For candidates we’re not going to hire, the last step in our hiring process is either to tell them they’re not getting an offer or to let them exist in a frustrating limbo of not knowing what their status is. Here’s how to do it right.

You’re Obligated to Notify a Candidate of a “No” Expeditiously

As with so many of our managerial choices, we ought to ask, How would we want to be treated if we were on the receiving end of this process?

Everybody we know says the same thing: If you’re not going to give me an offer, I want to know about it, and as quickly as is reasonable. Job candidates all say that if there is a reasonable chance they could be considered, they want to stay in the running. But if they’re not going to get an offer, if they’re out of the running, they want to know about it right away. It doesn’t do them any good to keep thinking about your opportunity. The candidate needs to be freed up to think about other opportunities.

So, the standard is simple. When we know we’re not going to make an offer to a candidate, we’re obligated to communicate quickly that he’s not going to get an offer. As quickly as is reasonable. And we can think of no situation that would justify a manager not making that phone call the day the decision is made.

You Can Wait for an Acceptance Before Notifying a Declined Candidate

Let’s say two candidates (or more) did well enough to justify being considered. You decide to offer Candidate A. Simply because you’re going to offer Candidate A doesn’t mean you have to turn down Candidate B yet.

This situation doesn’t contradict our first rule, because we haven’t decided to rule out Candidate B yet. We don’t know we are not going to offer B simply because we have decided to offer Candidate A. If Candidate A declines our offer, we may choose to come back to Candidate B. So we don’t rule B out yet.

Once A does accept, your next call has to be to B. But until then, if B is still in it, you can wait.

You Can Rule Candidates Out Before You Make a Hire

That example aside, of course we don’t have to wait until we get an acceptance to decline a candidate. Remember: We don’t interview to pick the best candidate. We interview to determine whether anyone meets our standards for the job. Only if we have more than one candidate “above the line” do we “choose” whom to offer.

So if a candidate doesn’t get above the line—and remember also, the purpose of an interview is to rule someone out, not to help us hire—we expeditiously turn her down. We don’t wait until the process is done to tell a candidate she’s been ruled out. The moment we know we’re not going to pursue a person, we tell her so.

Be Direct and Simple When You Inform Them

This is where so many managers go wrong. The first mistake most managers make is never letting someone know. They leave the candidate in limbo. Just because this was done to you doesn’t mean it’s the right way to do it. Don’t visit this mistake on others after you hated being on the receiving end of it.

When the decision is made, make the phone call quickly. That’s right, you’ve got to call. You can’t decline a candidate by email. And if you can’t decline by email, you sure can’t decline by text message or instant message or direct message or Facebook post or any other medium. Phone call, period. Here are a couple of examples of how it might sound:

Roberto, I’m calling to let you know we won’t be making you an offer. There was a lot I liked about our interactions. But we have decided to choose someone else who was a better fit for us. I know this isn’t good news, but I also know you wouldn’t want me to wait. I wish you well in your search, and in the future.

Camille, this is Mark Horstman. I’m calling with less than great news, unfortunately. We won’t be making you an offer. You’re not a fit for us right now. I wish you well in your search, and hope you land in a great place.

You’ll notice that neither of these calls has any chit-chat. Do not start the call by chatting briefly. If you can’t make yourself not do that, about as far as you want to go is to say, Roberto, how are you? . . . I’m well thanks. And, unfortunately, I’m calling to let you know . . . Or, Camille, Mark Horstman. How are you? . . . I’m fine, thanks. I’m calling with less than great news, unfortunately . . .

The moment most candidates hear it’s you, they are expecting news. This makes them nervous. After a couple of back and forth comments, the air is heavy with portent. And when you’re calling with a declination, they’re going to think that you were dreading it and extended the chit-chat to avoid saying they were out, which will make many feel you’re not confident enough of your decision to not feel guilty about it. Don’t make the drama any worse. If you can, avoid the chat altogether.

And because searches are associated with some sense of urgency, you can leave a voicemail for a candidate. You’ll know this the first time you try to leave a message for a candidate that doesn’t indicate what their status is. “Hey, Roberto, this is Mike Auzenne. Give me a call,” is surprisingly hard to do when you know what the outcome is, but you don’t want them to know. Even worse, try exchanging several voicemails with a candidate who is out of the running but doesn’t know it yet. You’ll hear increasing anxiety in his messages to you and increasing frustration. It usually ends poorly.

There are many who think that leaving a voicemail is cold or callous. We disagree. Job searches have an inherent urgency. But the sting of a decline justifies the humanity of a call, and not the cold urgency of a text or email—let alone a boilerplate in either media.

Here’s how a voicemail might sound:

Patricia, I’m calling to let you know that we won’t be making you an offer. I know that’s hard to hear in a voicemail, but I thought it was better to give you the information quickly rather than risk playing phone tag or sending an email. You have a lot to offer, and unfortunately, you’re not a fit for us right now. I wish you all the best in your search.

If you don’t leave a number, or don’t suggest a return, usually there will be an assumption that you don’t need or want a call back. If you are willing to offer feedback—which we will discuss in a moment—then leave a callback number or suggest the person return your call.

If someone does call back, let the first call go to voicemail. This allows you to assess the response to your declination. If the person is respectful and appreciative, politely asks for feedback that you’re willing to give, or just wants to say thanks directly to you, feel free to call back. If the message suggests that you’re unlikely to have a good call with the person, you’re not obligated to return the call.

[We are aware that a voicemail creates the possibility that someone will see a message from you and play it for others, hoping for good news and to share it. It is ludicrous to suggest that this faux pas is the responsibility of the caller. All voicemails are assumed to be for the private use of the recipient. This is not a reason to not leave a voicemail.]

You Can Offer Feedback, But You Don’t Have To

Typically, there is no requirement to give candidates feedback about how they did or why you didn’t hire them. There are good reasons for this. Many seasoned managers will tell you that they have tried and have received incredulous responses indicating that the hiring manager is wrong, they do have that skill. Or that’s not what really happened, and besides it was a silly question anyway.

If you don’t want to offer any feedback, and you are asked, simply respond:

That’s not something I do, unfortunately. Hiring is a tough choice. It’s often a subtle choice. The distinctions between candidates are ones of degrees of ability, and the degrees are often very small. It’s not as simple as one person is good and the other is not. So I’ve found communicating well about the distinctions to be virtually impossible. You have a lot to offer, and we just don’t see a fit right now.

They’ll be stunned to silence by that answer, usually.

But . . . We would make the case that in some circumstances, you can trust a candidate enough to provide some comments.

Here’s our guidance:

Say, “You didn’t demonstrate . . .” This phrasing is simple and effective. And you don’t have to say “demonstrate.” There are other constructs that are fine. Here’s how it sounds:

• “Bob, unfortunately you didn’t demonstrate effective presentation skills. That’s not to say you don’t have them or that you can’t develop them.”
• “You did not demonstrate mastery of the analytical tools necessary for high performance.” [Mastery is a word often referred to in interviewing and reviews.]
• “There was not enough evidence in your interview of strategic thinking.”
• “You didn’t demonstrate the requisite skill in marketing planning we’re looking for.”

The point we’re making is a careful one. We’re only saying that a necessary skill or behavior or ability wasn’t used in such a way that was visible. It’s simply a representation of what has happened. We’re not saying the candidate didn’t have it, we’re saying he didn’t show it. When we say “demonstrate,” we mean, “you didn’t do or say.” Demonstrate means to show or exhibit or express.

No one who supports the concept of behavioral interviewing or unbiased performance communications would argue with the standard being demonstration of a skill or ability or behavior. One of the beauties of the system of demonstration of behaviors is that it protects all of us from the vague systems that intentionally defy accurate description, often thereby supporting the improper or unethical evaluations of people based on their inherent characteristics. If a standard cannot be behaved against, or if the standard is not behavior or demonstrable, it can be used to deny opportunity to effective performers due to characteristics beyond their control or in the minds of the evaluators.

These comments don’t suggest a lack of potential. Nor are they an attack on the person. There are so many ways to talk about someone not meeting a standard that are clumsy and not effective. For instance:

• “You just don’t have it.”
• “I’m not sure you’re cut out for this.”
• “I don’t see it in you.”
• “You may not be the right kind of person for this job.”
• “I think it’s out of your reach.”

These are all essentially false and arrogant things to say. What’s more, they’re characterizations of the person or of future ability. It is hubris for us to judge someone personally or dismiss his potential based on an interview.

A lot of managers say these kinds of things. It’s easy to feel powerful when you choose who will be hired. It’s easy to feel powerful when you get to make decisions about who receives the biggest raise. But it’s the effective manager who humbles herself at these times and stays within the bounds of professionalism, by commenting only on demonstrated behaviors.

We don’t judge people. We compare their demonstrated skills against a standard our organization sets and that we bring to life. The best way to communicate not judging is to stick to behaviors and what was demonstrated.

This is the right way to do it. It’s simple and professional. And we ought to treat our declined candidates as well as we would want someone to treat us.