Having Twenty Thousand Candidates is Not a Reason to Withhold Feedback

By Tom Stroud

It is a reason to design the feedback properly.‍

I discussed this with a customer recently.

They were considering sending candidates a report after an online assessment, but had an understandable concern:

With around 20,000 applications, would feedback generate thousands of questions?

“If I performed well, why didn’t I get an interview?”

“What does this score mean?”

“Can somebody talk me through my report?”

The concern is legitimate. A feedback report should not accidentally create 20,000 individual coaching conversations.

But silence is not a particularly sophisticated solution either.

The evidence on applicant reactions is fairly consistent. A meta-analysis of 86 samples and 48,750 applicants found that positive perceptions of selection processes were associated with greater organisational attractiveness, offer-acceptance intentions, and willingness to recommend the employer.

A separate meta-analysis of 26 studies found that providing explanations influenced applicants’ perceptions of fairness and of the hiring organisation.

More specifically, a recent simulated selection study found that rejected candidates considered feedback based on their own scores fairer than feedback comparing them with other applicants. They were also more willing to recommend the organisation.

So my recommendation was to provide the report.

But with four important design choices.

• First, make it criterion-referenced and developmental. Explain what the candidate demonstrated against relevant capabilities, rather than simply announcing that they were in the 63rd percentile.
  ‍
• Second, be very clear about what the report does, and does not, mean. A candidate can perform well and still not be shortlisted. The report reflects performance against the assessment criteria. The shortlist reflects competition for a limited number of places and potentially other relevant evidence within the process. Those are not contradictory statements.
  ‍
• Third, include a short, plain-English explanation of the decision process alongside the report. Most questions arise because organisations leave candidates to reverse-engineer what happened. An ambiguous report is really just a helpdesk ticket wearing a graph.
  ‍
• Finally, create a defined route for genuine technical issues, accessibility concerns or suspected scoring errors - not an open invitation for bespoke interpretation of every result.

I would also pilot the approach, measure the enquiry rate and improve the communication using real evidence.

The research is much clearer about the benefits of fair, informative communication than it is about the number of clarification emails generated at a 20,000-applicant scale.

That uncertainty is a reason to test and measure.

It is not a reason to default to silence.

Candidates have invested time and shared useful information with the organisation. Returning something useful is both respectful and commercially sensible.

The answer is not less feedback.

It is better-designed feedback.

Would your organisation be confident enough in its assessment process to show candidates what it had measured?

Get in touch or connect with me on LinkedIn to continue the conversation.