<p>My next door neighbor is the CFO of a Fortune 100 company. Last year his daughter applied at his company and was treated the way some of the previous posters mentioned. The worst for her was not hearing anything after the interviews. She was mentioned this to her Dad and he personally walked over to HR and and expressed his disappointment and embarrassment at the way they were treating potential employees. He never mentioned it to me again, but I got the feeling from his wife that changes were made.</p>
<p>In my situation in my school system and in situations like mine, where there is an in-house candidate, it is even more unforgivable.
I would not expect a reply for simply sending a resume although it is nice to do that but certainly there should be follow up after an interview. In my case there were only three candidates! Not terribly time consuming to pick up the phone and call two people.<br>
My D had her second interview for a new job today. They told her she would hear by the end of next week. I’ll keep you posted! </p>
<p>IMO it’s cowardice. The interviewer anticipates an awkward conversation, and fears that the prospect will argue or cry or something like that. They just don’t want to go through the discomfort.</p>
<p>^^Well in the case they are cowardly, the least they can do is send an email. That’s easy enough, even for the weak. It’s purely a matter of common politeness.</p>
<p>Oh I agree that it’s inexcusable not too get back to a candidate in some form. In some cases it’s laziness; in some, lack of basic manners. But I also think in some cases, it’s gutlessness.</p>
<p>In the case of my boss, it’s high-handedness. Her attitude is that applicants are supplicants, and she owes them nothing. She’s a b!tch in general, though. </p>