Get access to 100's of HR resources in HRM INSIDER

Learn More

HRMorning

Rejection letters: Avoid them at your PR peril

Tim Gould
by Tim Gould
2 minute read

The first law of writing letters to rejected job applicants: Send them.
It’s one of those tasks that’s easy to overlook — especially these days, when fewer openings can mean a deluge of candidates for each job.
But survey after survey indicates there’s one thing prospective workers hate about the application process — the fact they never hear from a company after an interview.
Yes, the message gets through: They didn’t get the job. But along with that information, they also learn an important lesson:
This company doesn’t care enough about people to send a courtesy letter.
Not exactly the kind of PR most companies are looking for.
What to put in, what to leave out
So what should these “thanks but no thanks” letters look like? Some tips from the experts:
Forget the “we’ll keep your resume on file” gambit. Although this is an old standard in rejection letters, such a promise could be a potential legal problem, the lawyers say.
Some applicants might see this as a promise they’ll be considered for all future openings in their field. You don’t want to be hamstrung by re-interviewing rejected candidates every time a new opening comes up.
Scrap the form letter. Computers make it easy to pop out a boilerplate letter to everybody who doesn’t make the grade. But applicants can spot a form letter from a mile off — and that kind of impersonal brushoff can be just as insulting as getting no letter at all.
Be blunt — but gentle. You’re imparting bad news, so there’s no sense in trying to sugarcoat things. On the other hand, it does no harm to thank the applicant for his or her interest in your company — and wish them well in the future.
Don’t get into specifics. You don’t need to explain in detail why the applicant wasn’t chosen for the position. And avoid divulging any information about the person who did get the job.
Why? The rejected applicant could decide his or her qualifications were better than the chosen candidate’s, and conclude the negative decision was based on some other factor — like discrimination.