Or, translated properly: “We couldn’t be bothered treating you like a human being.” The sentence every job seeker has come to dread.
More...
This phrase is now so normalised that organisations add it to job advertisements without even thinking about what it actually says to people.
Because what it really says is this:
“If we don’t want you, we won’t even acknowledge your existence.”
Somewhere along the line, corporate rudeness became accepted professional behaviour. Companies that would lose their minds over poor customer service now happily ignore hundreds of applicants after demanding hours of their time, effort and emotional energy.
Before somebody in Talent Acquisition starts sweating into their branded company hoodie, I understand recruitment volumes. I have worked in recruitment, HR and workforce management for decades across infrastructure, construction, corporate and executive environments. I understand operational pressure. I understand timelines. I also understand being inundated with applications.
What I don’t understand is why basic professionalism suddenly disappears the moment somebody is unsuccessful.
Because despite all the talk about culture, authenticity, values and “people first”, many recruitment processes still operate with the emotional warmth of a redundancy meeting booked for 4:55pm on a Friday.
Key Takeaways
Recruitment has become weirdly comfortable with silence
Imagine applying this behaviour to almost any other part of life.
You walk into a bank and stand at the counter for three weeks while employees occasionally glance at you before continuing conversations near the printer.
You book a table at a restaurant, arrive on time, and nobody acknowledges you exist.
You pay a mechanic to inspect your car and six weeks later you’re still wondering whether the vehicle exploded or not.
It would be absurd.
Yet in recruitment, silence has become a standard operating procedure.
Candidates spend hours tailoring resumes, researching companies, writing cover letters and completing application forms that often require them to manually re-enter information already sitting perfectly clearly on their CV. Then come the psychometric assessments, behavioural questionnaires and increasingly weird one-way video interviews where people sit alone speaking into webcams like rejected contestants from a low-budget reality TV show.
And after all of that?
Nothing.
No rejection email, no update, no closure. Just silence!
Then organisations wonder why candidates become cynical about employers, recruiters and corporate culture in general.
Really?
Candidate experience is often complete nonsense
I love the phrase “candidate experience” because it sounds fantastic right up until the candidate never hears from you again.
Modern recruitment has become obsessed with looking human rather than actually behaving like humans. There are polished careers pages, glossy videos, diversity slogans and smiling employees pointing enthusiastically at laptops in stock photography. Companies proudly announce that their people are their “greatest asset” while simultaneously treating applicants like spam emails.
I know somebody will argue that employers cannot realistically provide personalised feedback to every applicant.
That’s true.
But nobody is asking for personalised feedback for 900 applicants.
They are asking for acknowledgment.
A simple rejection email.
A basic update.
Any indication whatsoever that their application was received, reviewed and closed properly.
That isn’t unreasonable. That is the bare minimum standard of professional courtesy.
“But we received hundreds of applications”
Whoopy doo, good for you
That means people wanted to work for you.
Nobody forced you to advertise the role. Nobody forced you to create a recruitment process requiring applicants to invest unpaid labour into proving themselves worthy of acknowledgement. And let’s be honest here, many organisations create their own recruitment chaos by advertising fantasy roles with ridiculous expectations attached.
Apparently, every company now wants somebody who is strategic, operational, commercially astute, emotionally intelligent, culturally aligned, resilient, agile, innovative, digitally savvy, collaborative, capable of leading teams under pressure and preferably experienced in AI transformation, stakeholder engagement and forklift operation.
The salary, naturally, is somewhere between disappointing and insulting.
Then HR teams act shocked when 700 people apply.
That’s not candidate failure; that’s the labour market responding to economic pressure and unrealistic advertising.
"But we don't have time to respond to everyone"
Most companies, whatever their size, use an Applicant Tracking System. They just need to train people to bloody use it properly.
ATS platforms can reject candidates in bulk within seconds. Some can schedule communications automatically. Some can personalise responses using templates and merge fields. Technology is not the issue here.
The issue is priorities.
Companies automate onboarding, payroll, interviews, compliance training and employee engagement surveys, but somehow the rejection email becomes an impossible technical mountain that nobody can overcome.
Interesting.
Even a short message matters:
“Thank you for your application. We appreciate the time invested in applying. On this occasion, we have progressed with candidates whose experience more closely aligns with the role.”
Done.
Nobody expects poetry.
People just want confirmation they weren’t thrown into a digital skip bin.
The emotional side employers conveniently ignore
What many organisations fail to appreciate is that job searching is emotionally draining. People are not applying for roles casually while sipping margaritas beside hotel pools.
Many candidates are stressed, worried and exhausted. I spoke to a candidate in the US this week who had applied to over 500 roles. If you think that can't be true, I saw the spreadsheet he did. Over 50% didn’t even respond.
Some people will have been made redundant. Some are dealing with toxic workplaces. Some are trying to support families. Others are older workers wondering whether age has already disqualified them before anyone even opened the resume.
Silence feeds insecurity.
Candidates start questioning everything. Their experience, their qualifications, their communication style, their personality, their age and importantly their WORTH.
I appreciate employers are not responsible for managing every emotional response attached to job searching. But basic communication still matters because professionalism matters.
The absence of communication says something about your organisation whether you like it or not.
Recruitment processes reveal more about culture than values posters ever will
Companies spend enormous amounts of money trying to convince the market they are 'employers of choice'. There are culture videos, branded notebooks, coffee mugs, wellbeing webinars and enough LinkedIn posts about authenticity to make you question the true meaning of life.
Meanwhile, the actual recruitment process often feels cold, disorganised and transactional.
That’s ironical, isn’t it?
Recruitment is culture.
How you communicate with candidates is culture.
How you reject people is culture.
How you treat individuals who cannot immediately benefit your organisation says far more about your values than anything printed on the office wall beside the reception desk plant.
Because respect is easy when somebody is useful to you. The real test is how you treat people when they are not.
FAQ
Should employers respond to every applicant?
Yes. Even a simple automated rejection email is better than silence and demonstrates a basic level of professionalism.
Is it realistic when companies receive hundreds of applications?
Absolutely. Modern ATS systems are specifically designed to manage large application volumes and automate communication.
Why do organisations still use “only shortlisted candidates will be contacted”?
Usually because it is easier operationally, but often because poor communication has become culturally accepted within recruitment.
Does candidate ghosting happen as well?
Of course it does. But employers spent years criticising candidates for ghosting while simultaneously embedding the same behaviour into recruitment processes.
Does poor communication impact employer brand?
Massively. Candidates talk to peers, industry contacts and online networks. People remember how employers made them feel long after the recruitment process ends.
Conclusion
The phrase “only shortlisted candidates will be contacted” has become one of the clearest indicators of how disconnected modern recruitment can be from basic human decency.
Nobody expects employers to personally call every unsuccessful candidate. Nobody expects lengthy feedback reports for every rejected application. But pretending silence is acceptable professional behaviour while simultaneously preaching about culture, authenticity and employee experience is ridiculous.
Candidates invest time, hope and emotional energy every time they apply for a role. The least organisations can do is acknowledge that effort properly.
Because if your process treats people like they are disposable before they even join the business, don’t be surprised when they assume your culture probably works the same way after they get there.
