Mandatory Written Interview Feedback: An Essential Shift or An Impractical Burden?

Hello again #LinkedIN 👋🏻

Navigating the complex world of talent acquisition, I've often pondered one key aspect: the feedback process. Over my years in recruitment, the significance of feedback — both verbal and written — has become evident. However, the debate remains: should written interview feedback be a mandatory or even legal requirement? Let's jump into it, shall we?

📌 The Case for Mandatory Written Feedback:

1. Professional Growth: For candidates, written feedback provides actionable insights. It's a resource they can refer back to, learn from, and use to improve in future interviews.

2. Clarity and Accountability: A documented response ensures that the hiring process is transparent. Both parties have a clear record of the feedback, leaving little room for confusion or disputes.

3. Fair Hiring Practices: With mandatory feedback, companies may be more conscious of their decision-making processes, potentially reducing biases and ensuring more equitable hiring.

📌 The Case Against Mandatory Written Feedback:

1. Time-Consuming: Crafting thoughtful, constructive feedback for every interviewee can be a daunting task, especially for roles that draw hundreds of applicants.

2. Risk of Legal Repercussions: Misinterpreted feedback or poorly worded critiques could expose companies to potential legal challenges.

3. Authenticity Concerns: There's the risk that mandatory feedback might become generic, robbing candidates of the genuine insights they seek.

In numerous projects, I've observed clients offering verbal feedback, praising its personalized, intimate nature. Yet, without a written counterpart, many candidates are left without a tangible takeaway to reflect upon.

While the debate around written feedback intensifies, let's turn our attention to another facet of the talent acquisition experience: verbal feedback. Its merits and drawbacks are often overshadowed, but given my encounters with it in various recruitment projects, it’s time we put this format under the microscope.

🎙 The Case for Verbal Feedback:

1. Immediate & Dynamic: Verbal feedback can be delivered right after the interview, allowing for a spontaneous exchange and the possibility of immediate queries and clarifications.
2. Emotional Nuance: Words on paper (or screen) often lack the warmth, tone, and emotion that can be conveyed verbally. This could make for a more genuine, empathetic exchange.
3. Flexibility: Unlike written forms, verbal feedback isn't static. It can be a two-way dialogue, allowing candidates to ask questions, seek clarification, or even challenge certain viewpoints.

🎙 The Case Against Verbal Feedback:

1. Memory Reliance: Without a documented record, both parties must rely on memory. This can lead to misconceptions or forgotten details over time.
2. Lack of Preparation: Impromptu verbal feedback might lack the depth and consideration that a written format might afford.
3. Potential Ambiguity: The nuances of speech – pauses, inflexions, tone – can sometimes introduce ambiguity, leaving candidates unsure about the precise message or intent.

While verbal feedback brings a human touch, making the experience potentially richer and more nuanced, its temporary nature can be its very downfall. Without the permanence and reference point that written feedback provides, are candidates and recruiters left grappling with fleeting impressions and forgotten details?

So, the question stands: In an age where documentation and data reign supreme, do we need to enshrine the practice of written feedback in our hiring processes? Or do we risk burdening our talent acquisition teams with an impractical obligation?

I'm eager to hear your thoughts. As we strive for a more inclusive and transparent recruitment landscape, it's conversations like these that will shape our industry's future.

#TalentAcquisition #InterviewFeedback #FutureOfWork #RecruitmentTrends #HRDebate