Technically Approved, Still Rejected: The Feedback Gap in Hiring

Source: Dev.to

Recently I went through a full recruitment process for a .NET Developer role. I passed every stage. The final message sounded like a win:

“You have been technically approved… Nevertheless, the team decided to move forward with another candidate…”

That sentence is tricky. It’s positioned as encouraging, perhaps to soften the disappointment, but as a candidate it leaves you wondering: if I’m approved, what exactly made me not the choice?

The part that bothered me wasn’t the “no.”
I can take a rejection. What’s not normal—at least not healthy—is how often candidates are left with ambiguity, especially after investing real time:

• technical interviews
• coding tasks
• multiple calls
• preparing, studying, reorganizing schedules
• emotional energy and expectations

When I asked for feedback, I got the classic response: “I will talk to the team and let you know.” And then… nothing.

Why this matters (even if recruiters mean well)

A generic rejection isn’t just disappointing; it’s a missed opportunity for growth. Without knowing what influenced the decision, I can’t improve intentionally and am left guessing:

• Was it salary or budget constraints?
• Was it seniority level (more junior or more staff‑level)?
• Was it communication style (English level, clarity, confidence, leadership)?
• Was it specific technical gaps (system design, testing, cloud depth, performance)?
• Was it a team‑fit factor (domain experience, timezone overlap, collaboration style)?
• Did I lose to an internal candidate, referral, or someone with a niche stack match?

Any of these are valid reasons, but without clarity the candidate is stuck.

“Technically approved” is not the same as “best match”

I’ve learned something important:

• You met the minimum technical threshold,
• but someone else matched this specific team’s needs better.

That’s fine—but the way we communicate it matters. “Approved” implies certainty and readiness, sounding like a yes, only to be followed by a no.

What candidates actually need (and it’s not a long report)

I’m not asking recruiters to write a novel or expose internal discussions. Even two honest sentences would be enough:

• “We chose a candidate with deeper Azure + Kubernetes production experience.”
• “The role required strong stakeholder communication; the other candidate showed more leadership in that area.”
• “Budget was capped at X and we moved forward with someone within range.”
• “We needed someone with direct marketplace/domain experience.”
• “Your technical skills were strong, but we needed more depth in system design.”

That feedback doesn’t harm the company, create drama, or require hours of work, but it gives the candidate a direction.

The “we’ll be in touch” line

Stimulating hope is easy; managing expectations is harder. When a message says “we will be in touch 😉” but there’s no follow‑up, it becomes noise. Candidates remember these things. If the real meaning is “we’ll keep your profile on file, but there’s no timeline,” that’s okay—just say that.

My message to recruiter teams

Recruiters have a hard job. I get it—hiring managers are busy, processes are messy. But if you want better candidates in the future, stronger relationships, and a healthier hiring culture, this simple improvement makes a difference:

Don’t leave strong candidates guessing.
We can take a “no.”

A practical ask

If you’re a recruiter reading this, here’s a tiny habit that would make a huge difference:

After a rejection, send one of these (one sentence each):

• Skill‑based reason
• Role‑fit reason
• Compensation range mismatch

That’s it.

And to candidates: here’s how I’ll handle this going forward

I’m also learning to protect my energy:

• If feedback is vague, I’ll ask once, politely.
• If it doesn’t come, I’ll assume it was a fit/budget/timing decision.
• I’ll take notes on how I performed and keep improving anyway.
• I’ll continue applying where the process respects both sides.

Professionalism isn’t only about passing interviews; it’s also about how we treat people when the answer is “no.”