Candidate Rejection: How Should HR Handle It When Offers Are Turned Down?

Handling Candidate Rejection in HR

How do HR professionals handle the rejection of a candidate? After conducting several rounds of interviews and offering the candidate a job, the candidate decides to reject the offer. Why don't HR professionals understand that candidates also have the right to turn down an offer? It should be taken positively to move on to the next candidate based on merit.

When a candidate participates in an interview at a company, HR is not obligated to explain the reasons for rejection to the candidate. Similarly, when a candidate declines an offer, HR should accept it constructively and proceed with the selection process.

What are the perspectives of the knowledgeable individuals here?

Regards,

Why should HR take refusal badly?

It is the right of a candidate to accept or reject the offered job. As a matter of fact, HR should try to understand the reasons for candidates refusing job offers. That could indicate that market reputation needs a review.

It takes a lot of hard work for both the organization and the right candidate to come together. The candidate has every right to question the organization about not selecting him/her. It is another story that most organizations don't give a valid or true answer. They might tell the candidate about the loopholes or other issues.

The Organization's Perspective

Similarly, when the organization finds the right candidate and believes that this candidate can take the company to a higher level, they feel accomplished when the interview process is over. However, if the candidate rejects the offer, the HR or the department feels that they have to go through the processes all over again, which is a waste of time and sometimes money for them. The organization can ask the candidate for the reason for not joining, but it can never force the candidate to accept the offer.

Why should HR take refusal badly? Happened with me. One HR was calling me unprofessional when I rejected the offer of the company. Will you provide some inputs to the HR? I will provide his email ID.

"One HR was calling me unprofessional when I rejected the offer of the company.

Recruitment is a painstaking process, and a lot of thought and effort go into finding the right candidate for the right job. So, when a candidate rejects, there is a sense of disappointment and a realization that work has to be done all over again. Therefore, some HR professionals may not be professional enough to realize that these are professional hazards. There is no point in telling him/her anything. Move on with your career."

Hello KRavi, Are we seeing your participation in CiteHR after a long time, or did I miss any of your postings? 

Handling Unsavoury Remarks from HR

Coming to your query, just because 'one HR' passed unsavoury remarks doesn't mean that he/she is right. I suggest you follow— in reverse— what you yourself mentioned: "If a candidate rejects the offer, the HR should take it constructively and move on further." For all you know, he/she could have been under severe pressure (not all can handle recruitment pressures, and I have seen quite a few adopting shortcuts too, just as some candidates take shortcuts to land a job). Or he/she could be a newbie in this field. Just ignore his/her comments, giving him/her the benefit of the doubt, and move on.

In case he/she starts to pester beyond a point, politely inform them that you intend to complain to the Company Head if the calls don't stop. Whoever it may be, if his/her calls don't stop, that should resolve the issue.

Regards,
TS

Thanks for remembering me; it's surely been a long time since I last posted. Now, the interface and everything have changed. I was too busy with my career and job, so I didn't even have time to visit this site. The issue with this particular company was that I was called a total of 5 times from the start to the end. Before offering me the job, they took photocopies of my documents like passport, voter ID, education and experience certificates, bank statements, payslips, etc., and verified them with the originals. When I asked them why they needed all this, they mentioned it was for verification purposes. I didn't understand why there was a need for document verification when the candidate hadn't accepted the offer and the salary hadn't been discussed.

Only after submitting the documents did they discuss the CTC (Cost to Company), and even the final offer was given over the phone. I was asked to confirm the offer so that they could proceed. Shouldn't the company issue an offer letter on the organization's letterhead with the terms stated, such as if acceptance isn't conveyed within 2-3 days, the offer will be considered withdrawn? I believe HR is now skipping the step of printing offer letters, as it's been noticed that they are not disclosing the split CTC in the offer letters. On CiteHR itself, there have been instances where candidates mentioned discrepancies between the offered CTC structure and the actual structure in the appointment letter. I think that if a company has decided to offer a job to a candidate, they should provide the offer on letterhead with a detailed CTC breakdown, allowing the candidate sufficient time to decide. Moreover, they should have an open mind that an offer can be either refused or accepted. Some candidates accept an offer, resign, and during their notice period, receive a better offer and choose to join that. Candidates are looking for the best opportunities. I informed them at the beginning that I couldn't accept the offer based only on a telephonic conversation without receiving the offer on letterhead.

Areas Where You May Have Misjudged

1. You aren't a fresher who may not know the general process of hiring. When the HR asked for the certificates/docs without even discussing anything about the CTC, you ought to have flagged it without hesitation. Asking for salary and ID proofs is understandable in hiring, but please note that the other docs are your personal documents and aren't to be distributed like pamphlets. In today's world, anything and everything can be misused, and there's no point in blaming the 'other guy' when we ought to have been cautious. I guess you made some 'assumptions.'

2. One 'possibility' is that they jumped the gun, so to say, of going ahead for docs verification without CTC discussions could be your body language during the interviews. They may have misjudged too, thinking you are serious and are 'likely' to accept anything and whatever is offered.

3. Regarding your remarks about the 'offer letter on letterhead' issue, there are two sides to this coin too. Many companies have now stopped issuing offers on letterheads, only sending a formal mail from the official ID to put things in writing. And that too without any figures being mentioned, thanks to many unscrupulous candidates who misuse the offers to negotiate with other companies. Like for any situation, it takes two to tango, I guess.

When you mention "Some candidates even accept the offer, resign, and during the notice period itself they get another good offer and join it," you think only of your interest without any concern about the organization where you have committed. Never mind even if the company's plans go kaput and down the tube due to the backing-out of the candidate. And I don't think it's fair to complain when the company takes care of their interest in the way they deem fit.

Since we are on this point that mainly deals with personal ethics rather than money (however one may project it as), just thought this could be of interest to you: Recruiters report a rising trend of CXOs, top-level managers pulling out of job offers in the last lap - The Economic Times.

At the end of the day, there's a price to be paid for anything one does (there's no free lunch in life), and the price for such acts would surely be more costly in the long run. Especially in today's networked world, it doesn't take long for the word to pass around about the ethics of someone in the relevant circles. Just learn from this incident and move on. All the best.

Regards,
TS

Dear Satish, That is a very apt reply. When I mentioned the verification of documents to my sister, she raised a red flag. I also got alarmed by the copies of documents and PDC (Post-dated cheques) which they demanded. Luckily, I did not submit the PDC as they told me while accepting the offer I would have to submit PDC, and I was not ready to do so.

Guess we all learn from experience. This was my first interview after a period of 4 years, and I was under the assumption that things might have changed, and now HR does work like this by conducting background verification before offering the job and hence collecting documents.

Still, I feel that a company should offer a candidate based on merit on the letterhead, which states its intent that it has found a candidate suitable for employment in their organization, and not just convey the offer over the phone as we never know when the terms can be manipulated by the candidate or the company.

I had the freedom to ask the organization to offer me on the letterhead and then take my own time for rejection. But since I did not want to waste my time and theirs, I simply refused based on their verbal offer.

As an HR professional, if you trust the candidate and have confidence in their skills, then offer them on the letterhead. Whether the candidate accepts or rejects is their prerogative. Also, whether the candidate negotiates with their current company for a higher CTC is not the concern of the company making the offer. It is an ethical practice for the HR at the candidate's current workplace to reject increasing the salary when presented with a higher CTC offer. This ethical behavior is crucial to maintaining harmonious relations among all HR professionals in the industry.

It is essential to separate personal benefit from the benefit of the entire HR community and to prioritize professional ethics over individual gains. If all HR professionals collectively decide not to raise CTC based on counter offers, companies can confidently offer positions on the letterhead. This, in my view, is a gap in the HR community rather than a fault of the candidates.

Best regards, [Your Name]