Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / The Best Rejection Email I Ever Received
Transcript
- Lucas: I got an email last month that I still think about. It was a rejection — for a consulting gig I'd pitched to a midsize tech company. And it was probably the best rejection I've ever received. Luna: Best rejection? That's a phrase you don't hear every day. What made it good? Lucas: It was specific, it was personal, and it came within forty-eight hours. The hiring lead wrote three sentences: they went with an internal team, they said my proposal on pricing strategy was the strongest external one they'd seen, and they suggested I connect with their VP of Product on LinkedIn because she was building out a new function. That's it. Luna: So they gave you a reason, a compliment, and a next step. That's basically the gold standard. Lucas: Right. And here's the thing — I've told at least a dozen people about that email. I've recommended their product to two colleagues. A good rejection turned me into an advocate. And it made me wonder: why do most companies treat rejection like a legal liability instead of a relationship-building moment? Luna: Because they're scared of litigation, mostly. The standard corporate playbook is a vague one-liner: 'We've decided to move forward with other candidates.' Maybe they add 'we'll keep your resume on file,' which everyone knows is code for the shredder. Lucas: Exactly. And that approach hurts them. There's research from the Talent Board — their annual candidate experience study — showing that seventy-two percent of candidates who receive a personalized rejection would apply to the same company again. For a generic rejection, that number drops to nineteen percent. Almost a four-to-one difference. Luna: Those numbers are stark. And the candidate pool isn't infinite — especially for specialized roles. Burn bridges with enough people and your reputation takes a real hit. Lucas: Let's talk about what a good rejection actually looks like. I think there are three components. First, timeliness: within a week, ideally within forty-eight hours if you can. The longer you wait, the more the candidate has been building hope or resentment. Luna: Second, specificity. You mentioned the pricing strategy comment. That's not just flattery — it's feedback they can use. Even if it's a no, they learn something about their strengths. Lucas: Third, respect for the candidate's time. They invested hours — researching, interviewing, maybe preparing a presentation. Acknowledge that. A sentence like 'We know you put significant effort into this process and we appreciate it' goes a long way. Luna: I've seen companies take it further, too. Stripe, for example, used to send what they called 'rejection packets' — a detailed breakdown of interview feedback, often from each interviewer. That's extreme, but it builds enormous goodwill. Lucas: It does. And it signals that the company cares about candidates as people, not just as potential hires. But I want to push back a little on the practicality. A lot of hiring managers are drowning in applications. One role at a growing company can get five hundred applicants. Personalized feedback for everyone? That's not realistic. Luna: Fair point. So maybe the bar is different at scale. For the top-tier candidates — the ones who made it to a final round or who did a project — you invest the time. For early-stage screen-outs, a short but human template can still work. Lucas: Right. And there's a middle ground. Some companies use rejection emails that include a link to a blog post about their hiring philosophy or a list of resources for job seekers. It's not personalized, but it's still generous. It says 'we see you as a human.' Luna: I want to bring up a controversial angle. Some people argue that providing detailed feedback in rejection opens the door for arguments or legal challenges. If you say 'your presentation lacked data,' the candidate might push back or claim bias. Lucas: That's a real concern, especially in regulated industries or for protected classes. But I think the risk is overstated if you stick to job-relevant feedback and avoid subjective language. 'Your analysis didn't address our core question' is defensible. 'You seemed unprepared' is not. Luna: So the key is to be factual and constructive. And to remember that the candidate might become a customer, a referral source, or even a future colleague at a different company. Lucas: Exactly. That's the long-term lens. I've seen data from a study by CareerArc that said sixty percent of candidates who had a negative experience told others about it — and thirty-two percent actively discouraged others from applying. That's a compounding damage. Luna: And on the flip side, a positive rejection experience can turn someone into a brand evangelist. I know a product manager who was rejected by Airbnb ten years ago and still talks about how thoughtful the process was. She recommends the company to everyone. Lucas: Let's make this really practical. What's a template someone could use tomorrow? I'd suggest something like this — and you can adapt it. 'Thank you for taking the time to interview with us. We were impressed by your, but we've decided to move forward with a candidate whose experience more closely matches. We'd love to stay in touch — feel free to connect with me on LinkedIn.' Luna: That's good. Short, specific, and leaves the door open. What about the timing? If you're running multiple rounds, do you reject after each round or batch at the end? Lucas: I'd say reject as soon as you know. If someone doesn't move past the phone screen, tell them that day. It's respectful and it stops them from investing more emotional energy. The same for final-round candidates — don't make them wait two weeks while you negotiate with your top pick. Luna: That's harder in practice because hiring managers often keep backups warm. They want to wait until the first choice signs. But that's a bad experience for the backup — they're just a contingency. Lucas: It is. And the backup will often sense it. One of the most common complaints I hear from job seekers is 'I was clearly the second choice.' It sours the relationship. If you're honest and say 'you're our second choice, we'd like to keep in touch in case things change,' that's actually more respectful than silence. Luna: Let's talk about ghosting. Because that's the extreme opposite of a good rejection. Surveys show that seventy-five percent of candidates have been ghosted at least once. That's epidemic. Lucas: Ghosting is inexcusable. It takes thirty seconds to send a short email. Even a simple 'we've decided not to move forward' is better than nothing. The fact that so many companies still do it suggests a systemic lack of respect for candidates. Luna: I think part of it is that hiring is often chaotic. The hiring manager gets busy, the role gets put on hold, and the candidate falls through the cracks. But that's not an excuse — it's a process failure. Lucas: Right. And process failures are fixable. Set a recurring calendar reminder to send rejection emails. Use an applicant tracking system that automates it. Or just delegate to a recruiter. The point is to make it a non-negotiable step. Luna: So we've talked a lot about the 'how.' But I want to dig into the 'why' a bit more. Beyond avoiding bad PR, is there a concrete return on investment for a good rejection process? Lucas: Absolutely. Let's look at employer brand. A study by LinkedIn found that companies with strong employer brands see fifty percent more qualified applicants. A big part of that brand is candidate experience — including rejection. Every candidate who walks away feeling respected becomes a brand ambassador. Luna: And there's a direct revenue angle too. If you're a B2B company, candidates are often potential customers. Treat them poorly, and they might choose a competitor. Treat them well, and you've got a warm lead. Lucas: I can think of a specific example. A friend of mine was rejected by a marketing software company after a rigorous four-round interview. The rejection email was thoughtful and included feedback. He later became the marketing director at a company that bought that exact software — a deal worth over a hundred thousand dollars annually. He told me the rejection was a factor in his decision. Luna: That's a powerful story. And it's not an outlier. There's a reason companies like HubSpot and Buffer have invested heavily in candidate experience — they see it as a long-term asset. Lucas: I think the bottom line is this: rejections are inevitable. You can't hire everyone. But you can choose how you say no. And the way you say no says a lot about your company's values. Luna: Honestly, if today's episode helped you rethink your rejection process, or if you've ever received a great rejection yourself, that's the kind of thing that makes this show worthwhile. Lucas: Yeah. And if it felt worth a coffee to you, there's a link — buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. That kind of support is what keeps this show ad-free and lets us keep digging into topics like this. Luna: Exactly. We don't run ads, so listener support really matters. And we're grateful for every person who chips in. Lucas: So to wrap up: next time you send a rejection, think about what that email says about you. Two extra sentences could turn a disappointed candidate into a future fan. It's a small investment with a big return. Luna: And if you're on the receiving end of a good rejection, don't forget to thank them. That relationship might pay off down the line. Lucas: Good point. I'll be sending a thank-you note to that consulting lead today.