Also, looking into how applications are rejected: At the later stages, a phone call is a much better choice than an email, I would say.
This might be a nice thing to do, but I definitely don’t think it’s required, and I don’t think a lack of it is evidence that GiveWell’s hiring is unprofessional or in need of reform.
I don’t have all that much sympathy for a candidate who gets angry because they got a boilerplate-ish rejection email; this is widespread standard practice. Getting rejected sucks, obviously, and I have sympathy for that, but I don’t think pressuring orgs to take on burdensome practices to mitigate that is likely to be a good use of resources.
I agree that a rejection email isn’t evidence that GiveWell is worse than other places. At the same time, even though it’s standard practice, an organization can do better. A two-minute phone call to each of the few remaining candidates at later stages isn’t that burdensome and has several benefits:
It makes the organization stand out as one that cares about applicants. Which is good because organizations compete for talent.
It maintains the relationship with the rejected candidate. Which is good because a candidate who got to the later stages might be fit for other roles in the future.
It makes rejection hurt less, which is good in and of itself.
Now, dan.pandori says he would find a phone call rejection off-putting. So it becomes a question of degrees: What share of people would find it off-putting, depending on how well or badly it’s done?
Because with email it’s easy to read in a tone of ‘you suck, we’re sending you boilerplate niceties to get rid of you’, which is not possible with a phone call. (Unless the caller makes it sound like boilerplate niceties. I’m not saying such calls are easy. Email is the easy cop-out.) Something like that. Have you had the experience where you keep communicating with someone by text and get more and more annoyed with them, then you get on a call and all annoyance melts away because hearing a voice reminds you of the other person’s humanity? Perhaps it’s just me who thinks strange things.
Ultimately it’s an empirical question and my prediction is that on balance, a phone call has more value.
Was going to say the same. I’ve only ever been rejected over email (or ghosted entirely). I would also find it off-putting to get a phone call rejection. I guess organizations can choose to call if they wanted, but I wouldn’t personally encourage it.
What we did at RP Longtermism’s most recent hiring rounds (not sure if it’s applicable to other departments/teams) is send rejections via email and offer rejected final round candidates a chance to call with someone on the team if they wanted to. This lets candidates opt in to talk more with team members if and only if they wanted to, and also do so at their own pace so they’re emotionally ready to call when ready.
I don’t have statistics off the top of my head, but I want to say more than half. I think people were positive about it, but it’s hard to get accurate takes when there are such strong incentives for people to just generally seem positive here, so I wouldn’t take the positive sentiment there too seriously.
Phone calls for me are socially awkward and I generally want some time to privately process rejection rather than immediately need to have a conversation about it. Also I generally keep my phone at home during business hours so it’s quite likely I’d need to spend half an hour playing phone tag.
You call, greet the person, say in the first sentence that you won’t be making an offer, say a few more short sentences, react to any responses, then hang up. You don’t make it a conversation. The important thing is that they hear your voice.
It’s fine to speak on voicemail and for the other person not to call back. This avoids phone tag.
Note that Manager Tools doesn’t always have to most airtight arguments, but they tend to have tested their core guidance (which includes hiring) empirically.
This might be a nice thing to do, but I definitely don’t think it’s required, and I don’t think a lack of it is evidence that GiveWell’s hiring is unprofessional or in need of reform.
I don’t have all that much sympathy for a candidate who gets angry because they got a boilerplate-ish rejection email; this is widespread standard practice. Getting rejected sucks, obviously, and I have sympathy for that, but I don’t think pressuring orgs to take on burdensome practices to mitigate that is likely to be a good use of resources.
I agree that a rejection email isn’t evidence that GiveWell is worse than other places. At the same time, even though it’s standard practice, an organization can do better. A two-minute phone call to each of the few remaining candidates at later stages isn’t that burdensome and has several benefits:
It makes the organization stand out as one that cares about applicants. Which is good because organizations compete for talent.
It maintains the relationship with the rejected candidate. Which is good because a candidate who got to the later stages might be fit for other roles in the future.
It makes rejection hurt less, which is good in and of itself.
Now, dan.pandori says he would find a phone call rejection off-putting. So it becomes a question of degrees: What share of people would find it off-putting, depending on how well or badly it’s done?
Why would rejection hurt less in a call than an email?
Because with email it’s easy to read in a tone of ‘you suck, we’re sending you boilerplate niceties to get rid of you’, which is not possible with a phone call. (Unless the caller makes it sound like boilerplate niceties. I’m not saying such calls are easy. Email is the easy cop-out.) Something like that. Have you had the experience where you keep communicating with someone by text and get more and more annoyed with them, then you get on a call and all annoyance melts away because hearing a voice reminds you of the other person’s humanity? Perhaps it’s just me who thinks strange things.
Ultimately it’s an empirical question and my prediction is that on balance, a phone call has more value.
Was going to say the same. I’ve only ever been rejected over email (or ghosted entirely). I would also find it off-putting to get a phone call rejection. I guess organizations can choose to call if they wanted, but I wouldn’t personally encourage it.
What we did at RP Longtermism’s most recent hiring rounds (not sure if it’s applicable to other departments/teams) is send rejections via email and offer rejected final round candidates a chance to call with someone on the team if they wanted to. This lets candidates opt in to talk more with team members if and only if they wanted to, and also do so at their own pace so they’re emotionally ready to call when ready.
What share of people took you up on that?/Did anyone comment on the offer?
I don’t have statistics off the top of my head, but I want to say more than half. I think people were positive about it, but it’s hard to get accurate takes when there are such strong incentives for people to just generally seem positive here, so I wouldn’t take the positive sentiment there too seriously.
I see. Thanks!
What would you find off-putting about it?
Phone calls for me are socially awkward and I generally want some time to privately process rejection rather than immediately need to have a conversation about it. Also I generally keep my phone at home during business hours so it’s quite likely I’d need to spend half an hour playing phone tag.
Good to know, thanks!
For completeness, my idea of a rejection phone call (derived from https://www.manager-tools.com/2014/11/how-turn-down-job-candidate-part-1) is:
You call, greet the person, say in the first sentence that you won’t be making an offer, say a few more short sentences, react to any responses, then hang up. You don’t make it a conversation. The important thing is that they hear your voice.
It’s fine to speak on voicemail and for the other person not to call back. This avoids phone tag.
Note that Manager Tools doesn’t always have to most airtight arguments, but they tend to have tested their core guidance (which includes hiring) empirically.