Treating Unsuccessful Applicants with Respect Isn't Just Polite: It’s Good for Business

After 30 years in the advancement profession, I’ve learned lots of lessons and reached many conclusions about the practices and habits of my chosen field. Happily, I'm proud of my profession, have enjoyed watching it mature, and have had many occasions to celebrate it.

Nonetheless, there is always room for improvement. And a consistent point of sadness and disappointment for me has been the often terrible manner in which some non-profit organizations treat unsuccessful candidates for open positions in their advancement programs.

Although I don’t have formal research data to back me up, I am comfortable relying on the voluminous anecdotes I have either personally experienced or been told by colleagues—and which sadly I've been hearing with increased frequency in recent years. The most common horror stories involve candidates who:

• Submit their credentials in response to advertisements and never hear a thing in response—not even an acknowledgement of their application, let alone any kind of message providing closure.


• Take one or more vacation days from their current job to travel to the hiring organization’s location for a grueling series of interviews, after which they return home and dutifully send thank-you notes, and then hear… crickets.


• Likewise invest considerable time preparing for and traveling to face-to-face interviews, only to be rejected by a terse email or a letter from a search firm or human resources representative they never met.

Do the Math

In searches that my programs conducted over the years, we typically received 50 to 150 applications. So if, for simplicity’s sake, we use 100 candidates as the average applicant pool size, then we know from the start of a typical search that only one individual is going to experience a happy ending to the process and 99 others will not. That single lucky individual will then be welcomed and embraced, participate in onboarding activities, and (I hope) be afforded ongoing training, support and mentoring.

But what about the 99% of applicants who exited your search process with some degree of disappointment? How did you treat them and how will they regard you in the future? Will they want to apply for forthcoming openings? Or did you behave in a manner that frustrated, angered or insulted those candidates, leaving them inclined to bad-mouth your process, your program or your organization?

Do the feelings of unsuccessful candidates really matter once we find the person we're seeking? As Maya Angelou famously stated, "People will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."

Unfortunately, many non-profits unwittingly turn their search processes into roaring production lines of newly minted critics, detractors and messengers of unflattering perspectives because those organizations unnecessarily bruise the feelings of their rejected candidates.

Unfortunately, many non-profits unwittingly turn their search processes into roaring production lines of newly minted critics, detractors and messengers of unflattering perspectives because those organizations unnecessarily bruise the feelings of their rejected candidates. If your program manages to land one terrific new hire but creates 99 new enemies, have you taken a step forward or a step backward?

So What?

It's ironic to me that professionals in our relationship-centered field choose to treat aspiring colleagues in a cavalier manner that will neither build relationships nor generate goodwill. Why do I think this even matters?

• Today’s unsuccessful applicant might be a great fit for a future job opening.


• We really do operate in a small interconnected world, and bad news travels faster and farther than good news--and inevitably one of your disappointed applicants will prove to be associated with someone else whose relationship with you is very important.


• Unsuccessful applicants treated with kindness and respect may become even more eager to work for your organization, or to recommend you to other potential employees.


• At a time when the demand for quality fundraising talent outstrips the supply, can you afford to turn off potential employees or have the professional grapevine question whether your shop is a good place to work?

Do It Better, Do It Smarter

How can advancement programs treat applicants better, and by doing so enhance their reputations and attract strong candidates for future positions? I offer several recommendations, none of which require a significant investment of time and resources, with most being simply a change in standard practices or routines:

1.  Acknowledge all applications. Let all applicants for posted jobs know that the materials they submitted have been received and provide some idea of how the process will proceed. And since most organizations receive applications by email, it should be relatively painless to send a quick reply—perhaps if only by auto-reply.

2.  Never say, “Don’t call us, we’ll call you” (or its more recent variation, “We’ll get back to you only if we’re interested”). Everyone who takes the time apply for a job that you've advertised merits some consideration and the courtesy of being told when they are out of the running.

3.  Share search updates in a timely fashion. Searches can extend for months. Therefore, politely excuse unsuitable candidates as soon as you deem them to not be viable. Or if the search is being delayed, let active candidates know about the hold-up.

4.  Deliver bad news commensurate with how far the candidate advanced in the search. If someone has spent the time, effort and psychic energy to come and interview with your organization, you must let them know the outcome of their candidacy, and you should not take the easy, cowardly out of sending a terse email. If you met them face to face, pick up the phone and call them. I recommend the same approach for those who participated in phone or Skype interviews. Email-only exchanges can be answered by email; letters can be answered by letters or emails.

5.  Take extra care with applicants who belong to key constituencies. If an applicant is an alumna of your college, a member of your congregation, a long-standing donor or has other special connections, make an extra effort to reach out. Don’t harm that relationship. Even if it’s clear their credentials are not a good match for your needs, take the extra step to acknowledge their connection, such as phoning them instead of just sending a letter or email.

6.  Don’t assume someone else will take care of it. Hiring managers often engage the help of human resource professionals or search firms. In those cases, be explicit about who is responsible for following up with unsuccessful candidates and what your expectations are for how that follow-up will be conducted. The best approach is to have the hiring manager handle it, since they have interacted with the candidates and can communicate in a more personalized manner. And when using a search firm, hold them accountable for treating your applicants well. Don’t let their haste lay waste to your reputation.

7.  Say thank you. Remember that all candidates, even if they are not hired, have invested time and energy in their applications and opened themselves up to your scrutiny. Express appreciation for their interest in your organization and the effort they put forward.

8.  Remember that every communication is an opportunity to enhance or to damage your organization’s reputation. Make sure that the manner in which you communicate is consistent with your mission and values. It is also possible, when appropriate, to include information about your organization or its upcoming programs (but NO pledge cards!) and invite them to stay connected.

I encourage you to treat our fellow professionals and human beings as kindly as possible. And by doing so, I am confident you will help transform your organization into a place that potential employees will be clamoring to join.

FROM Mark W. Jones on LinkedIn.