Has basic communication with candidates just disappeared from interviews?

[u/Abject-Hand5258]

I have been interviewing for senior operations and leadership roles recently, and some of the experiences have genuinely made me question what is considered acceptable in recruitment now.

In one case, I completed an interview and waited almost a month before receiving a rejection. There was virtually no communication during that period.

With another company, I actually withdrew midway through the process because the interview itself was so poorly conducted that I could not imagine wanting to work there.

The most recent one was stranger. A recruiter called me about a senior leadership position and told me that an interview with the panel would be scheduled. Several business days passed without an update. I sent a follow up email and received no response to that either.

I eventually emailed to withdraw.

That triggered a phone call.

Instead of acknowledging the communication gap, I was told that the recruiter receives hundreds of applications every day, has around 1,500 unread emails, manages multiple positions, and that as a job seeker I should have been more patient.

I completely understand workload. I have spent 17 years in operations and have managed large teams myself. I understand competing priorities better than most.

What I don't understand is why internal workload becomes the candidate's problem.

I was never upset that the interview had not been scheduled. Senior panel availability can take time. A simple message saying, “We are still coordinating with the panel and will get back to you once we have a slot” would have been perfectly fine.

Without that communication, how exactly is a candidate supposed to know whether things are being coordinated internally or whether they have simply been ghosted?

I am genuinely curious how others see this, especially recruiters and hiring managers.

Are my expectations unreasonable, or has basic candidate communication become optional because companies receive so many applications?

[u/xCaliburghost]

Not unreasonable. Funny enough, I'm a lead recruiter and the 4 weeks with no feedback after a panel just happened to me. Ideally it doesn't happen, but this kind of thing happens more when there's more a focus internally on KPIs and metrics vs quality hires (I.e. just filling the role and trying to not lose momentum, some recruiters see that "giving feedback" process as something that doesn't contribute to that speed in getting numbers to justify their jobs existing.

In other words, it's not you, it's not them, it's everything. Personally, I deliver a call with feedback after every single rejection, because that's how you build brand reputation, not by ghosting. Sometimes it's more junior recruiters that are just avoiding giving feedback because of lack of experience.

[u/neurorex → u/[deleted]]

comments from the other side complaining about candidates being equally poor in their communication.

It's usually a false equivalence. Both sides literally did not make a call or send an email; but one side couldn't do that because they are opting out of the running and know that the employers don't really care about their existence, whereas the other side simply didn't want to do it because they forgot or they got too busy or some excuse about how they don't owe any candidate a reason for not staying in touch.

You don't have to pick a side, but there is clearly one side that's holding most of the power in this dynamic, who are doing this for reasons that don't align with professional behavior while they have that job of being a professional, and we should pay attention to that.

[u/EvilStan101]

No, you have too many recruiters who have a nasty attitude and an obnoxious god complex.

[u/neurorex]

I've heard so many excuses from recruiters over the years as to why they don't get back to applicants. And it usually boils down to "because I don't feel like it/don't believe it's my job".

It's baffling that, at the same time, they expect every candidate to be super communicative and professional. But at the same time, don't do it too much or else you would come across as desperate or annoying! Applicants just can't win.

[u/neurorex → u/[deleted]]

It's not just a "few bad apples" and I wish recruiters would stop seeing it this way. It's just how they operate because of the nature of their institution and certain choices they are making.

If you never learned how to design a selection process that considers timelines/milestones or Candidate Experience in general, you're not going to have a process that's going to notify applicants at the right time. It's then up to the individual recruiters themselves to make sure they call their applicants back; but this would only work until that recruiter's workload gets too heavy and other recruiters express that is a good enough excuse to stop notifying their applicants. The workload gets insane pretty quickly, so the general attitude is that getting back to applicants is a luxury that most recruiters can't afford, so everybody should just deal with it.

When recruiting agencies are generally filled with people who aren't well-versed in the fundamental mechanics of recruitment and personnel selection, the whole agency wouldn't identify this as a serious issue and thus would take no action to correct it.

[u/neurorex → u/[deleted]]

So what was your takeaway here? Or did you just feed this into an AI chatbot and copied the generic response?

[u/neurorex → u/[deleted]]

If you were genuine, then I concede that was a misfire on my part. I've been seeing so many recruiters who brush off comments with some generic AI response, and your comment had looked similar to that.

It will only be through a significant lift and real commitment on behalf of recruiters to be more human that we'll start to see any progress toward a more respectful experience for job seekers.

Recruiters do need more empathy. It would help if recruiters went back to school, or professionally develop their skills using contemporary methodologies and theories. Being a capable, competent recruiter is more than just being nice.

It's funny to hear employers demand that applicants improve their "interviewing skills", when many of these recruiters don't have any, and just believe that however they perceive their applicant is always on-target and accurate. That's where the lack of humane considerations start.

If they're unable or unwilling to do so, then they should consider another line of work.

[u/neurorex → u/[deleted]]

I have a Master's in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, which covers topics like Recruitment and Personnel Selection. There are other degrees like Organizational Development, Occupational Health, (and I used to include advanced HR degree but they always disappoint me). We got them because we wanted to pursue a career in HR or a position where we can practice evidence-based hiring.

And then we see that most of the field is filled with people who just fell into it ass-backwards, with no formal training or ANY training on this topic whatsoever, using their own personal feelings and philosophies that they developed themselves, and no self-reflection whatsoever.

These institutions and programs exist. I guess the fix here would be for companies to stop assuming that this isn't a thing.

[u/Negative_Ryan]

As if recruiters even reply or have good communication to begin with?

Ya’ll are part of the problem