After the interview

Greg Wyatt • June 19, 2024

In a tough job search, getting to an interview in itself can feel like a real achievement.

If you’ve been accountable in your applications, only going for roles where you are a strong fit, these are tangible opportunities to secure employment.

But the interview itself isn’t the be-all and end-all.

It’s better to see them as the start of a conversation, one that’s only complete when you either have an acceptable employment contract in your hand, or if it’s an unequivocal no.

Continuing this conversation in the right way, and in ways other candidates may not think to, can bring both marginal and maximal gains.

Today we’ll look at:

Thank you notes
Additional interviews
Appropriate follow-ups
Keeping in touch long-term

Let me tell you a recent story to set the scene.

A few weeks back I filled a vacancy which had a strong shortlist. The final three were all employable, and the company would have taken all three had they been able to.

The second choice candidate was very disappointed but took it well, with good grace.

I worked hard to give all three a good experience, with regular updates and constructive feedback. I too was genuinely disappointed for the ‘unsuccessful’ candidates.

Two weeks after accepting the offer and returning the signed contract, the first-choice candidate withdrew. She’d received a significantly improved offer having been headhunted.

Within two hours of passing the news on to the hiring team, the 2nd choice candidate was offered and accepted the role.

There’s detail I’m not including here, but the key point is that her behaviour during the process, and how she took the initial ‘no’ contributed to a very easy decision to employ her.

How we treated her during the initial process, and her ‘no’, contributed to an easy decision for her to accept.

It’s reciprocal.

In many ways, an interview is like a sales meeting.

One party pitches their offering, which might be customised against the questions asked.

The other party makes a decision on whether and how to proceed.

In an interview though, this is equally true of a candidate and the employer being the seller, and the other the buyer.

However, this isn’t an equal and proportionate reflection.

As a job seeker, you get the final say on whether you say yes, no or something in between. Your decision is influenced by factors you may not divulge to the employer, such as an unexpected intervention (illness, accident, family), personal circumstances or other offers that may come up.

It’s the same for the employer. They may have a hierarchy of decision-making, changes in the business, and changes outside of the business - many things that can influence an interview decision or time frame, away from what was initially agreed.

In a sales process, we know that a deal isn’t agreed upon until the invoice is paid, so even if there is an initial ‘yes’ in a meeting, we follow up suitably to get closure.

It looks something like this:

Follow-up email to confirm details of the conversation and next step. Thank you for your time
Follow up at the appropriate time frame to check progress
If it’s ‘no right now’ follow up over time to build a relationship until they are ready to buy
If it’s ‘no answer’ finding appropriate reasons to follow up, ending in a breakup email

However what it actually looks like is predicated on understanding what their sales (hiring) process is, playing to their rules and breaking those same rules in an appropriate way.

You can take those bullet points pretty much word for word in an interview process.

In the UK 61% of private sector employers are SMEs, with the remainder Corporates, although the vast majority of the money is in the corporate space.

The differentiator in recruitment is that the more corporate you get, the more transactional and matrix-led recruitment becomes.

Some of the rules of the game will be different.

This is an oversimplification to highlight how and why things are different depending on the context. Public sector, charities, geography, bias, habit, strategy - everything informs what appears similar process from the jobseeker perspective.

A ‘thank you’ note might be seen as meaningless corporately, other than as a thank you.

Whereas in an SME it might be seen as responsive behaviour that’s a sign of what someone is like to work with.

I’ve seen both scenarios, including where the behaviour in between interviews has contributed to a candidate being appointed, in a tight decision.

Even in corporations, decision-makers always have biases. Just because the company extols ‘systemic best practice’ doesn’t mean those same decision-makers follow the rules in their mind.

Ideally, aim to understand what you are dealing with, to inform the tactics you take.

A caveat on the following points: it’s important not to be cynical or come across as coercive. Be respectful of the process, unless that process is working against you unreasonably.

Thank you notes

Most of the employers I partner with are interested in their candidates’ feedback and interest post-interview - to help them reach the right decision for the right reason.

Were you applying directly to them, their interest in your view would be the same.

A naturally written thank you note sent appropriately, will never work against you.

It might work for you, and it’s a situation where someone’s bias can be a benefit.

“Dear Greg,

I wanted to thank you for your time today, and the opportunity to interview at ABC Corp.

It was a pleasure to meet you and Gary, and helpful to understand more about your role and environment. I remain keen and would be delighted to return for the next stage if you are in agreement.

You mentioned you’ll make a decision by the end of next week, and I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Do let me know if I can help with anything in the meanwhile - my number is ….

Kind regards,”

But it’s also an opportunity to build on, or mitigate, elements in an interview, for instance, if there’s an example you neglected to share, or if you didn’t convey information in the right way.

Maybe they let slip they’d be concerned if the role would keep your interest in the long term - why not own this?

“During the interview, you asked if I could see myself in this role long-term. It’s certainly a role I’d enjoy - taking on a hands-on role I can get stuck into is an exciting challenge, while I think my experience in xxx would be beneficial for yyy”

That kind of thing.

Try and keep it more succinct than my email though!

Write it in your own words, in a similar tone to how you came across in the interview.

Will it make a difference? Only marginally, in some situations.

Is it worth doing, as a natural way to continue the conversation? I think so.

Don’t be disheartened if you don’t get a reply - they may have a visible policy to follow.

And to that coercive point above definitely don’t say

“I’m the best candidate, you’d be a fool to miss out” or something more subtle that might suggest the same.

Additional interviews

In an ideal world, you’d get a full view of the interview process before the interview.

However, some employers like to play a game of interview chicken, unveiling more and more interview stages as you go through them.

Most are somewhere in between.

It’s a good idea to try and establish the full process as early as possible, in case there is anything that is non-negotiable for you.

For example, I know some people categorically do not want to do technical tests or ‘business plan’ style presentations, having had their fingers burnt in the past.

It’s your choice what might be a non-negotiable, but for any reasonable employer, these are typically used as means for fair assessment.

I’d treat any interview in the same way as the first interview: prepare as fully as possible and assume nothing.

Unless you know their hierarchy of decision-making, that new person you meet at fourth stage for an informal chat might well be the person with the final say.

Even a social get-together after an offer is put forward might be seen as an assessment.

Appropriate follow-ups

It’s a careful balance. You want to show you are interested, but not desperate. You need an answer, but not to be inappropriately intrusive - even if that’s not your intent, perception holds weight.

Following up in the right way is a good tactic, in sales and in interviews.

If you can gain an understanding of their time frames or process, work to that.

But anything and everything can happen behind the scenes, including unexpected absences, so things do slip in a way employers may not see as notable.

On the Tuesday after the Friday you were expecting to hear, drop them a polite line.

“Hi Greg,

I wondered if you had any news on how you want to proceed with this role. Is there any news you can share?

Kind regards,”

You can play a bit of keeping up with the Joneses too, if it’s true -

“I remain interested - I do have two interviews this week with other employers. Would you like me to keep you updated?”

Sometimes no news is no news, and if you can afford to be patient do so.

Eventually, you may come to a point where you need a decision from them to facilitate a decision from you on another endeavour - such as if your 2nd choice company gives you a job offer.

A breakup email can be a good thing. This may not prompt a decision from them, or even an answer, but if that’s the case you give yourself agency to walk away with no ‘what ifs?’

And if they do come back later, you can make a separate decision on whether you revisit them.

One such email might be

“Hi Greg,

I enjoyed our interview on May 21st. You mentioned you’d reach a decision the following week. Can I assume you have moved forward with another candidate?

I’ll draw a line through my application for now, however, I’ll be happy to pick up our conversations at a later date if you are still recruiting.

Kind regards,”

Written appropriately there are three outcomes:

You get a reply confirming they have appointed
You get no reply and can move on
You get a reply with more information

That last point may be simply ‘no news’, or something actionable. Sometimes it might even prompt good news.

Whatever the outcome, you can move forward.

Keeping in touch long-term

Sometimes a no might be a ‘no for now’, especially when you are later on in the process, such as being pipped to the post at final interview.

In many situations that may be the last interaction you’ll have with a company.

However, if yours is a ‘business as usual role’ where there are a number of employees fulfilling similar duties in the same company, you may well be suitable for other roles that come up in future.

How can you keep in touch appropriately so that you help them reach straightforward decisions when another vacancy does come up?

Find reasons to occasionally keep in touch (maybe once every couple of months).

If they are active on LinkedIn, you could follow their content and add constructive comments.

Keeping in touch long-term is about building a networking relationship which you both might benefit.

It may come to nothing, but it may give you early, and even only, sight of a new vacancy.

Of course, if you see another vacancy advertised, check it out. Personally I’d drop them a line directly rather than apply, given you are continuing a conversation, rather than come in cold.

And if they reply to say ‘don’t bother’, at least you know!

That’s the end of this interview series. Anything you’d like me to cover in the next episode?

Regards,

Greg

< Older Post

Newer Post >

De Facto Automated Rejection & You

By Greg Wyatt • November 12, 2026

While 2027 remains surprisingly far away, with plenty of time to start applications, attend interviews, gain an acceptable job offer and even start work, I'm already thinking about the biannual update to A Career Breakdown Kit. Only, nothing's really changed in terms of what might affect the steps you take, overall, since the last update, so any changes are likely to only be minor. This might surprise you, if you feel that AI has increasingly eaten into how applications are administered and assessed. While the changes that are actually happening make the treatise of this article more important, which is to look at how recruitment actually happens in informing your strategy. Changes that may not be widespread but are emerging - deprioritising advertising roles in favor of sourcing (looking for candidates), because of the volume of applications; adding extra friction into applications, penalising relevant candidates because of AI applications made automatically; even discounting applications wholesale if they come from they are sent by a mass-apply service. I do see people regularly showcasing features of various ATSs over the years that seem to show automated rejections, yet these features rarely worked well, and haven't changed much in two decades. As I mentioned to Martyn, at a recent Recruitment Technology standards launch in the UK, "it doesn't matter how good the technology layer is, if the human layer is the problem". Martyn Redstone is Head of Responsible AI at Warden, and I'm fortunate that he will be joining me and Simon Ward on a LinkedIn Live as we discuss what this topic means for job seekers. I'll update this newsletter with the event when it's live. In the meanwhile, Martyn is well worth following to understand what's actually happening with AI in recruitment. It's still important to acknowledge the poor experiences job seekers have, and to try and shed light on what is happening, in what I call: 6 - De Facto Automated Rejection and You When there’s any discussion over Beat the Bots, job seekers often assume they are unfairly treated, while people from the recruitment profession deny it happens at all - “that’s not how the ATS works”, “we don’t use AI that way”, and so on. The best objection I see to the common recruiter stance is, “What does it matter how we are rejected, if we were never fairly considered?” That question is the heart of this chapter and, to answer it, I need to propose a new term: De facto automated rejection. Definition: where an element of a recruitment process leads to an application being either rejected or not considered, irrespective of capability, contribution, or potential alignment. That may sound an awful lot like Automated Rejection, yet it isn’t the same thing. Examples: No application after number 100 considered Illegal discrimination Legal discrimination - location, salary, industry, qualification, etc - legally permissible decisions driven by assumption Relying on configured ranking within an ATS to prioritise applications Not considering candidates who aren't picked up by a Boolean search (sourcing) Filter questions at advert stage (e.g. do you have a work permit?) Applying after the vacancy is at interview stage And many more All de facto automated rejections have one thing in common, and it isn’t automation - it’s human decision-making, including shortcuts and assumptions. Some of those examples above are cited when talking about auto-rejects. However, these are all consequences of human intervention and the choice not to intervene. There are an increasing number of AI products that automate these steps, with the requirement of human oversight - I've yet to speak to a recruiter that wholly relies on them, and few who don't view every application. This is one reason why ATS Compliance and Beat the Bots are a red herring. The advice fails not because it’s wrong, but because it optimises the wrong layer. The system is only a component in the process, governed by humans. If you misdiagnose de facto automated rejection as a technical problem, you’ll keep trying to outsmart systems instead of changing how you’re seen, found, and prioritised by people. Understanding how recruiters handle their process and giving them what they need in an application has to take priority. While the same steps that “optimise human compliance” are implicitly system-compliant. The challenge is that human compliance relies on what makes us individual: our skill level, our insight, our psychology, our biases, our resources and the time available to us. As well as how you navigate these. Without forgetting that we are people like you, often trying to do too much with too little. It’s no wonder our frustrations mirror yours, with the difference that we earn a salary for our experiences. ATS Compliance feels more comfortable, because it gives a clear direction, even if it’s the wrong one. It is true we use filters and keywords to prioritise how our applications are presented to us. We do the same when we look for candidates, whether on LinkedIn, job boards, our ATS or other means. All this does is present results in a way that allows us to spend more attention on those that meet the criteria we have set. When we review those results, the way that information is presented informs whether we progress them or not. To be human compliant, your application has to be discoverable, then it has to convert interest. Fail on either front and you’ll either be rejected or you won’t hear at all. If humans are the reasons you are rejected for reasons unrelated to capability or contribution... well, I think that’s rather more problematic than technology. Beat the Bots and ATS Compliance aren’t just a red herring - they can actively hold you back. Because they place the wrong priority by presenting a strategy, rather than simple hygiene. Your wider strategy should encompass far more than applications - getting found, starting conversations, doorknocking, networking and all these other opportunities that can get you closer to a job: These are fundamentally covered in a human compliance strategy. I just happened to call it A Career Breakdown Kit instead, with how to do these in Parts 2 and 3. I realise this may create a feeling of overwhelm, when you realise there is much more to a better application than the transactional steps of ATS compliance. Yet these same steps will improve every aspect of your job search and some are straightforward to take - go to www.bwrecruitment.co.uk/resources for the free CV template that is an easy starting point.

Salary on the job description

By Greg Wyatt • November 11, 2026

I've written many variations on the article below, over the years, and it seems sensible to revisit given the UK government's announcements around salary transparency. On the whole, I'm for it, with the many advantages it brings. But like a lot of things in recruitment, there is a more involved discussion to be had, especially when this fix treats the symptoms, not the rot. That's not to say the fix isn't worth doing, just that it won't fix many of the problems underlying a lack of transparency. This article is a little dated, in terms of the research shared, but I think the points are as relevant as ever. Originally published May 2023 Salary on the Job Description? Yes, the headline is trolling. The question should be ‘salary on the job advert?’ You wouldn’t confuse a job description with an advert, would you? This is a subject rife with disagreement around ethics and practicality, and worth broaching again considering recent campaigns in the UK to increase salary transparency and ban the ‘what’s your current salary?’ question. Let’s focus on some practicalities first, based on UK research I ran last year for my “Accessing a Candidate Short Market” guide: Job boards can penalise you for not listing salary. As of December 2021, Totaljobs penalises adverts that don’t list salary, and these aren’t sent out as job alerts to candidates (who may be passive). These adverts are considered sub-standard. Unlisted salaries attract fewer qualified applications. This was estimated to be between 20% and 45% fewer, across the job boards I talked to. LinkedIn reported that not only can you expect more applications, you may also expect better-qualified applications when the salary is advertised. My work supporting senior job seekers confirms this - many would not apply to adverts that had no salary or "competitive salary" because they felt this was a waste of their time. There is less emphasis on salary negotiation from the candidate side, due to transparency in pay. This is a key part of equity, relating to gender, race and intersectional identity. According to Payscale 's research, white men are most likely to negotiate the highest salary. It’s simple – if you advertise vacancies and don’t list salary, you risk receiving fewer, less suitable applications. Then there’s the ethical question, where a common argument is that there is ‘no ethical reason that salaries can’t be listed’. Now, while I’m a proponent for advertising salaries, where possible, I think this ethical argument isn’t the right one - ‘can’t be’ is a strong statement. I think a better question is ‘how does this do harm’ when establishing reasons for not listing salary. This balances pragmatism with the most important aspect of ethics. It can be a complicated question too in scenarios like this: How do you establish salary transparency for job families across multiple regions where the local pay is established by HQ in one country? Currency exchange rates and cost of living mean that a fair salary one day may not be the next, therefore flexibility in not listing salary may be ethically the right thing to do if the intent is right. What about new vacancies that serve to solve a business problem and can be recruited at different levels? What about practical situations like recruiting hard-to-fill vacancies during a wider redundancy programme, whereby listing a salary would create concern in unrelated areas of that unsettled business? It's not always as simple a question as we’d like to think. If you’re facing a complex situation in advertising a role, I recommend describing your stance in the advert itself, if you legitimately can’t state the salary. At the same time, as we’ve seen in the US, legislation to enforce salary transparency creates situations such as Netflix apparently advertising a range of $90-900k. Who does that help? The problem with this kind of legislation is that companies can comply while continuing the behaviour that led to the legislation in the first place. It’s palliative, rather than treating unfairness at its root. We should also consider the unforeseen consequence of salary transparency, such as this research which appears to show a reduced link between performance and pay: Influence of Pay Transparency Helping candidates negotiate better pay or terms is a privilege I enjoy. And there's more to understanding someone's existing remuneration than simply establishing whether they can afford to move. Sometimes these conversations reveal that someone is being underpaid. With evidence of what their experience and contribution might command elsewhere, they can go back to their current employer and make the case for a pay rise. That might mean they decide not to move at all. Which is a perfectly good outcome for them, even if it isn't for the vacancy in the short term. It also opens up the counteroffer conversation early. If their employer could resolve the reason they're considering leaving, I'd rather understand that before they accept an offer elsewhere. There's a benefit for prospective employers too. A new employer may budget £52,000 for a role, believing that to be market rate, based on historic data. But if conversations with suitably experienced candidates reveal that their existing remuneration, expectations and other opportunities consistently indicate otherwise, there's good reason to revise either the budget or the requirements. If that budget does prove unrealistic, and it's the same budget other team members are measured against, it can also create the argument to revisit everyone's salaries - subject to affordability, of course. After all, it's cheaper to retain fairly paid staff with all the knowledge they have than to replace them. Of course, conversations with candidates aren't a substitute for proper salary benchmarking. But they can reveal problems that wouldn't otherwise be apparent. There are also situations where understanding the whole package matters. What if someone currently receives a 16% pension contribution and moves to a role offering a 10% pay rise but only a 5% pension? Car allowances, RSUs, tax-efficient packages? Remuneration is a more involved conversation than simply salary. And none of this means someone's existing salary should determine what they're worth to their next employer. If their previous salary was unfair, using it to determine their next salary risks perpetuating that unfairness. And if an employer routinely offers a 15% increase on previous earnings, the new salary may have little relationship to the contribution that person can make. It makes sense to pay commensurately with contribution and capability, rather than what may be irrelevant history. So I understand the reasons for wanting to ban questions about previous salary. They're often used badly. But I think there's an important distinction between asking to establish someone's worth and asking to understand their circumstances. One can perpetuate unfairness. The other can help identify and correct it. If legislation restricts these conversations, I'll adapt how I offer this support. But I'd hope any restrictions recognise the difference between using salary history to determine an offer and voluntarily discussing remuneration to help someone make better decisions. I hope you’ve found these thoughts helpful to start a broader conversation in your business. My thoughts aren’t set in stone, so please let me know your opinions if you disagree. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, lack capacity or need better candidates, and are curious how I can help, these are my services: Commercial, operational and technical leadership recruitment Manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client Outplacement support Email me on greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk if you'd like to discuss.