Why do some employers provide feedback to non-hired candidates?

Ultimately, it is done because it is a courtesy that promotes the employer's general image and reputation, and because it allows the conversation with the candidate to be more easily resumed on the employer's initiative, if the employer's circumstances suddenly change.

If the line just goes dead, or the employer doesn't explain themselves, the candidate will be less inclined to engage if the employer returns later.

Under certain market conditions it also releases information to the local market and promotes self-selection amongst applicants, so that the employer attracts more suitable candidates and receives fewer unsuitable ones. If an employer sends a candidate away who lacks a certain skill, the refused candidate just may well know a friend who has that exact skill and so encourage the friend's application.

It has fallen out of use by many employers these days because they are often running beauty contests amongst a surfeit of candidates, surveying the market to see if they can undercut existing staff, or running a perfunctory recruitment exercise to cover a pre-picked candidate, so there is often no truth that is both useful and politically-neutral that can be fed back to failed candidates.

And they may be fishing in pools where there is often nowadays large amounts of unemployment or underemployment, and where eligible candidates are sustaining lots of rejection - so as well as facing a surfeit of applicants, the employer may face candidates who are more demanding or chippy about feedback than was once the case.

Employers who might once have been engaged in shenanigans and then fed back some dishonest platitudes to maintain a form of politeness, especially don't want to get drawn into having to concoct very complicated false reasons and embellish their lies further to candidates demanding more specific feedback or detailed opinion. Nor do they want candidates to surmise anything from whether feedback is being provided or not on a particular occasion, so if they're going to withhold feedback sometimes then they really need to withhold it always.

Also, social security regimes often don't allow candidates to wait for credible employment, so this contributes to employers having to process scatter-gun applications in which candidates have little stake, even to the point where candidates may be compelled to turn up in person to interview for a job which they don't want.

As others say: not everything is transactional, and at least not directly. It still makes sense for them to do so, tho, and let me add some ideas why:

• Famous quote: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is, I don't know which half". You can end up as someone that is very useful to the company, or you may not. They have no way of knowing.
• It is hard to be nice in a transactional or conditional way. If you want the company to be seen as a good member of society, as a nice place to work, as an including and great actor.. Then turning that on/off based on the status of the application is really hard, and probably harder than just being nice all the time.

It's not always a company policy. Sometimes a company has a policy to ignore failed candidates unless they need them, but usually there's no policy and it's down to the HR.

I’ve worked at a company where HR had a log of anyone ever involved with the company as a (potential) employee. If you left the company, your name might be in the log with leaving date and a “hire again” flag. And two years in the future when they needed a new employee you might get a call. Same if you had an interview and you were the second best candidate. And two years later the best one who they hired is leaving. Obvious to give you a call.

And if you were not the best candidate but quite good, giving you helpful feedback is a cheap method to improve the chances that you start with the company when they need you. If you are the third best today you might easily be the best in two years time. 🕰️

This company was in it for the long term. So planning two years ahead came quite normal to them.

One way that it is in the company's interests to do this, is that if you were nearly selected, you might be a good candidate for the next vacancy. Suppose the reason you weren't chosen is because you didn't talk about your experience with XYZ, which is a relevant qualification for the job. Assuming candidates don't simply lie about their experience, there are four kinds of candidate:

1. Those who have experience with XYZ, and say so during the interview.
2. Those who have experience with XYZ, but don't say so during the interview.
3. Those who have no experience with XYZ, and say so during the interview.
4. Those who have no experience with XYZ, but don't say so during the interview.

The best strategy for the company is to hire someone from category 1, since they can't distinguish between people in category 2 and category 4. Given this, the company only selects the actual best candidate if that candidate is in category 1.

So, if the company gives feedback like "you'd be welcome to apply to us next time, and it would help to mention any experience you have with XYZ", and you do apply again, then the proportion of candidates in category 2 is decreased. That makes it more likely that next time, the actual best candidate will be in category 1, and hence more likely to be selected.

Google provides a reading list (3 books) to read before starting the interview process. One of those books is a generic book about how to interview for a job, i.e. how to improve your interview skills.

As an interviewer I would like candidates to have worked on their interview skills, however I try to work with the candidate even if their interview skills are poor, in order to get a clear understanding of what they will contribute to the role, (if I were to recommend to hire them).

I may reject a candidate because I feel they are not a good fit for the role or because I am unable to get a good read on them (I wasn't able to work around their skill at interviewing).

However I see it as a win-win if I can encourage candidates to improve their interview skills (as an otherwise strong candidate) the candidate is more likely to get a role they want in the future. As a hiring manager it is easier to judge the ability of a candidate, if they can clearly demonstrate what they know (someone has previously told them they need to improve their interview skills).