Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / Why Rejection Letters Should Come With a Next Step
Transcript
- Lucas: There's a number that's been stuck in my head for weeks: 75 percent of candidates who get a rejection letter never consider that company again. Luna: That's a lot of lost potential. Especially if they were good enough to interview. Lucas: Right. And most companies treat the rejection as the end of the conversation. You get a form email, maybe a 'we'll keep your resume on file' — which everyone knows is code for the trash bin. Luna: So what's the alternative? You can't hire everyone. Lucas: No, but you can give them something. A next step. A specific action that keeps the door open. I've been looking at data from Greenhouse and Lever — two of the bigger applicant tracking systems — and they both found that candidates who receive a meaningful next step after rejection are three times more likely to reapply and refer others. Luna: What counts as meaningful? Not just 'we'll keep your resume'? Lucas: Exactly. The companies that do this well don't just say goodbye. They say, 'Here's what I'd recommend you do.' There's a mid-size tech firm out of Austin — about 300 employees — that started doing this about two years ago. They had a problem: they were spending a lot on sourcing, but their pipeline was shallow because rejected candidates never came back. Luna: And they changed the rejection letter? Lucas: They changed the entire process. After a candidate was rejected — whether after a phone screen or a full interview loop — they got a short, personalized email. Not from an automated system. From the recruiter they'd been working with. And it contained one of three things: a referral request, a link to a prep guide for a different role they might be a better fit for, or — and this is the one candidates appreciated most — a single piece of actionable feedback. Luna: That's risky. Feedback can open you up to arguments or legal issues. Lucas: It can, if you're vague or subjective. But this company kept it strictly behavioral. Things like, 'In the case study exercise, your analysis was strong but you didn't present a clear recommendation within the time limit.' That's specific and defensible. And candidates actually thanked them for it. Luna: Did it work? Did they see more reapplications? Lucas: Over the next 18 months, 18 percent of rejected candidates from that period eventually applied for another role and got hired. Eighteen percent. That's huge when you think about the cost of sourcing a new candidate from scratch. Luna: So the rejection letter becomes part of the talent pipeline. Interesting. Lucas: Exactly. And the referral piece was big too. They asked rejected candidates if they knew anyone who might be a fit — but they framed it as 'If you know someone who'd excel at this, we'd love to hear about them.' Not 'refer us or else.' And they saw a 40 percent increase in referrals from that group compared to before. Luna: That makes sense. If you leave a candidate feeling respected, they're more likely to send their friends your way. Lucas: There's a psychological principle at play here called the 'door-in-the-face' technique. You make a request that feels big — your rejection — and then offer something smaller and positive. It creates a sense of reciprocity. The candidate feels like you gave them something, so they're more inclined to give back. Luna: But this takes time. Recruiters are already stretched. Lucas: It does take time, but the companies that do it well have templated most of it. The personalized part is small — a sentence or two. The rest is a framework. And the ROI is clear: you're converting a sunk cost into an asset. That candidate already knows your company, already interviewed, already invested time. If you can keep them warm, you're way ahead of a cold applicant. Luna: What about ghosting? Some companies just never send a rejection at all. Lucas: That's the worst case. Lever's data shows that ghosted candidates are the most vocal detractors on Glassdoor and social media. And they're 80 percent less likely to ever apply again. So the bare minimum is a rejection. But the opportunity is to make that rejection work for you. Luna: I want to ask about the referral request specifically. Doesn't it feel awkward to ask someone you just rejected to send you more candidates? Lucas: It can, but the framing matters. The Austin company I mentioned sent a separate email a few days after the rejection — not in the same message. And they said something like, 'We really appreciated getting to know you. While this role wasn't the right fit, we're always looking for great people. If you know someone who shares your strengths, we'd love an introduction.' That's respectful. And it worked. Luna: So the key is timing and tone. Don't make it feel like a transaction. Lucas: Right. And the feedback piece — that's the one that really differentiates. Most companies are terrified of giving feedback because of legal concerns, but if you keep it to observable behaviors and avoid subjective judgments, you're fine. In fact, a lot of states have laws that actually protect employers who provide good-faith feedback. Luna: I've seen some companies do a 'feedback call' option. Candidates can opt in. Lucas: That's another model. A 15-minute call with a recruiter to discuss the interview. It's more resource-intensive, but companies that do it report higher candidate satisfaction scores and better brand perception. And some candidates who take that call end up reapplying six months later with a much better approach. Luna: I'm thinking about the cost-benefit here. If you're a small team with one recruiter, you probably can't do calls for every reject. Lucas: Then email is the sweet spot. Write a template with placeholders for the specific behavioral feedback. The recruiter fills in two or three sentences. That's maybe five extra minutes per candidate. And if even one out of twenty of those candidates comes back and gets hired, you've saved thousands in sourcing costs. Luna: Is there a risk of over-communicating? Like, if you keep engaging rejected candidates, do they feel strung along? Lucas: That's a valid concern. The companies that do it well limit follow-up to one or two touches. The rejection with a next step, then maybe a check-in six months later if a new role opens up. Anything more and it starts to feel like a sales funnel. You want it to feel human, not automated. Luna: If today's episode gave you a practical idea you can use at work, that's exactly what we're here for. And the way we keep this show ad-free and focused on actionable content is listener support — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Just a small way to say this is worth your time. Lucas: Yeah, it really does help. And we appreciate it. So back to rejection letters — one more thing I want to mention. There's a company called Lever that published a case study on a client who added a 'next step' link in their rejection emails. That link went to a blog post about how to prepare for their interview process. It was generic, not personalized. And even that increased reapplication rates by 12 percent. Luna: So even a small gesture can move the needle. Lucas: Exactly. The key is that the candidate feels like the company is still invested in them. That sense of closure with a positive note creates goodwill. And goodwill converts to referrals and reapplications over time. Luna: What about the timing of the rejection? Should it be fast or can you take a few days? Lucas: Fast is better. Greenhouse data shows that candidates who receive a rejection within 48 hours of the final interview are 50 percent more likely to view the company favorably than those who wait a week. Speed signals respect for their time. Luna: So the formula is: fast rejection, personalized next step, and a follow-up touch months later. Lucas: That's the playbook. And it works across industries. I've seen it applied in tech, healthcare, even retail. Anywhere you have a competitive hiring market, treating rejected candidates well is a strategic advantage. Luna: I'd love to see more companies adopt this. It feels like a low-hanging fruit. Lucas: It is. And the cost is minimal. The biggest barrier is the fear that giving feedback will come back to bite you. But with a little training, recruiters can learn to frame it constructively. And the upside — a pipeline of warm, interested candidates — is enormous. Luna: So next time I get a rejection, I might actually look forward to reading the email. Lucas: Exactly. And if you're on the hiring side, think about what that email says about your company. Because candidates talk. And the ones you treat well today might be your best hires tomorrow.