What I find interesting here is the contrast in expected behavior for a company and for an interviewee. Most companies won't tell you why they're rejecting you if you interview with them. Most of them won't even send you a rejection email! Yet most people commenting on SE point out that you should explain why you're cutting the interview short and leaving.
This is what I'm getting from the responses as well. People seem to have forgotten that interviewing is a two way street, you are interviewing the company while they are interviewing you. There is not really a lording of power situation, presumably you both have something the other wants. Interviewing is not you showing up begging for a position. You are not really required to give any more consideration then you can expect from them.
Most companies won't hesitate to cut an interview short when they've decided they don't want you, why should you feel that you can't do the same?
I've gotten feedback when I interviewed on why they did not extend an offer. Its emotionally difficult when interviewing to put yourself out there, but getting feedback does help you understand how the interview went down better.
Facebook is great about this, but they shattered industry norms with their practice. It is one of the classiest ways they exemplify their top to bottom belief in sharing information with everyone, in product and in corporate.
What are you talking about? I did a phone interview and two on-site interviews, and the only feedback I got was a generic form letter that my background was not the right fit, which clearly isn't the whole story because there's no need to pay for a plane ride if my resume isn't what you're looking for. I'm guessing either they've changed policy here or you or someone you know happened to get a nice interviewer.
What are you referring to? The first time I interviewed there, I got zero feedback. The second time, I didn't make it past the phone screen (which has never happened to me before so I thought it was remarkable/funny.) and got the old "didn't think was a good fit" line.
If you want to compare, then imagine that you're in the middle of the interview and the interviewer suddenly tells you “get lost, here's the elevator”.
Saying “thanks but no, thanks” after the interview without telling the reason if perfectly fine for both a company and an interviewee.
The candidate didn't do the equivalent of "get lost."
I have been flushed from an interview process halfway through. (Apparently I failed the personality test for Capital One. Fair enough.) They had a car take me back to the airport. I didn't mind. The guy I was riding with (who was also flushed) was really pissed about it, though.
A company really should solicit feedback from the candidate during the process. The candidate can say "I don't think this company is going to be a good fit," and then the company can decide if there's anything more worth talking about. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.
If you want to compare, then imagine that you're in the middle of the interview and the interviewer suddenly tells you “get lost, here's the elevator”.
This happens. The reverse isn't unreasonable either.
A lot of companies schedule interviews with a natural break in the process partway through -- basically you do phone screens, with people not progressing beyond those, and the in-person interview can be split to morning, lunch, after-lunch; senior people (or larger groups, or people with more constrained schedules, ...) meet with candidates after lunch, and if someone is a no-hire based on the morning, the candidate doesn't know about the afternoon phase and is told he can go home before or after lunch.
Personally I think it's important to sell no-hire candidates on the company, since even no-hires might be hires in the future (for different roles, or if they add skills), or might be referrers of other, better candidates, or might end up working for a vendor or customer, or just might make negative social media postings about you which dissuade other candidates. So doing morning interviews, lunch (which turns into "selling the company's mission to the candidate", ideally by a senior person who isn't overly busy, not a random HR drone), etc. for the no-hires.
While I agree with you, I believe this is partially due to legal pressure - companies can open themselves up to litigation if they give too much information.
and then you send a Data Protection Act Subject Access Request (in the UK anyway), where they are legally required to divulge every single piece of information they have relating to you, including internal staff emails, feedback forms, etc.
(and you're guaranteed to at least get something, as if they don't have any stored information on you then the door is wide open to discrimination suits)
