Given the state of the job market, many academics are reflecting on rejection these days. In this enlightening thread on the Chronicle Forums, academics on both sides of the table debate which medium — phone, e-mail, or letter — is best for rejecting finalists and receiving the bad news.
barred_owl, for one, thinks a phone call is the way to go because …
(1) it’s faster, and (2) it’s more personal. After all, the committee spoke to you in person, probably had dinner with you, etc. You were one of 3-4 invited for a face-to-face interview, so there may be some sense of obligation to deliver the news more personally, via a phone call, than to send a relatively impersonal letter.
She notes that while a rejection call is uncomfortable for all parties involved, in some ways it’s “a blessing” for candidates, leaving them more time to consider their other options.
libarts points out that it’s also an “opportunity to show your class and composure” and professionalism, which can pay off later:
When someone is gracious — thanks me for calling, says they appreciated the interview, whatever they can muster — I hang up the phone thinking that this is someone I would like to work with. And more than once, the person’s name has come around again — we’ve even hired people for a second position. Heck, I didn’t get the job at my current institution the first time out. On the flip side, when someone is angry or rude, I end the call thinking I dodged a bullet in not making that particular hire.
paulsa seconds that notion. There’s nothing pleasant about rejection calls, he says, but …
If you can manage it (fake it if necessary), I think there’s some benefit to showing yourself to be a good sport during the call. While I don’t exactly send them Christmas cards, I’ve actually kept up a small amount of contact with some of the people who served on search committees who rejected me, and without (I hope) being stalkerish about it, have approached and said hi to them at conferences and the like.
offthemarket, on the other hand, thinks rejection calls are a form of cruel and unusual punishment. “I’d much prefer an e-mail. It usually is a letdown (though in some cases a moment of relief), and I’d rather have that moment in private.”
Many posters, it seems, favor e-mail rejections. Malcha prefers e-mail (even though she once got into “a fender bender because I was tearing up over a rejection e-mail I’d just received”), she writes …
exactly because the phone call is more personal. I know that personal + rejection does not = personal rejection, but it is hard not to feel like the rejection itself is personalized by the more personal medium.
red_queen, meanwhile, is in the “rejection-by-e-mail camp” (though a letter is classier, in her opinion, because it allows the candidate to save face:
From the perspective of the candidate, in addition to having a private moment, I can choose when to open e-mail. From the perspective of a SC member, I am not requiring the candidate to share his/her moment with me.
alleyoxenfree goes on to note that a rejection call can seem like an ambush, since phone calls are often associated with good news:
“I got my first two rejection phone calls this year, and what made them especially difficult was that I previously have only received phone calls when I got an offer.”
monsterx, alas, has other reasons for being partial to e-mail rejections:
It gives me freedom to curse the pathetic little toads on the SC, to speculate as to their ancestry and the marital status of their parents, to declare that I would never have taken a job at that turd of a department in that cesspit of a town in any case, because of the evident lead poisoning in the water supply. On the phone, much of that would be considered impolite. But if you write an e-mail reply, you just have to be sure to click “delete” rather than “send” and you can say what you like.
paulsa, however, says he’ll take a phone call over an e-mail message any day — adding that, no matter how the news is delivered, “you’re gonna feel crushed” about not getting the job. And …
considering how cold and impersonal (if not downright Kafkaesque) most of these interactions with academic employers are, I really appreciate the phone call. After going through all of the trouble and expense of applying, traveling to a conference to meet with them, flying out to their university, putting my heart and soul into my presentations, eating meals with them, even meeting their children and spouses in some cases, I’d consider it rude and even downright cowardly of them to send me an e-mail.
Which medium gets your vote? And how does your department say no?
Follow On Hiring through your favorite RSS reader:
16 Responses to The Best Rejection Method
lee77 - March 15, 2010 at 8:05 am
How to say no? To paraphrase the Paul Simon song, there must be 50 ways to reject a candidate. Certainly, the more time invested, and the closer the person was to getting the offer, then the more a phone call makes sense (also assuming that the person who makes the call is a key member of the search committee, and that person has good telephone presence – it might be better for a member of the search committee to send an email, than a phone call from an HR assistant). Email after a phone interview to say the candidate will not be invited to campus seems fine. An email after an marginal campus interview may also be appropriate.
oldiebutgoodie - March 15, 2010 at 8:18 am
My choice is the email. As someone already mentioned, I have only ever received phone offers. When I recently received a phoned rejection, I was totally unprepared and I’m sure I stammered something inarticulate before graciously (I hope) uttering a thank you and hanging up. I felt like I was being “tested” once again but the same person who had already interviewed me. Give me the email any day and let me deal with it on my own time.On the other hand, how about the ‘non-rejection’? That’s the one where you go through a successful phone interview, then the campus interview, then do the follow-up thank you…. then hear nothing. I had two of those recently — is it the economy? For the first, I finally called after an acceptable period of time only to be told the standard “We are a very large institution and can’t personally respond to all applications. The position has been filled.” This was an institution of about 4,000 students, and I was one of three finalists.The other? I had the phone interview and campus interview — travel and overnight at my own expense. When I heard nothing, I called HR and they had no record of either interview. In fact, they couldn’t even find my application materials. HR told me that they decided to keep the person who had been the interim professor. I left many voicemails with the head of the interview committee but have yet to hear from him. In hindsight, this is one job I’m glad I didn’t get!
dr_redrum - March 15, 2010 at 9:20 am
Silence is the worst of all. It’s now two months past the notification deadline the committee chair gave me when I visited their lovely little north woods campus. I’ve gotten neither email; nor phone call; nor the dreaded “f-you very much” letter. I’m not clueless. I have my contacts and my information sources. I know they have asked additional candidates to visit the campus. Perhaps it is a case of the Sour Grapes, but now I know for sure I’d never want to work with them. They are soulless, heartless and gutless. Not my kind of folks.
7738373863 - March 15, 2010 at 9:54 am
But the medium is not the message, and to that end one should pay some attention to the content of the message. For example, telling the unsuccessful finalist that this was an extremely difficult decision calls attention to the hiring committee’s plight–and who cares, since the members of that committee still/already have jobs?–rather than addressing the finalist’s state of mind. On the other hand, telling the finalist that s/he made a close race of it and made the final decision extremely difficult as a result gives credit to whom it is due: the finalist.As dr_redrum notes, whatever the decision and whatever the medium by which it is conveyed, promptness is essential, as any bitter news becomes worse with the passage of time interpreted by the finalist as ineptitude or neglect.
tess58 - March 15, 2010 at 9:54 am
My choice is e-mail or an actual letter. I have had two experiences with phone rejection and both times it was horrible. 1. My first experience was by far the worst. I am convinced the person calling was enjoying making the rejection call. Most people, I think, assume if the head of the SC is calling, it is to make an offer. This woman seemed to know that most people would assume that to be the case and paused for just enough time after her fake but cheery hello before slamming me. My response to that pause was joy that I was about to be offered a job. Less than a second later she slammed me with a curt thanks, but no thanks. Frankly it was cruel. It was clear she loved putting me (and I am assuming others) in that position. I am afraid I was so taken off guard that I said something rude and hung-up. It was a horrible experience and 5 years later I still cringe when I see that horrible woman at conferences. 2. Simply, the head of the SC left a long winded message on my answering machine. Asked me to call him back, not sure why, but I did not. If he really wanted to talk with me he could have made the call. To quote my teenage son, “what ever.” At least with a letter/e-mail printed out I can put it in the shredder while muttering expletives. This, at least for me, allows me to feel I have some control. The rejection phone call is one more device to cow the candidate and frankly I find it offensive.Oh and since these horrible experiences, I have been on the other side of the equation. I always write a polite and professional letter to the job candidate (never a form letter).
copesan - March 15, 2010 at 10:01 am
I vote for email. It allows the receiver to have a private moment in receiving rejection, and then to summon up and compose the professional, classy response, whereas a phone call puts you on the spot and forces you to come up with the professional, classy response while you are trying to deal with the disappointment. However, this discussion elides the fact that all too many departments fail to behave in a way that is professional and civilized – they still neither acknowledge receipt of a dossier, nor do they notify that the position has been filled. Yes, I know that with the numbers of applications rising for each posted position, there is a problem with the clerical work involved to acknowledge and notify. Too bad. Be adults. Be professional. Figure it out and do the right thing.
ellenschrecker - March 15, 2010 at 10:22 am
A further issue — Should the SC tell (via email) the rejected finalists the name of the successful candidate?
7738373863 - March 15, 2010 at 10:28 am
RE: #7In my experience, the telephone or email is for conveying the decision. If the SC wishes to apprise the finalist (or some larger subset of the applicants) of the name and credentials of the successful candidate, that’s a snailmail task. Snailmail in this situation protects the poor sport who might otherwise hit “reply” and fire off a snarky reponse all too soon to be regretted.
7738373863 - March 15, 2010 at 10:30 am
RE: #7–ProofreadIn my experience, the telephone or email is for conveying the decision. If the SC wishes to apprise the finalists (or some larger subset of the applicants) of the name and credentials of the successful candidate, that’s a snailmail task. Snailmail in this situation protects the poor sport who might otherwise hit “reply” and fire off a snarky response all too soon to be regretted.
timewaster123 - March 15, 2010 at 2:30 pm
I have to say I prefer email. It lets me send back a nice quick response thanking the committee for considering me and for their feedback on my research talk. A phone call might be a bit much, and since I’m often out and about, they’d more often than not get my voicemail, which is not the proper place for a GFY message.
tallenc - March 15, 2010 at 5:44 pm
I much prefer the clarity and directness of a written statement even if it’s delivered electronically, and I don’t like talking on the phone, so I vote for email.That said, though, the medium of communication is far less important than the promptness of the notification. I have often waited months–and on one occasion, almost a year–before receiving notication that I was being rejected. That’s just wrong.
marymcg - March 15, 2010 at 6:46 pm
I just want SOME response.I’ve recently been through a search for a mid-level student affairs position. Like others here, I have gone through lengthy applications (often requiring the institution’s own unique application form–which of course can’t be completed or saved electronically, but must be typed [who still owns a typewriter??] or filled out by hand every time–plus a supplementary application with multiple essay questions, in addition to the usual resume/cover letter/references); a phone interview; and a campus interview that often takes a good part of a day. Each time I studied up on the institution and the position, took time off from my current job, got all dressed up in my interview best, got myself to campus at the appointed time, gave them my very best pitch, and followed up promptly with an enthusiastic thank-you note…only to hear nothing from them, ever again. This probably happend with an appalling one-third of the jobs I interviewed for this last time around.All I could do was grind my teeth and tell myself that if there is any justice, these rude and thoughtless people would eventually be on the other end of the process, and find out what it’s like to be left hanging when it would take so little effort for the other party to give them a little closure.
11161452 - March 16, 2010 at 12:03 am
I agree with #11 that the promptness of the communication is the most important thing. With the various options available these days, there is really no good excuse for delays once the decisions have been made. If they don’t want to e-mail, by all means, place a phone call. I do not own a cell phone, and I’m not a person who is on the phone most of the day, so I’m not worried about getting “caught off guard” with a negative message. The issue of whether to reveal the winner of the position is an interesting one, visited on several occasions in the Chronicle forum section. I always hope they do reveal it, as I can then proceed to check out the position that person is vacating. Apparently, fewer and fewer schools will part with that information. Maybe they’re afraid of retribution against the individual–which is pretty pathetic.
sslater - March 16, 2010 at 1:28 pm
I am surprised there is any question about this! If a candidate has been interviewed for a position that person deserves the courtesy of a personal response – that is, a phone call. In addition to common courtesy, the phone call allows the employer to provide feedback to the candidate that will hopefully help them better understand the decision and perhaps improve their performance in future interviews (e.g., one candidate I spoke with decided to get some personal coaching after my feedback echoed that of other employers she’d heard from).I consider this interchange the least an employer can do for someone who has taken considerable time and energy to express their interest in a position in the form of interviews, work samples and sometimes professional exercises. I am surprised at the people who say they prefer an email to allow them the privacy to cope with the “rejection”. I would hope that both employer and candidate have enough professionalism to not just endure this call but turn it into something helpful for the candidate. (I do, however, send an email to all candidates who don’t make the shortlist)
robertkase51 - March 18, 2010 at 12:00 pm
As Dean I always call the finalists myself on the phone. If they are not there I ask them to call at their convenience, since I have already (hopefully) developed some kind of a personal relationship, and feel it appropriate to tell them the bad news in person. It shows respect and compassion as well as provides the opportunity to personally say thank you, and to also encourage them to not give up and continue on. Those that are not finalists are sent a snailmail letter that says thank you. I think that is still more appropriate than an email. I take the application process seriously and I believe this process sends that message with more respect. As for those heartless schools that never respond, I say shame, shame shame. I was recently contacted by phone by a university to apply for their Dean’s position. I remembered that 20 years ago when I applied for their Chair’s position I was never sent a letter or given a phone call. So, I refused to apply for their Dean’s position. It felt very good.
pmrojcewicz - March 18, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Perhaps as problematic as a limited job market is never receiving any constructive criticism that would allow one to recalibrate the application anew for the next job. A telephone call, however awkward, is classier and allows the rejected candidate to inquire as what she might learn to strengthen future applications.