Candidate Experience: Things That Make You Go Hmm…

I wasn’t going to publish this but a TED talk by Luvvie Ajayi Jones gave me the nudge I needed. Notice how I said I wasn’t going to publish instead of write—because the truth is, I started writing about this the day it happened—yes, it was that dumbfounding. After venting to friends, I decided to let it be, but the longer I sat with it, the more I realized this story wasn’t just about me. It’s about fairness, respect, and a principle often called the Golden Rule: ‘So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you…’ (Matthew 7:12).

Don’t worry, I’m not here to throw shade or come for anyone. In her talk, Luvvie shares three questions she asks herself before speaking hard truths:

1. Did you mean it?
2. Can you defend it?
3. Did you say it with love?

As a writer and strategist focused on workplace reform and character up-leveling, I can confidently say yes to all three. Like Luvvie, I aim to be a ‘domino’—taking on tough actions that matter and paving the way for others to follow. Of course, she explains it best, so definitely check out her talk! 

Here’s how I see this: Imagine one of those post-interaction surveys asking for your feedback about what worked, what didn’t, and what could be improved. I didn’t receive such a survey, but if I had, my sentiments might’ve gone like this…

This wasn’t just another ‘job interview’ 

It was a Friday afternoon when I was meeting with my second panelist during round one of my interviews. I was interviewing with one of the most recognizable brands in the tech industry, known for its innovation and, let’s face it, its complicated hiring processes. To keep it simple, we’ll refer to it as ‘Puzzle’. I entered the process entertaining the idea of a position I was being recruited for, but by the end of this particular conversation, I was all in. The rapport was poppin’, the mutual respect was quickly formed. It felt like I’d just met my first ally at my soon-to-be new job. The person across from me wasn’t just speaking; they were inspiring. My mind was already racing with ideas, sketching out strategies I could barely wait to implement. Watching my interviewer’s reactions only fueled my excitement and I didn’t even have an offer yet. Yep, this wasn’t just another ‘job interview,’ people.  

What could bring me down from that high?! 

Answer: A brain teaser I still can’t wrap my head around. The following Monday, my recruiter emailed to say they’d call me once all the feedback was collected. But when the call came the next day, I received only half of it—the half stating I would not be moving to round 2, for starters. And later, when I asked for the rest, I was told it couldn’t be shared due to a ‘candidate privacy policy’. Hold up–Seriously? 

Umm… It’s giving ‘sus’ 

You see, the decision not to move me to round two, I was informed, was based solely on the first interviewer’s perspective—the less favorable one. The other interviewer, who raved about me, my approach and even said I “absolutely nailed it,” was seemingly left out of the equation. So forgive me if, for me, the math was simply not math-ing.

Here is the equation I was solving for:

My Interview Math

Interview 1

• 45 minutes as scheduled
• Straightforward Q&A (one question of my own)
• Walked away feeling: Not bad, not good; undecided.

+

Interview 2

• 2 hours, far beyond the scheduled 45 minutes
• A curiosity-driven, thought-provoking conversation
• Walked away feeling: This felt right. I think I want this.

=

At minimum:

• A chance to balance things out
• See if their values and actions swipe right on each other
• Hear one more side of the story

Puzzle’s equation, however, was this (grab your scratch paper, this one’s tricky):  

Puzzle’s Interview Math

Interview 1 

+ 

Interview 2

 = 

• You’re not moving forward to the second round 

(A bit surprised given how well the second interview went, but, hey, all good)

• You get one set of feedback, the one that supports the decision, based mostly on a question you weren’t even asked 

(Gee, that doesn’t seem like a fair practice) 

• When I asked to receive the second set of feedback: “Because of our candidate privacy policy, we actually can’t get into specifics about interview feedback…” 

(Huh? You do realize you already gave me the first set though, don’t you?) 

• Well, if you want to move forward to round 2, you can!

(Wait… Come again?)

Yes, people, this result was a head-scratcher—frustrating and, honestly, full of mixed signals. Do you see why I had to write about it, and why I ultimately decided this wasn’t for me after all? And get this: Puzzle reached out to me, not the other way around. I came recommended, so clearly, something in my background caught their attention. 

Mo’ Math Mo’ Questions

Before I even applied, I met with two members of the staffing team plus the Hiring Manager (for exploratory reasons), followed by the two interviews I just described—a total of five conversations. So, if the answer was going to be a no, you’d think there were at least three prior checkpoints where someone could have said something. Why give me the green light to move forward, only to pull the rug out later? The inconsistency wasn’t just confusing—it was draining.

While the recruiter later clarified a misunderstanding about my initial request for the remaining feedback—and even offered me the chance to move to round two after I expressed my confusion about why one interviewer’s input seemed to cancel out the other instead of solidifying a reason to meet with a third—I want to make it clear that there are no hard feelings and I totally forgave them. I like what I know about the brand, appreciate its products, and value the recruiter’s effort to discuss the matter and even consider me for future opportunities. I also recognize that in Silicon Valley, the land of innovation but also relentless “nos” and layoffs, processes can sometimes miss the mark.

By the time the opportunity to proceed was extended, your girl needed a nap; I was sweating out my edges from all of the head-spinning back-and-forth. That said, I’m sharing this story not to point fingers but to advocate for more thoughtful and transparent hiring practices.

We can all do better than this, yeah?

As Recruiter.com and Qualtrics highlight, transparent communication throughout the hiring process fosters trust and respect, even for candidates who don’t land the role. Companies that prioritize this approach leave candidates feeling valued, increasing the likelihood that they’ll reapply in the future or speak positively about the company in their networks. In essence, these practices strengthen your employer brand and can reduce long-term recruitment costs. 

My hope is that this experience sparks reflection and a commitment to making interviews not just a test of skills, but an example of the company’s integrity. Because when inconsistencies and missteps happen, they don’t just frustrate candidates; they erode trust in the process. And for a company like Puzzle, which sets the standard in so many ways, this is an opportunity to lead the charge in rethinking how hiring can better honor the people involved.

All I’m getting at, Employers, is this: We are people; not mere candidates. We’re sons and daughters, not applications and resumes. So while the hiring process doesn’t have to be flawless, it should absolutely be dignified.

I’m curious, what did you take away from this story? Please drop me a note or a comment.

A note from Erin: If these ideas or perspectives resonate with you, I’d love for you to subscribe or share them with someone you care about. If you’re ready to make a change, or when the time feels right, I’m here to help. Check out my new “WORK WITH ME” page to explore how we can collaborate—or swing by my “CONTACT” page to say hello, ask a question, or start a conversation.