In an ideal world, providing candidates with feedback on their job application is an idea that few recruiters would disagree with. Yet in the real world where there are more candidates and fewer jobs than before the downturn, giving candidates this feedback often simply isn’t possible.

As David Benson, head of talent and resourcing at Oxfam, explains: “There is the time versus benefits issue whereby, particularly for some vacancies, we are swamped by applications.”

In one case, he says Oxfam received 1,800 applications for one regional director’s job. In such circumstances providing feedback to so many candidates is “a little unrealistic”, he says, with some understatement.

It is made even more impractical as many resourcing departments and agencies have themselves suffered cutbacks.

Yet while the conditions conspire against recruiters giving feedback, it is a paradox that those same market conditions are driving that very demand.

Anita Underwood, business manager at Kelly Services, says the company has seen “a clear uplift” in the number of people asking for feedback over the past two years.

Underwood says that with jobseekers finding it harder to find work because of the state of the economy, they are keen to get advice on how they can improve their chances. She says this demand comes from right across the board.

Matt Griffin, resource leader at oil and energy company AMEC, agrees that more and more candidates are demanding feedback. “It possibly goes back to the generation you are from,” he suggests, adding that a lot more 35 to 40-year-olds are “starting to look for answers as to why they didn’t get the job”.

Peter Eley, deputy director of HR at University of Bath, estimates that between 15% and 20% of those applying to work at the university ask for and receive feedback. According to Eley, it is more common for those applying for the more senior roles to ask for feedback.

Nikki Brain, director Hudson Midlands, points out that besides the practicalities, the extent to which candidates receive feedback also depends on the attitude of Hudson’s clients. Some clients are more willing to provide feedback than others, says Brain. Such clients “have to be educated in the value of feedback”, she suggests.

Because of the mismatch between the number of candidates, their demands and the lack of resources available, recruiters have effectively been forced into ways to ration feedback.

While for Eley, feedback is only given to those who ask for it, Oxfam’s Benson says a good rule of thumb is that only those who have been interviewed should receive it.

Brain says that feedback should be a standard part of the recruitment process, but only for those who have “invested” a lot of time and effort. “These candidates deserve to know why they are unsuccessful,” she says.

Yet while there are different approaches taken as to who should get feedback, there are strong reasons for incorporating it into recruitment practice.

Vinesh Solanki, managing consultant commercial at Poolia, says it plays a vital role in helping candidates fine-tune their job search and can make all the difference to their chances in the job market. In one case, he says, a good candidate continually faltered at the interview stage because they were unable to recognise the difference between a job interview and a normal social conversation. Following feedback and pre-interview training, the candidate soon found a job. “It helps candidates be on their ’A’ game,” adds Brain.

Brain says that giving feedback on candidates’ skills and experience is relatively straightforward. It becomes more difficult when it comes to issues such as ’chemistry’ and cultural fit. “This is usually due to a lack of a real understanding of the client’s requirements,” she adds.

However, the benefits of feedback are not confined to candidates. Hirers can also benefit, suggests Griffin. One example is to help identify where a candidate might be more suitable for a different role, thereby reducing the chances of that organisation ending up with a square peg in a round hole.

While traditionally feedback has often been seen as appropriate and valuable only for unsuccessful candidates, it is “equally important” for those who have been successful, according to Griffin.

This is specially the case given that many selection processes are long and protracted, involving several rounds of interviews. Griffin says he has seen many a good candidate fall at the final hurdle because of the absence of constructive feedback. “I always try to guide them on how they can improve on areas they need to concentrate on, the scope of the next stage of the selection process and the personalities of the hiring mangers.”

I always try to guide them on how they can improve on areas they need to concentrate on, the scope of the next stage of the selection process and the personalities of the hiring mangers.

It may sound cliched but a good reason for external recruiters to provide feedback is that today’s candidate can be tomorrow’s client. Poolia’s Solanki cites one example, where a candidate who received feedback more than returned the favour by awarding the agency sole provider status after she joined an investment bank.

Brain agrees that feedback is “a powerful PR tool”, particularly in a recovering market. “It keeps candidates warm [towards you] and is good for the brand,” adds Benson.

Indeed, new research by assessment services provider SHL shows that being given positive feedback can help boost a company’s employer brand, with 20% saying that this had led them to feel more positive about a company. On the other hand, 19% said that failure to provide feedback after an interview had left them with a negative feeling towards the company.

While there are many good reasons for providing candidates with feedback, this could backfire if it is done in a way that contravenes the UK’s discrimination laws.

Rebecca Fox, employment solicitor at Matthew, Arnold & Baldwin, explains: “If the feedback suggests that the reason the applicant has not been successful is due to age, race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or a disability, or indeed any philosophical belief the applicant holds, the applicant would have a claim for discrimination in the employment tribunal.”

Poolia’s Solanki agrees that recruiters have to protect themselves. “Telling people they don’t have enough years’ experience could amount to age discrimination,” he explains, a point on which Fox agrees. (See box below on how recruiters can best safeguard themselves against potentially unlimited claims.)

In the final analysis, however, when all the pros and cons of whether or not to provide feedback and to whom have been exhausted and the legal risks evaluated, it often comes down to the attitude of individual recruiters.

“It’s a poor show if you cannot give candidates five minutes of your time,” says Griffin.

Practical tips

• Question candidates on what they thought of their performance
• Confirm or disagree with a candidate’s view of their own performance
• Feedback should be specific and based on observed behaviour rather than general
• Feedback should refer to the behaviour rather than the person
• Perceptions, reactions and opinions should not be stated as facts. For example, use the phrase “It’s my opinion that…”
• Make suggestions for improvement and development Source: Hudson

HOW TO SAFEGUARD YOURSELF AGAINST POTENTIALLY UNLIMITED TRIBUNAL CLAIMS
This would be a compensatory payment for loss of (potential) employment and a payment to the unsuccessful applicant for the injury to their feelings, says Rebecca Fox employment solicitor at Matthew, Arnold & Baldwin. To reduce the risk of this: “Make sure you document the recruitment process to ensure there is a paper trail in the event of any complaint and ensure that no discriminatory comments or discriminatory reasons for rejection are made during the recruitment process. This might include comments, for example, addressed to a female applicant enquiring as to whether she is planning on having a family, or questions about an applicant’s religious beliefs or sexual orientation.”