Ask a Manager: employer rejected me, then sent a list of everything I did wrong

[minoanmiss]

A reader writes:

I’m a younger person who is job searching for something full-time for the first time. Haven’t been having a lot of luck of course due to the state of the world, but I recently got an interview where I made it all the way to the final round and was rejected.

At first, the company was really professional about it. They were kind enough to let me know I’d been rejected and thank me for my time. But then, about three days later, I got an email from one of the interviewers (a different one than the one who sent the formal rejection email, the final round had been in front of a panel).

The email body text said, “Hey, here’s some tips for future interviews” and attached was a Word document with a super detailed list of everything I’d done wrong, including that my answer to the question “what’s your favorite book” was too pretentious (note: the job wasn’t for a library or any other book related field). Although he’d been part of the final round interview panel, he hadn’t been
present during previous interviews and this was the first communication I got directly from this guy.

Here are all the comments from the document. It was a financial / stock company but the job wasn’t directly connected to stocks (copywriter position writing some ads/website update):

I can tell you are not passionate about stocks. Every member of this company has been passionately investing in the stock market as a hobby for years. You had basic technical knowledge and that’s it.

In general you seem to lack passion. Your answers are very thorough and well thought out but lack passion. What are you passionate about? I couldn’t tell.

You were clearly nervous throughout. You lack confidence.

When asked about an issue you had overcome, you mentioned something that had happened in a job not related to our industry

You didn’t seem to have an interest in company culture. We mentioned we are a company with lots of events and training workshops and you didn’t ask any further questions there.

Your response to the favorite book question sounded pretentious and insincere. Les Miserables simply isn’t a book people read for fun.

You weren’t enjoying yourself at all. We’re a friendly company and you were tense and nervous the entire time we talked to you. You let your nerves show.

Is this normal? It’s left me feeling really terrible. According to him, I did -so- many things wrong. It’s killing my confidence.

Hearing that I lack passion is really scary. I’m scared it will affect me in the job search going forward. It’s not an issue I ever thought I had, but now it is something that worries me daily.

Please do not let this guy shake your confidence! He is a jerk.

It’s one thing to offer a rejected job candidate a few tips that might help them with future interviews. A few. That can be helpful. But sending someone a full litany of criticism like this — when they hadn’t even asked for feedback! — is a jerk move.

Plus, the criticism itself is subjective, overly personal, and rudely framed, and his desire to send it to a stranger who hadn’t solicited it says more about him than it does about you. (It says he’s an asshole. Imagine working with this guy.)

And enough of this is laughable that it calls the rest of it into question too. Les Miserables “isn’t a book people read for fun” and you’re obviously being pretentious and insincere? The fact that he wrote that with a straight face and thought it was valid feedback means you can ignore the whole email. He’s told you who he is. (An asshole who also doesn’t read.)

To be fair, maybe it’s true that you didn’t seem passionate enough for them. If they only want to hire people who have been investing in the stock market for years as a hobby — excuse me, passionately investing — and that’s not you, that’s okay. That means this job wasn’t the right fit on either side. That’s not a failing on your side; it just means you and the job didn’t match up. But you were qualified enough to be invited in for an interview, so clearly someone saw enough in your materials to consider you a viable candidate. It’s not outrageous that you were there.

As for the rest of it … it’s hard to put any weight on it since so much of it is obviously ridiculous. Maybe you did seem nervous. A lot of people are nervous in interviews. For many jobs, that doesn’t really matter. Did you feel nervous? Did you feel like your nerves got in the way of how well you interviewed? If so, it’s worth working on that (repetitive practice often helps). But if you didn’t feel particularly nervous, please don’t let this guy rattle you into thinking you’re coming across badly. He sounds like someone who wants to see a very specific type of swagger from candidates (probably male swagger, among other things) and that’s about him, not some universal interviewer preference.

It’s also pretty odd that someone you hadn’t been communicating with throughout the process and who doesn’t seem to have played a key role in the interviews decided to send you unsolicited feedback of this nature. That … is not normally done. (In fact, it might be interesting to forward his feedback to the person who rejected you and ask if the feedback represents the employer.)

Frankly, he sounds like someone who enjoys making other people feel bad. That’s not someone you should take advice from.

If you’re genuinely worried about how you might be coming across in interviews, it’s worth doing some practice interviews with people whose judgment you trust and asking for feedback (ideally someone with some experience hiring, if you can swing that).

But what this guy did wasn’t normal or okay, and it sounds like he’s working out some issues of his own on you.

Comments

[minoanmiss]

Half the commentariat immediately recognized the "advisor" as male and the LW as female, and the "advice" as negging. I posted this here rather than let myself get into a fight with the inevitable person in the comments who says "there's no evidence of either person's gender". I want to say "there's a difference between preconceptions and recognizing a situation one has seen before" but people who refuse to believe a kind of bigotry exists will not be convinced by an internet argument.

Also I am so mad on LW's behalf. When I was looking for my first job this would have wrecked me. I want to smite that smug asshole who sent her this.

[cereta]

That was my first thought, yes.

[heavenscalyx]

This reminds me the one of my early job interviews where they let me interview one on one with each member of the writing group, and the middle-aged dude peppered me with questions and commentary until I nearly broke down (I did once I got to the car) and THEN walked me out.

I got a call from the hiring manager, who was confused as to why I had leftbefore he or the HR guy could come back, and I told him that the guy had let me know the interview was over and walked me out. He asked if he could call be back later, and when he did, invited me back for another interview, saying that said dude was no longer with the company.

I still didn’t get the job, but I felt a lot better about it. And that’s why I think the LW should ABSOLUTELY forward to their contact.

[jadelennox]

That's a truly satisfying story, tbh.

[green_grrl]

That’s funny, I didn’t even think to question it. It was so obviously F LW and M interviewer it didn’t even occur to me that it wasn’t stated.

I really hope she follows up and his ass gets canned. What a steaming pile of unprofessionalism.

[gingicat]

“ Although he’d been part of the final round interview panel, he hadn’t been
present during previous interviews and this was the first communication I got directly from this guy.”

[jadelennox]

When I read the first couple of lines of this email I thought, "well that seems reasonable. I have both given advice to candidates and received it myself." (If something terrible happens that is a big deal, e.g. "you need to know that somebody that you gave as a reference did not say good things about you," which has happened when I have been the interviewer and which I have conveyed to candidates. They do need to know that, so they can get a different reference.)

But this email is... what. the. fuck.

I noticed that you tagged it "sexism" which I think is interesting, because I was outright thinking "the LW does not identify themselves, but this isan email from a man to somebody female or female-presenting." But more than that. This read to me as either:

• an extensive neg from someone who wants to ask the candidate out,
• a man angry that young ladies are being interviewed for jobs at his company, where they might make it harder for him to get away with toxic company culture, or
• somebody who looks at all young women as if they are his daughters and he has to yell at them for doing a bad job

Obviously I'm reading into it but that's really what it read like to me.

[cereta]

Alison did confirm in comments that the LW is a woman.

[harpers_child]

I took it similarly. Mostly as the guy is either doing 1 or 2. Option 3 didn't really hit me that way, but that's not how my own dad works so I miss it in the wild sometimes.

[ioplokon]

Wow. What a jerk! But also... I feel such a huge conceptual divide between myself and people who think reading should only be "for fun." I could also probably honestly answer that Les Miserables is one of my favorite books (though... I probably wouldn't say this interviewing at this kind of company since I think it would probably flag up some political/worldview differences between us - this is why I hate being asked favorites in job interviews; the pressure to say something not too lefty, not too gay...) not because it's super fun (though - parts of it are? like, who among us does not laugh at Marius?) but because it had a profound impact on my philosophical outlook and development when I read it in my teens.

Fwiw, I think it's okay to lie about BS "culture fit" questions in job interviews and read the room a bit. Then again, if your interview process is most favorable towards people who are good at cold reading (& that's not the job), probably not a good sign!

[mommy]

My gut reaction to this guy's book opinion was to look at the works count for Les Misérables on AO3, which is currently at 22,621. It's fair to say that plenty of people have read that book for fun, even if I'm not one of them.

This guy is a jerk. I'm glad everyone recognizes it, and it really does need to be said over and over.

[kelly_holden]

Probably a lot of those are actually fics of adaptations, like the musical or one of the many movies. I have noticed in other fandoms that have multiple forms that some people will tag all versions of canon, even when the fic is only really set in one.

[conuly]

Agreed, though it's possible - even probable! - that some people who are primarily fans of the musical or one of the movies have read the book because of that and also enjoyed it.

[ellen_fremedon]

Yeah, for as many fans as have come in through one of the adaptations--generally the stage musical or its 2012 film--there's surprisingly little fic that's purely adaptation-based; there's not a firm line between brickverse and musicalverse canon. Probably the majority of people making fanworks read the Brick eventually, but even the ones who don't absorb a lot of it through fandom and through fanon.

(And there's a huge number of modern AUs--and other historical AUs, and fantasy AUs, and crossover AUs--where it's very difficult to say exactly what the source canon is.)

That's part of why writers persistently tag multiple versions of the canon or "All Media Types"--to acknowledge multiple layers of influence.

[beable]

That entire letter is toxic and bananas and minoanmiss beat me to posting it on here but I just gotta comment in part of the letter in addition to the whole sexism/negging front:

“I can tell you are not passionate about stocks. Every member of this company has been passionately investing in the stock market as a hobby for years. You had basic technical knowledge and that’s it.”

Really? Every single member? Your company pays well enough for everyone to have the disposable income to play in the stock market? The custodial staff? Secretary/reception pool? Food service workers?

If that were true, I’d be really impressed at how awesome (liveable plus!) the wages are. But then if it were true you wouldn’t be bragging about ever member of the company investing in stocks because you would already be aware of different people having different financial obligations and responsibilities, some of which would make that hobby impossible.

So its not true. you say “every member” and what you mean is “every swaggering bro with a job title I consider important”. I bet you also pay all the people you have overlooked with your “every member” absolute crap.

[ashbet]

Yep. I caught that, and found it SUPER INCREDIBLY CLASSIST, in addition to the rest of the "feedback" being garbage.

Being able to invest in the stock market is a LUXURY, and it's absolutely being used in this case (at least by this interviewer) to root out people who don't come from a wealthy background.

[resonant]

Wonder if the letter writer has yet received the follow-up email in which he asks her out?

[dine]

I would *definitely* forward that to HR! they need to know what sort of crap he's pulling, and hopefully remove him from any future interview panels

[xenacryst]

Bullet dodged. And yes, I'm with everyone else who's saying its blindingly obvious what the genders of the people involved are.