Can We Do Better? Improving Candidate Feedback
In a world where artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming industries at a rapid pace, recruitment processes have become more streamlined than ever. Companies use advanced AI tools and Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) to sift through thousands of job applications, speeding up decision-making and reducing administrative tasks. However, despite these technological advances, there is still a significant gap in how companies communicate with candidates—especially those who are rejected.
The standard rejection email we’ve all seen—“We were highly impressed by your qualifications, but due to a high volume of candidates, we cannot progress your application at this time”—is no longer sufficient. It leaves candidates frustrated and unsure where they went wrong or how they might improve. Worse still, some receive these generic responses hours after submitting their application, creating a sense of helplessness. If we have the technology to assess applications quickly, surely we also have the tools to provide more meaningful feedback?
Lazy Communication from Reputable Employers
It’s disappointing to see that even well-known employers rely on these boilerplate responses, despite having access to cutting-edge AI and selection tools that could offer more. In the digital age, communication is crucial to maintaining a strong employer brand, and companies are missing an opportunity to build positive relationships with potential employees—even those they don’t hire. A more thoughtful rejection process could enhance the candidate experience, making it easier for them to improve and feel valued, even when the outcome isn’t what they had hoped for.
Instead of sending out blanket rejections, companies could offer more personalised insights into why a candidate was unsuccessful. Today’s technology allows this to be done efficiently, without overburdening HR teams. For example, diagnostics could be run over applications to detect patterns, offering tailored feedback on areas such as CV structure, alignment with job requirements, or missing skills.
How Can Companies Do Better?
Here are a few ideas that could elevate candidate feedback to a new standard:
1. Close Programmes as Soon as They Fill Up: One of the most frustrating experiences for candidates is being rejected simply because the programme or role was already filled. Often, they’re left wondering whether their application wasn’t strong enough when, in reality, the position was no longer available. Companies can improve by closing applications as soon as a position is filled and informing candidates accordingly, ensuring greater transparency.
2. More Detailed Rejection Emails: Instead of the vague “high volume of applicants” excuse, employers could categorise the reasons for rejection. Some examples might include:
• “Your qualifications did not fully match the specific requirements for this role.”
• “Unfortunately, the position was filled before we reviewed your application.”
• “We believe further experience in [specific area] would make you more competitive.”
These small changes would provide candidates with clearer insights into why they were not selected, offering them a chance to address the gaps.
3. Provide Resources for Improvement: For those who fell short on specific aspects, companies could offer suggestions for improvement. If a candidate did not demonstrate enough understanding of the company or industry, an email could point them towards:
• Relevant industry publications or websites.
• Sample CVs or cover letters that align with the company’s standards.
• Training or certification programmes relevant to the role.
This not only helps the candidate grow but positions the company as a supportive, thoughtful employer.
4. Information on Future Opportunities and Events: Another way companies can support rejected candidates is by sharing information on future opportunities. Employers could direct candidates to job portals they frequently use or invite them to employability events or webinars. This keeps the talent pool engaged and positions the company in a positive light, despite the rejection.
5. Feedback on Skills Gaps: Many AI recruitment systems can pinpoint gaps between a candidate’s skills and job requirements. Instead of letting this valuable data go to waste, companies could use it to offer candidates feedback, such as: “While your profile is strong, we noticed you lack experience in [specific skill].” This would give applicants clear guidance on what they need to work on.
6. Encourage Candidates to Reapply: If a candidate narrowly missed out, companies could encourage them to reapply in the future. A simple line such as, “We encourage you to reapply once you have gained more experience in [specific area],” can provide a sense of hope and direction.
7. Use AI to Personalise Feedback: With AI capable of analysing applications at scale, it’s no longer a challenge to personalise rejection emails. Even if some elements remain generic, a simple tweak—such as referencing a specific strength or area for improvement—can make a big difference. This can easily be integrated into existing applicant tracking systems (ATS) to ensure that candidates feel they’ve been seen as individuals, not just a number.
Final Thoughts: Time for a Change
At the core of this issue is the fact that candidates deserve more respect and support throughout the recruitment process, particularly when companies have the tools to offer it. While rejection is never easy, how it is communicated can make all the difference in how candidates view both the company and themselves. In a world where employer branding is crucial, offering thoughtful, constructive feedback can set a company apart—not just as an innovator, but as an organisation that values people.
It’s time for businesses to recognise that they can—and should—do better.