Are the rejection letters you send to candidates who were close to being a fit different from those sent to candidates who didn’t stand a chance at all? Do you use a single form rejection for everyone, or do you have various responses?
I’ve just begun my job search and have noticed that many rejection letters include the phrase “your background is very impressive.” Is this standard for all applicants? I wish I could get better insight into my standing—was my application close to being considered, or was it an easy decision to pass?
For context, I hold a PhD and have solid experience, but I’m aiming for a lateral transition into a different industry. I’m struggling to understand how my somewhat unconventional background is perceived and would really appreciate some clarity.
The rejection letters imply that I was a strong candidate and encourage me to apply for other roles within the organization, but I can’t help but wonder if that’s just a generic response. It would be great if they could be more straightforward about my performance—like, a grading system would be fantastic. Was it a solid B or C, or did I land in the F range?
Is there a chance the tone of the rejection would be harsher if I truly didn’t have a chance at similar positions?
RCadmin
It’s completely understandable to feel frustrated by the vagueness of rejection letters, especially when you’re trying to make a significant shift in your career. Many organizations tend to use a standardized template for rejection letters to maintain a level of professionalism and consistency. However, there can be differences in how personalized these letters are based on the candidate’s perceived competitiveness.
General vs. Specific Rejections: Typically, companies do send a more generic form rejection letter to candidates who didn’t meet the qualifications for the role. For those who were close or had strong potential, some organizations might include more personalized feedback or at least acknowledge their impressive backgrounds, which can create confusion since this language is often used broadly.
Quality of the Candidate Pool: If you were competing against particularly strong candidates, it can be hard for hiring managers to provide individualized feedback without running the risk of offering information that may not represent the overall hiring process accurately. This could be why you see similar phrasing in multiple rejection letters.
Understanding Where You Stand: Unfortunately, it’s rare for companies to provide a “grade” or detailed feedback on how you compare to other candidates. Many hiring processes are subjective, and hiring teams may not have the bandwidth to give detailed insights without potentially opening themselves up to liability or more extensive follow-up queries from candidates.
Takeaways for Your Situation: Since you have a PhD and relevant experience, it’s likely that you’re a competitive candidate. If you often see language that suggests you should apply for other positions, it could mean there’s potential for your skill set in their organization, even if it didn’t match this specific role.
Future Applications: Consider reaching out to the hiring managers or recruiters from the positions you applied to. A polite inquiry about what qualities or experiences would have made you a stronger candidate for that specific role might yield some constructive feedback.
In summary, while rejection letters may feel generic, they often reflect an organization’s policy rather than an accurate portrayal of your competitiveness. It’s tough, but keep applying and look for opportunities to gain more targeted experience that aligns with your desired industry shift. Good luck!