The times I have asked I have not received a response or the response I got was generic and dismissive, rather than helpful which is what I was hoping for.

I'm guessing the lack of a response is because:

1. They don't feel they have to justify their decision. 2. They don't want to get into a dispute/nit-pick. 3. They are just bad hirers and don't know how to provide adequate feedback. 4. They are trying to hire someone, not help people they are not hiring.

Conversely, when I have turned down an offer those companies have never asked me why.

- James.

Yeah. It's really just a kind of a protocol. A game with quirky rules, but which we kind of have to play anyway.

I would not engage in this conversation with an interviewee if someone asked me that question. It sounds like an invitation to an argument or a lawsuit.

Chances are it's not something you did wrong, it's just that other people who had the same phone interview seemed like better candidates to move to the next level of screening.

If you want feedback on your phone interview, have a friend/colleague sit in the room with you and listen to your side of the conversation - or, more likely to be illegal, record the conversation and have someone you trust listen to it afterwards.

Whatever "it" is, it's way more about them than it is about you.

It hurts, but the best thing really is to just take your lumps, and try to detach yourself from the the idea that the rushed, off-the-cuff judgements that utter strangers make of you in the heat of the most awkward of social contexts imaginable has any relation to you as person.

That is to say: do take inventory of what happened, and do try to learn from the situation and do better next time... but please don't take it "inside" you as a person.

Life is just way too short for that.

You're not likely to get it from the hiring manager or the people which interviewed you. However, if you went through a recruiter and have good rapport with him/her, you may be able to get answers to your questions about "why" and what their reservations were. Whether or not this knowledge _actually_ helps you in the future is another, perhaps more interesting, question.

If someone tells you the one or two tiny things you did wrong, you will just fix those two tiny things and interview again and maybe make it through instead of building the broad skills necessary that would have made those two things non-issues.

For instance, if your resume says something like that you want to be CEO within five years, the interviewer could tell you that they can't take you seriously. You will just fix your resume and reapply to some other job. However, all that telling you accomplishes is that there is now a person out there that has completely unrealistic expectations but knows not to put it on his or her resume.

Large companies have canned responses and HR coaches interviewers to avoid providing direct feedback. Given the liability of someone providing inappropriate feedback, don't expect a candid answer. Good luck!

This isn't actually true for all companies.

At my (large) company HR only gets involved once a decision to hire has been made. They make sure the background check is performed, vet the offer to make sure it is within guidelines (or the guidelines have been waived by someone In Charge) and then handle the huge volume of paperwork that must be signed in order to formally accept the offer.

Following on-site interviews the hiring manager will collect and sanitize feedback from all the interviewers to give to the candidate. Sometimes the message is something generic, like "not a good fit" or "lacking required experience" because some feedback just can't be sanitized.

If the deficiency is in skills (technical or soft), rather than personality or demeanor, then we generally provide solid feedback. For a candidate that is borderline we will sometimes invite them back (or out for a drink) to ask them how they would address the perceived deficit if we were to hire them. Not only does it give them a chance to recover, it lets us see how they handle critical feedback.

I don't believe there is liability exposure here, unless someone were to refer to gender, race, religion, disability or ethnic background as a reason for not hiring. Since those are never the reason for not hiring, this isn't an issue.

Most of these are at small companies. Thanks for the info, though.

One employee at my work (I will not name it) was initially passed over for a job because he called the company by the wrong name in his cover letter. He emailed and asked what he could do better for his next job interview. That email got him the job.

He was fired some time later for messing up too much on the job. [I couldn't imagine that there would be any kind of predictor for that] ... I suppose it just depends on who you ask and when you ask them.

I frequently 'name a price'; that is, I disclose my current salary without remembering that it locks me in for later negotiation.

It never gets that far when they tell me 'no'. Maybe someday i'll have that privilege.

Perhaps it's very basic- in the Time Moneyland article on 8/8 (http://moneyland.time.com/2012/08/08/how-not-to-sabotage-you...), it's suggested that the very tendency that you care enough to ask is why they didn't hire you.

I had assumed that it was something I did or some area I'm inadequate in that makes me not get a callback. I just want to know what I can do to improve.

Perhaps (and this is just based on my impression of your approach from a computer terminal 1000 miles away; could be way off), an approach of needing things to make sense, needing information, needing closure is coming across as a negative personality trait that makes the interviewer think you're going to be high maintenance, a drain on their time, and self- and team-sabotaging.

Nobody likes getting passed over for a job, with so much prep work and so much on the line, but it's part of the game of interviewing and working for somebody that you can keep that aspect of nervousness in check. I'm not saying this is you, but if the roles were reversed, and you had 20 candidates for 1 job, and out of the two finalists, one may have higher technical marks but is so nervous during the interview, wondering how they're doing during the interview, even seeking your approval before they even get the job, which one would you hire?

The basic value proposition for working for someone else is that you generate a net positive financial and time outcome for them; if you take weight off their shoulders, you pass. Seeking approval adds weight.

the one time I asked for this I actually got a detailed list of notes each of my interviewers had made, I found it very helpful

That's the sort of thing I was hoping for. I genuinely want to improve my shortcomings. "Build up your weaknesses until they become your strong points." -- Knute Rockne

But even if they felt they could, they wouldn't really have much to say about your shortcomings, because... they're not you. They don't know anything about what makes you tick, or the path you took to get to where you are now. And they certainly don't know where you'll be in 10 or 15 years, regardless of their current impression of you (+ or -).

All they have is this fleeting impression of how you "performed" in this one weird, pretentious moment. Which doesn't have much to do with anything, really.

Their opinion matters in the sense that you can use some points that you probably agree with but do not notice as being an issue for others.

Yeah, that's my take, basically. Business, as well as casual social rejections are (important) data points to be processed. But in most cases, just not worth taking personally.

I once interviewed a potential hire in person and at the end of the process he asked 'How did I do?' then pulled out of list of questions in the expectation of forensic debrief as to where he could improve his interview technique!

Frankly, interviewing is a game with many unwritten rules - one is if you don't get the gig, you are expected to politely accept the decision and move on. Another is the interviewer will often decide in the first 60 seconds if you're getting hired, so asking for feedback on where you 'went wrong' is a waste of everyone's time.

Remember, when you interview, your potential employer has every intention of hiring you assuming you tick a few boxes. This is also part of the game. Can you figure out what those boxes are? Put yourself in their shoes. What would you like to see in you? As long as you continue to land interviews, don't become disheartened - keep going and you will get hired.

> Another is the interviewer will often decide in the first 60 seconds if you're getting hired

OK. But why 60 seconds? What did I do wrong in that span of time?

It's important to get over the idea that you have done anything wrong. Think of it as a percentages game... if you have been invited to interview then your potential employer is definitely interested. So if the interviews keep coming, be assured it is just a matter of time until someone makes you an offer.

ok, that's a good point. thank you.