox in the application form to allow people to opt in to feedback. It would include some phrasing indicating that feedback isn’t guaranteed as a result of ticking the box, so that it is an indication of request rather than a formal agreement. But it also can be a spot for some phrasing about how they agree not to escalate or take legal action.
The other thing that I’ve found useful regarding feedback is to have something standardized with examples of what you are looking for. Sofia Balderson at Animal Advocacy Careers has done that really nicely, and it allows a lot more people to get useful feedback without a proportionally increased burden from the hiring team.
Thanks!
OK interesting idea—to your question utilistrutil they did that by reaching out after they were rejected.
Hmm yes perhaps having a more standardised feedback process would work well, though I’m not sure how much of the value would be lost by it not being personalised (or being less personalised). Certainyl something to keep in mind for next time.
If you like, I could ask Sofia Balderson about sharing her method/model so that you could see how it works, and possibly adapt it. Let me know if you want me to put you in touch with her.
Thanks, I think hold off for now as I am not sure whether this will run next year (quite likely it will) and who will be running it, how it will be structured etc.
For the Animal Advocacy Careers scenario, I think the feedback was provided to everyone who was rejected, but I’m not sure about that. I’d estimate maybe a 30% chance that I am wrong.
For my idea about including a checkbox that allows applicants to opt in to feedback, I haven’t put much thought into the specifics about how giving feedback would work. These are rough an unpolished ideas, but I’ll do some spitballing:
Everyone who fills out an application form is prompted to select whether they would like feedback in case of rejection.
People who are rejected and then reach out to request feedback are usually given feedback, unless we have some specific reason to not give the feedback.
The feedback itself should lean toward being useful for the applicant. Thus, rather than saying “you didn’t demonstrate strong excel skills in the interview,” something more like “you didn’t demonstrate strong excel skills in the interview, and here are some links for resources that are good for learning how to do excel at an intermediate/advanced level.”
People who reach the later stages of the application process and then are rejected are actively asked if they would like to get feedback from the organization.
The farther someone gets in the process the more likely they are to get feedback.
The farther someone gets in the process the more detailed and useful the feedback is.
I haven’t thought much about legal risk, which is a very big area that I want addressed before implementing this.
Ah sorry I replied to the parent comment—we only gave feedback to people who requested it. From memory people rejected at the interview stage were told they could request feedback if they wanted, while people rejected before the interview stage were not told this, but sometimes requested and were given short feedback anyway.
Great writeup!
I especially like that you shared key takeaways, and I strongly approve of “Evaluate applications one question at a time (rather than one applicant at a time),” “Conduct a mock interview with another team member before the real interviews start,” and “Use a form that prevents people from submitting answers longer than the word limit.”
Regarding feedback, one idea I’ve been considering is to simply include a checkbox in the application form to allow people to opt in to feedback. It would include some phrasing indicating that feedback isn’t guaranteed as a result of ticking the box, so that it is an indication of request rather than a formal agreement. But it also can be a spot for some phrasing about how they agree not to escalate or take legal action.
The other thing that I’ve found useful regarding feedback is to have something standardized with examples of what you are looking for. Sofia Balderson at Animal Advocacy Careers has done that really nicely, and it allows a lot more people to get useful feedback without a proportionally increased burden from the hiring team.
Thanks! OK interesting idea—to your question utilistrutil they did that by reaching out after they were rejected. Hmm yes perhaps having a more standardised feedback process would work well, though I’m not sure how much of the value would be lost by it not being personalised (or being less personalised). Certainyl something to keep in mind for next time.
If you like, I could ask Sofia Balderson about sharing her method/model so that you could see how it works, and possibly adapt it. Let me know if you want me to put you in touch with her.
Thanks, I think hold off for now as I am not sure whether this will run next year (quite likely it will) and who will be running it, how it will be structured etc.
When applicants requested feedback, did they do that in the application or by reaching out after receiving a rejection?
For the Animal Advocacy Careers scenario, I think the feedback was provided to everyone who was rejected, but I’m not sure about that. I’d estimate maybe a 30% chance that I am wrong.
For my idea about including a checkbox that allows applicants to opt in to feedback, I haven’t put much thought into the specifics about how giving feedback would work. These are rough an unpolished ideas, but I’ll do some spitballing:
Everyone who fills out an application form is prompted to select whether they would like feedback in case of rejection.
People who are rejected and then reach out to request feedback are usually given feedback, unless we have some specific reason to not give the feedback.
The feedback itself should lean toward being useful for the applicant. Thus, rather than saying “you didn’t demonstrate strong excel skills in the interview,” something more like “you didn’t demonstrate strong excel skills in the interview, and here are some links for resources that are good for learning how to do excel at an intermediate/advanced level.”
People who reach the later stages of the application process and then are rejected are actively asked if they would like to get feedback from the organization.
The farther someone gets in the process the more likely they are to get feedback.
The farther someone gets in the process the more detailed and useful the feedback is.
I haven’t thought much about legal risk, which is a very big area that I want addressed before implementing this.
Thanks for such a thorough response! I am also curious to hear Oscar’s answer :)
Ah sorry I replied to the parent comment—we only gave feedback to people who requested it. From memory people rejected at the interview stage were told they could request feedback if they wanted, while people rejected before the interview stage were not told this, but sometimes requested and were given short feedback anyway.