Hiring rejections: the error messages we can't debug

Applying for jobs can feel a lot like interacting with a broken piece of software. You input your resume and cover letter, maybe go through a few rounds of interviews, and wait. Then comes the rejection: an email that tells you nothing more than “We’ve decided to move forward with other candidates.” It’s the hiring equivalent of a vague error message like, "Something went wrong." You know you didn't pass the hiring process, but what exactly failed? No one tells you.

In software, when a user encounters an error, they get a sanitized message that hides the gritty details of what went wrong. Internally, the system logs a full, detailed error report so engineers can troubleshoot the problem. This same dynamic exists in the hiring process: companies know why a candidate didn’t make the cut, but they rarely share that information. The error logs are internal, leaving the candidate to face a vague, opaque rejection.

Treating candidates like bad actors

Why do companies insist on keeping candidates in the dark? It’s mostly about legal protection. By withholding specific feedback, companies protect themselves from potential lawsuits. The thinking goes: if a candidate knows why they were rejected, they could use that information to claim bias or discrimination. So, rather than risk that, companies sanitize their rejections, leaving candidates guessing about what went wrong.

But this approach is fundamentally hostile. Just like software engineers sanitize error output to users because those users might be hostile, companies are treating job applicants like potential bad actors. It’s as though they assume the candidate will take any constructive feedback and twist it into a legal threat. But here’s the reality: most candidates just want to know how to improve.

Treating everyone like a potential liability creates an unnecessarily adversarial process. The lack of transparency not only frustrates job seekers, but also damages a company’s brand and reputation among future applicants. Candidates aren't the enemy; they're people trying to grow and improve. Just like debugging software, offering clear and constructive feedback helps both sides move forward productively.

If you’re going to copy Google, stay up to date

What makes this situation even more frustrating is that many companies blindly copy hiring practices from industry giants like Google, even when those practices are outdated. Companies adopt Google’s use of algorithm-heavy interviews or vague rejection processes because, well, if it worked for Google, it must work for everyone, right?

But here’s the catch: Google moved away from a lot of these practices because they didn’t work. Google's own research showed that methods like LeetCode-style algorithmic puzzles weren’t good predictors of job performance. In fact, Google has actively shifted toward a more holistic evaluation process that focuses on real-world problem-solving and collaboration. Yet, many companies are still stuck in Google’s old playbook, without realizing that even the pioneers have moved on.

So if you’re going to copy Google, at least stay up to date. Google has learned from its mistakes and adapted its hiring process. The same should apply to companies that model themselves after tech giants. If Google discovered that vague error messages and poorly designed interview processes don’t work, maybe it’s time for others to learn from that.

Breaking the cycle: moving toward constructive feedback

The vague rejection emails, like error messages, don’t help anyone. Just as developers need detailed logs to fix broken code, candidates need specific, actionable feedback to understand where they fell short.

Some companies have started to recognize the value of providing feedback while still protecting themselves legally. For example, platforms like Hired.com and TalentWorks offer anonymized, automated feedback based on objective criteria like skills gaps or experience mismatches. By keeping feedback focused on skill-building, companies can give candidates useful information while reducing legal risks.

Google itself has made strides in providing constructive feedback after technical interviews, with recommendations on specific areas for improvement. If companies are going to borrow from Google’s playbook, they should follow the more current, transparent practices—not the outdated ones that don't serve either side.

A call for change

Hiring rejections shouldn’t feel like cryptic error messages. Candidates aren’t unsanitized input that needs to be neutralized. They’re people, and they deserve more transparency in the hiring process. Companies that treat job seekers with respect and offer meaningful, constructive feedback will not only foster better relationships with candidates but will also attract top talent by building a reputation for fairness.

If the giants like Google have learned that transparency and specific feedback can lead to better outcomes, it’s time for other companies to follow suit. Instead of hiding behind sanitized messages, let’s give candidates the error logs they need to debug their career.