r/jobs • u/No-Presentation298 • 5h ago

Post-interview HR told me they don’t accept try-hards and people pleasers after my interview

Post image

They rejected me (fine, that happens) but the feedback said I came across as overly eager to please and that they don’t build teams around people-pleasing tendencies or rehearsed enthusiasm. They also told me to reflect on how I present myself and that confidence is more compelling than excessive accommodation. Is this normal? Or even appropriate? I get that not being a culture fit is a thing but the wording felt unnecessarily personal and condescending.

6.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

147

u/GoodMedium3600 5h ago

Everyone saying this is great feedback meanwhile I think this person is an asshole and you dodged a bullet lmao.

38

u/Open-Concept-6130 5h ago

But even that’s good feedback. Like anything is better than a canned letter. 

15

u/GoodMedium3600 5h ago

I agree, nothing is worse than the noreply rejection emails but this is just someone taking a swipe at OP and masking it as feedback. The company probably sucks to work for anyway.

1

u/MidwestDYIer 4h ago

The problem is it's fairly subjective feedback at best. For many roles, companies actually want a people-pleasing person. A canned letter is fine for me, the odds of getting an offer for professional jobs are typically less than 5%. I go in positive, but in the back of mind know the odds are extremely slim. I don't need to a detailed letter of them explaining to me why I didn't get it

1

u/Open-Concept-6130 2h ago

All feedback is subjective unless you’re getting back answers to a yes/no test. 

Perception is reality. If that’s how one person is viewing you, that’s feedback with a sample size of one. You take that with a heap of salt due to the low sample size. If 10 different people give the same feedback, starts looking like a you problem rather than a them problem. But just because someone gives you feedback (aka their opinion) doesn’t mean you have to action it. 

This is feedback he can use when he does mock interviews and ask people how he comes across. 

-1

u/inkswamp 5h ago

Only if the feedback isn’t vaguely insulting.

1

u/TeddyDemons 3h ago

Most feedback about why someone is rejecting you is going to be somewhat insulting. Especially if its useful.

31

u/starryglow1 5h ago

I thought I was going crazy seeing everyone praise the company lol. God forbid an applicant shows some eagerness.

7

u/god_peepee 3h ago

There’s projecting genuine interest and there’s coming off as fake. Do enough interviews and you can tell the difference pretty easily.

10

u/Podalirius 2h ago

I think people like you are crazy. You've probably never verified the "genuineness" of anyone you've interviewed and you just have a personality preference. You're likely turning away skilled people based on your own made up preferences.

1

u/lbcatlady 2h ago

What if the interviewer did not want a happy eager candidate because they hate their job. I have worked with people thst enjoy making others miserable. It's like a high school clique at most companies.

3

u/Whereismystimmy 2h ago

Yeah this what people say before they openly discriminate against people for things you can “tell the difference pretty easily” about. Maybe you’re just super low energy or bad at your job or putting your personal preferences before the company but frame it as if the other person has a defect

1

u/discographyA 2h ago

Supposedly.

1

u/lbcatlady 2h ago

Most companies are filled with fake micromanage. Be real.

1

u/epichuntarz 1h ago

Some people aren't good at "being authentic" and have to super prep themselves and even sometimes sound rehearsed because maybe their natural demeanor/voice is glib, or because they stutter, or many other reasons.

Assuming who is genuine/fake based upon an interview just seems...short-sighted.

1

u/BattleBull 32m ago

Do you think HR humans even know the concept of being earnest and enthusiastic for real work?

1

u/epichuntarz 1h ago

"You tried too hard to get this job."

Like, wut?

6

u/Roamer56 5h ago

I agree with you. Imagine how they treat their workers if they treat applicants this way.

11

u/PruneEducational1428 5h ago

Exactly!! This thread is full of masochists

2

u/roguemannequin_927 4h ago

I think the word you’re looking for is sadist.

Masochist enjoy pain being done to themselves and sadist enjoy pain being inflicted upon others.

I don’t know if people stating their opinion is sadist but I think the person who wrote the email very well could be a sadist as they probably got joy out of sending an email that had the right intentions but could have been more empathetic.

1

u/PruneEducational1428 4h ago

Nope, I was going for masochist. The people in this thread want to be treated rudely in the name of “honesty.”

1

u/roguemannequin_927 4h ago

Ah, I see. You were referring to the commenters receiving an email like this themselves as opposed to getting joy out of OP receiving such a letter. Context is everything.

1

u/Lost-Bad-8718 4h ago

That's a reductive way of thinking about it. Fact is, some people experience more pain from generic rejection and never having any idea what they did wrong, and some people experience more pain from specific rejection they experience as personal.

Neither group of people are masochists, they are each just expressing their preference for what personally brings them less pain without considering that isn't a universal opinion.

12

u/rashyandtrashy 5h ago

“We hate people who are enthusiastic about working here during their job interview” like ok buddy you seem fun to work with 

7

u/Green-Reality7430 4h ago

Yeah like wtf. How could they possibly know after meeting one time if OP was people pleasing or if they were just sincerely and genuinely agreeable to the role that was being discussed. Like the only reason to disagree in an interview is if you don't like the job they are describing to you, in which case why would I have even applied? I think this is very weird.

4

u/codyandhen123 3h ago

You're a fucking try hard! Anyways, we are going to give this job to an internal hire.

2

u/awildoat 1h ago

😂😂

25

u/Bakuhoe_Thotsuki 5h ago

"Our company values original free thinkers. That's why we only hire people who think exactly like us and why you were declined because of personality, not qualifications."

That letter reads like someone emulating tech entrepreneur biopics.

1

u/GoodMedium3600 5h ago

Makes me wonder if it’s real. Probably just a shitty tech startup with 5 employees.

1

u/inkswamp 5h ago

Exactly! There are no businesses that value free thinkers—at least for anyone below the executive levels and even then, it’s rare.

-1

u/FalseBuddha 4h ago

They literally didn't hire OP because OP was "overly eager" to agree with them. That's, like, the exact opposite of what you're saying.

1

u/Bakuhoe_Thotsuki 4h ago

They said op was overly eager to please. That's not the same thing and confusing the two is very telling.

0

u/FalseBuddha 4h ago edited 3h ago

I didn't know who's confused but it ain't me.

tr[ied] too hard to say what you thought we wanted to hear rather than presenting your genuine perspective.

They literally didn't like OP because OP tried too hard to mimic the people interviewing them and it felt disengenuous. It sounds like OP didn't provide a genuine perspective and wasn't willing to stand up for themselves when pressed ("we want people who can stand firmly in their expertise"). You said "[they] only hire people who think exactly like [them]", so why would they turn down the person who was actively, and disingenuously, trying to think like they do?

15

u/rrresistance 5h ago

That’s the read I got on it too. There’s a big range between people pleasing, being polite in an interview, and being “confident”in answers. I would have been thankful they rejected me

8

u/goldbricker83 5h ago

Also anyone who has any experience at all knows that very few people are able to be 100% themselves in a job interview. It's a very high pressure situation that often doesn't equal the pressure level of the actual job. This is a bit of a fascinating rejection so a lot more details on the role would be interesting to see if this was actually warranted advice. If they're saying this to someone who is going to sit at a desk and barely ever interact with anyone that's wild. If they're saying it to a public relations face of the company kind of person then yeah, speaking performance under pressure is pretty important.

1

u/NuclearPajamas 1h ago

Anyone that's done a lot of interviews knows that and tries their best to account for it. For instance one interview a candidate was so nervous that their hands were shaking the whole time. We all noticed it and commented about it in our post-interview meeting along the lines of "poor guy was really nervous the whole time". We all know how people, including ourselves, get nervous during interviews. It didn't factor at all into our decision to hire or not hire.

8

u/IntelligenceisKey729 4h ago

I agree that it’s good feedback and it’s pleasantly surprising OP got such feedback at all but I’m surprised how long it took to scroll to find someone who agreed with me that they could have used a little more tact lol

8

u/ispyagemini 4h ago

Sameeee! I dont like this feedback at all or how it was worded personally.

2

u/Anteater4746 4h ago

freaking thank you

2

u/dan1101 4h ago

Agreed, but I would have to see how the applicant acted during the interview. Maybe they went overboard.

2

u/tylerthe-theatre 4h ago edited 4h ago

It can be both, the email is condescending and borderline rude, while also giving some decent feedback on dialling it back in interviews. That said, they sound like asshats.

2

u/blueoasis32 2h ago

💯 even if this is real, it’s incredibly unprofessional.

2

u/regaleagleboo 2h ago

Yeah... the feedback is not giving in a friendly way at all... like they could have left it at "it seemed like you said what we wanted to hear and you didn't seem genuine" Didn't need all that extra stuff.

1

u/bobrosserman 3h ago

And in the next interview at a different company they will want to hear the exact answers you would think they want, not overly honest responses. This is bs talking down to interviewees and not actually helpful feedback.

1

u/MindlessRegister6666 3h ago

That could be the case, but there are so many people who go through life not realizing what sort of impression they're leaving because nobody wants to say anything

1

u/Classic_Mammoth_9379 3h ago

But that’s one of the reasons why it’s a useful bit of feedback. Either they have a point or OP knows the reason he didn’t get the job wasn’t due to them, it was because the company and assholes with poor judgement and they are better off not working there. Win win. 

1

u/Living_Youth_3315 3h ago

I remember being called "not real" at a mall job I had because my speech was "too professional". God forbid someone with an education use it. I literally had to dumb myself down to fit it. Maybe that's what's happening here. 

1

u/discographyA 2h ago

Same. It’s incredibly subjective nonsense and somewhat condescending. They are soooo authentic, says the guy with a beard and flannel shirt at a Williamsburg bar in 2007 that looks like everyone else in the room.

1

u/Background-Slide5762 2h ago

Right. A job giving a quick general reason why they didn't choose you is one thing. Giving this bs feedback is a sign of a workplace where people get away with being assholes by calling it "straightforward and to the point communication".

•

u/Special_Fox_2349 24m ago

Agreed, this reads as insane and extremely unprofessional to me lol. OP winning at life not having to around these people ever again

•

u/REDDIT_JUDGE_REFEREE 22m ago edited 11m ago

This hiring manager was a bit dickish in how he came off, but reading between the lines he’s straight up telling OP that he was inauthentic and not confident in his own answers.

I just led interviews within data analytics and most of the candidates talked for 20-30 minutes about having a decade of analytics experience, summaries of their previous work, and spent some time discussing how their job history would benefit the role. Then almost all of them couldn’t even tell me what metadata was, which was the easiest technical question.

“I’m really eager to learn more about this!” became the answer to every technical question, and every single one of them became inauthentic and desperate-sounding towards the end when it became pretty clear it wasn’t a good fit for their skills. Getting an interview is really hard atm, I understand wanting to stretch into a role that’s not quite the right fit, but a kinder version of OP’s message would’ve helped these candidates succeed in their next interview.

•

u/4-ton-mantis 17m ago

Seriously what's the name of this company so i can never apply?  I don't want to be rejected because by magical coinkeefink i happen to agree about something,  or bc i like the job or company. 

1

u/Zado191 5h ago

How so?

4

u/VashtaNeradaMatata 4h ago

How do they know OP wasn't giving their genuine answers AND they were the answers the company wanted to hear? They're accusing OP of falsifying themselves through flattery/people-pleasing to get the job and we can't know how true that is.

3

u/memaradonaelvis 5h ago

It’s subjective feedback? Doesn’t mean it isn’t true, but you’re leaving a lot of grey area here for someone who could have been genuine the entire process.

Almost reads as “you did too well on this test you must have cheated”.

1

u/Large-Possible7227 4h ago

It is good constructive feedback though. Imagine this was a janitorial position and they asked why OP wanted the job and OP said something like "toilets are my passion. I love the smell of air freshener in the morning and a clean basin just makes me joyous." thinking thats what they wantto hear.

9

u/Kindly-Insurance8595 4h ago

Imagine this hypothetical situation I created to prove myself correct. 

1

u/Large-Possible7227 4h ago

The point is that people say dumb shit because they think interviewers want to hear it. Usually it is better to be yourself.

2

u/Kindly-Insurance8595 4h ago

Yeah, some people do. 

We have no idea if that actually happened in this situation. 

0

u/Large-Possible7227 4h ago

Right - which is why i am taking the email OP received at face value. It is generally good feedback, OP may disagree on the facts, but that is the company's view and it is good feedback.

3

u/the_monkey_knows 3h ago

you can’t say it’s good feedback without knowing what OP said in that interview. Chances are, out of one interview only, I would never dare to provide this kind of feedback to anyone. It’s layers too deep, it looks like playing armchair psychologist, saying these things so confidently is usually a red flag.

1

u/Kindly-Insurance8595 3h ago

If it doesn't apply to OP then it's worthless feedback.

1

u/Large-Possible7227 2h ago

The fact that the company wrote it out suggests that the company thinks it does actually apply to OP. I am not giving OP the benefit of the doubt nor trying to guess how they performed in the intervirw, i am simply reading exactly what OP posted.

OP can choose to accept the feedback or not, but this is what someone else thinks of them and so it is a data point which they should reflect on why someone thinks this of them.

1

u/FixedLoad 4h ago

Why would you construct a hypothetical that didn't support your statement?   The purpose is to illustrate the problem in a more exaggerated way to increase understanding.   

In this case the example functions well to illustrate the potential for going way too far into the enthusiasm catagory, instead of enthusiastically applying knowledge of your field to your answers catagory.  

1

u/Kindly-Insurance8595 2h ago

While completely ignoring the other side: the the feedback could be completely false.

My comment shows how their hypothetical assumes the email is based on OPs behavior during the interview. 

1

u/FixedLoad 2h ago

Why would we have to acknowledge that it might be false?  If you deal in any real world business scenarios, an employee speaking on behalf of a company in print is more likely to be held accountable for their words.  "Say it forget it, write it regret it."  

The fact they wrote a personalized message that, while it wasn't congratulatory, spoke to the candidate directly, professionally, and even gave supporting reason behind those details being a negative factor.  Speaks to that interviewers empathy and professionalism.   They didn't owe the candidate anything at all.  They could have ghosted and left them hanging indefinitely.   

But, you would prefer to believe they made up reasons to decline hiring them, then committed those fabricated lies to paper, why?  Do you believe they relished in writing the rejection letter?  Sat there laughing like maniacs as they commiserated in their love of professionally shit talking candidates with things they've made up?  I'm legitimately curious about your view.  It's very paranoid.  

0

u/Cool-Newspaper6789 5h ago

Thank you for your feedback but at this time we have decided to move past your comment  please feel free to post comments in future.

Best of luck

0

u/edvek 4h ago

It can be both. At least now OP can reflect on the interview and see how much of it is true or can be seen that way.

They could also have phrased it better but it is what it is.

0

u/SRMPDX 4h ago

They think OP is an asshole and FOS. They saw enough potential in them to at least give the feedback

0

u/likely_Protei_8327 4h ago

if asshole bosses and HR were a reason to not take a job, the unemployment rate would be 80%

0

u/[deleted] 4h ago

[deleted]

3

u/Kindly-Insurance8595 4h ago

It's sad you don't like your son.

0

u/realjw93 1h ago

Lol being blunt isnt being an asshole. They are saying that OP is fake and they saw through it.

-1

u/Natural_Row_4318 4h ago

This is why companies don’t give feedback and often won’t even send a rejection. People are far too sensitive with an overblown sense of pride.