We Regret to Inform You …

I was once in charge of a search process, and I asked HR if I might be permitted to contact the unsuccessful candidates myself. While they were wary, they OK’d the specific language of my letter and allowed me to send it. Now, most took it well, or at least did not evidence childish reception. But others? Wow. Threats of a suit. Demands for specifics on the qualification of the hired individual. Assertions that a congressman would be called and institutional consequences would be inflicted. Friend, does your attendant know that you’ve gotten off the grounds?

On the other hand, in my administrative and academic pursuits and the searches those have entailed, I have gotten as far as the final, on-campus interview three or so, and then….nothing. No letter, no call, not even a return call when a month or so passed and no word was received. But that’s useful information, too, about a joint with no class.

On balance, others’ poor behavior does not justify our own. Please send the letter, make the call, or see that it is done with appropriate courtesy. Simply treat others as you would wish to be treated. Your thoughtfulness and professionalism will be remembered by the majority of candidates–as will be the opposite.

I recently received a rejection letter (the first communication from the school, in fact) thanking me for my interest in X position and for speaking with the committee. In fact, I had done neither–I had applied for another position entirely. I have a position with which I’m thrilled, but I felt like writing to the search chair to inform them of the error. Some colleagues dissuaded me, but with this type of impersonality in the process, I can see how people can get fed up and act out.

The smugness or outright arrogance of this author indicates that this is the last person you’d want to work with. I’ll bet she truly believes she knows how to hire the best people and evaluate the performance of those she’s hired. Instead, all that is clear is that subservience and respect for power is her priority in employees. Did she ever wonder why she receives torn up rejection letters back? I never got dissed in the ways she cites because I always showed respect and empathy as an administrator. Perhaps those responses were triggered by their treatment in the application and interview process.

Also, comments here are wrong that complain it wasn’t always thus (back in the good ol’ days…). The type of rejection letter I nominate for returning in torn up bits were the ones I received way back in the 70s and 80s. These always prominently included a section trumpeting how many hundreds of applications they received and how proud they were to hire greatest person in the universe — not a classy way to inform someone they’ve been rejected! Every opening gets hundreds of applications, mostly from those without green cards or lacking fields or qualifications specified in the ad. The best ones may have applied, but may very well not accept the job (at least not at the salary and perks you’re able to offer).

Sorry about the bitterness of your experience, but graciousness is not smug, arrogant, or subservient. It’s just a good way to value people as people. Rejection stings, but when the rejectee feels that he or she has to hit back, that’s a pretty good indicator that he or she will be petty and vindictive in committee assignments, collaborative courses, and the general hurly-burly of academic life. I’d rather work with gracious people.

As a long-time, off and on administrator, you both missed the point. I was arguing in favor of graciousness, civility, and empathy! All we know from the article is how someone on the hiring end is perturbed and disappointed. But academia has long been a market with surplus supply, which naturally breeds arrogance and entitlement for those on the hiring side. The implication of the article (along with some of the comments here) is that the author had a hand in blackballing those who challenged her with these self-destructive responses. I would ask if jamesm and jhanks believe in that behavior, too?

Oh, yeah. We once were involved in a lengthy search, with administrative obstacles drawing it out, and unable to communicate these obstacles to candidates who were still in the running. One of the candidates called the president to complain about her “poor treatment” at our hands – with the result that we dropped her from our list of possibles.

It is difficult for me to detect any smugness or arrogance (outright or otherwise) in this author’s article. On the contrary, she communicated, to me at least, a great deal of empathy and compassion for what is for anyone difficult news, that is, being rejected. I have far more empathy and compassion for her than the rejected candidates after having seen the kind behavior she describes first hand.

You are so right about never burning bridges. Personnel at universities do change — and the ungracious lout who doesn’t communicate with candidates today may be on to somewhere else tomorrow. Reports of bad behavior from candidates, however, live on at institutions no matter what.

Ditto. Also had this experience. One of the interviewers in particular was on the attack from the first minute we sat down to talk. I don’t know if she had been assigned to play “bad cop” or not, but it was plain from the outset that her mind was already made up.

Graciousness is a two-way street.

“While no one likes to be rejected for an employment opportunity, I am consistently stunned that candidates will destroy all future possibilities by acting petulant.”
Sure sounds like a threat of blackballing to me. If she repeatedly receives such response, it might be time to re-examine her search procedures. Perhaps there’s a discourteous staffer in charge of communications with candidates, or their travel office may be holding up reimbursement, or any of a hundred sources that could be feeding this extreme antagonism.

Hm. When I’ve been rejected and gotten that letter extolling the brilliance of the person who was hired, it’s been helpful to me. “Oh,” I would think to myself, “I applied for that advisor position thinking I had qualifications enough, but then they hired someone with a PhD in Psych Counseling. I certainly don’t have that. They clearly hired someone more qualified than I am.” This would make me feel BETTER, because I realized I wasn’t rejected because they didn’t like me, but because they really did find someone better.

Those letters don’t seem un-classy to me at all.

And I’m going through a stack of CVs at this very minute. I promise you, the vast majority of them are well-qualified for the position. The person we finally hire will be brilliant and collegial and a great instructor, I hope, but I’m under no arrogant delusion about all the people we will reject. They’re all very good, too. They should be hired somewhere. They may be hired by us in the future.

But not if they pitch a hissy fit and mail the charred bits of their rejection letters back to HR. This job is stressful. Our students are not Joe and Jane Ivy. Committee duties are tedious and sometimes crazy-making. We won’t be hiring anyone who we now KNOW lets the id run free when things are not as they would prefer them to be.

Sometimes telling them off is appropriate. I once visited a campus only to learn that they could have cared less about having me there. I was just there to fulfill the admin’s job search requirements. It was insulting. I don’t care if they don’t like me (my regret is NOT telling them where to go).

The opposite side of this is when a chair goes nuts about a candidate turning down an offer. I’ve seen that, and it’s really stupid, especially when the other offer is a lot better.

1) Since darccity indicated they are an administrator, it’s reasonable to assume they have hired people. If they’ve hired people, then they have experience — perhaps substantial experience — from which to generalize.

2) Applications in the U.S. universally have a question along the lines of “Are you currently qualified to work in the United States?” That would cover the green card question. It’s not a question of professional qualifications per se but rather of legal ones.

3) “…how could you possibly know that most other applicants lack the ‘fields or qualifications specified in the ad’?” See 1 above.

I have had this same exact situation happen to me on numurous on campus interviews. As a new professional in our field, it really makes me think poorly of the institution when you don’t hear a peep after you get called to campus. Which is just plain sad and unprofessional.

Chime. Nice article and response.

Even in that siutation, it does YOU no good to repond negatively. One never knows what can come out of a poor situation. It is better to leave no impression than a bad one. If you feel disrespected simply shake the dust off and move on, but do not retaliate.

This question does not cover the green card. It covers the status of the applicant. If the person’s status in the US is “legal” , then he/she qualifies to apply for a Work Permit based on a job offer. I am sure of this because I asked the institutions’ HRs about it.

Yes, it is important to be polite, but I never appreciated the rejection phone call. My gut response was to just hang up, especially if they went on and on (I didn’t, but wished I had a few times).I prefer a thanks, but no thanks letter. I don’t want to know who you hired, I don’t care how many applicants, blah blah…Just thank me for applying and reject me. Advise for those wanting to rage…put the rejection letter/email through the shredder, sip on wine and laugh as you watch it turn into a thousand pieces of irrelevance.

As a mid-career college administrator, I am putting a dedicated effort into how to better communicate when having to reject applicants. That effort is driven in part by having been hired and now working for some of the most thoughtful, gracious Deans and Provosts I have ever had the opportunity to meet, let alone work for. I aspire to be able to so the same as well as they do. It is also driven by the acute understanding that due to the nature of the positions that report to me, I need to build strong relationships not just with those I hire, but those I might want to hire in the future.

That being said, I wish that more applicants realized that how they handle rejection says a lot about them as potential employees and whether or not a potential employer would reach out to them, should another position become available. A hostile response to being rejected for a position, can only justify why the candidate was rejected.

The worst experience I’ve had in 16 years in academia raises similar memories. I was chair of a chair search committee, and after our moronic dean (who is now a community college president) made his selection — the internal candidate he urged to apply — he had that choice announced on the college web page the same day, before I could call the unsuccessful candidates. I have spent years repairing the damage to my integrity and professional reputation as a result.

Thanks, Andrew. The Chronicle has always had a pro-administrator bias. Just to expand on the “unqualified” issue: Every time I posted ads for an opening, a majority of the applicants did not have the fields of specialization specified in the ad. Not on their resume, not in courses they taught, not in research articles published. If the ad says must have a doctorate, you get tons of applicants without one. So lets say you get 300 applications that reduce to 50 by the national meetings time. A large portion of those 50 may already have positions and are merely testing the market (or need an offer to dicker for a raise — that’s what some deans require now!). If there are 20 openings nationally this year, they all received those 300 applications. Yet the reality could be that most of the qualified applicants will get offers, and a sizable fraction of offered will be spurned (especially for remote locales and more budget-strapped institutions)! Thus, the market may appear like a buyer’s market, whereas it is really a seller’s market!

Not long ago, I earnestly applied for a major position at a sizable and fairly prestigious institution. I didn’t even get an automated reply from HR. As the position was “Open Until Filled,” I checked back from time to time to see if the ad was still up. Some weeks later, it abruptly disappeared from the institution’s website. Googling the position ID turned up an internal document indicating that the position had closed a few weeks after my submission and was now filled. I expect that this is all the notification I will ever get about the status of my application.

This experience is getting to be more or less typical.

I want to make it clear that I do not apply for jobs for which I am not minimally qualified. I do not shotgun applications into the ether. I put a lot of effort into cover letters. I craft each application carefully to highlight points that are relevant to the advertised position, and I specify why I’m excited by the job prospect. I’m not a recent graduate by any stretch of the imagination, and I have a very specialized combination of skills and experience, which these ads are asking for, and which I am confident that dozens or hundreds of applicants do not have. In short, I am not just tossing generic junk applications onto the slushpile here, and I believe that my efforts merit some sort of response, even if it’s a perfunctory one, in a more or less timely manner.

I want any HR personnel and search committee members reading this to know how discouraging and depressing it is when an applicant puts his heart and hope into this process and is answered by not so much as a “thank you for playing.” Many of us who are sending these packages in, which you are asking for, are not trying to waste your time or ours. We are in fact depending on this process to make a living. Speaking for myself, I’ve scarcely enjoyed waiting week after week for a response that never comes while the prospect of homelessness looms ever closer.

I’m sorry that, judging by this article, applicants are often rude to you, and whenever I get some notice that my application has been considered, I am genuinely grateful, and I make an effort to say so. I’m sure it’s galling to be on the receiving end of a bitter tantrum just because you did your job. But here’s some consolation: at least your operation doesn’t go belly-up if you fail to receive thank-you letters from candidates. But when we applicants hear nothing back from you, that is exactly the prospect we face. You are the ones with most of the power in this arrangement.

You can make a huge difference in our lives just by acknowledging our correspondence. And if you’re answered by the occasional hissy fit from a spurned candidate– and I promise you it will never be me– then maybe it’s because we’re going a little crazy out here waiting for answers.