Why is it a bad move? Would you rather have a candidate who may believe that you wasted their time and reports bad things about your recruiting process or a candidate who understands that they didn't quite have the skills you were looking for? Every time I read this site, it seems like every bit of advice is based on constantly dealing with horrible people, assuming the worst about everything, and minimizing risk. If you do that, you get a reputation for doing that.

@DavidSchwartz, I totally agree. The fact that offering advice to a rejected candidate is voted as 'bad' is silly. I guess I have been shielded from these types of people. I used rejections as a way to network and get advice, it has worked out great. I will say that this site shows me the types of people I wouldn't want to work for/with.

@DavidSchwartz Probably because they could resort to negotiation/arguing. Kate's answer also says this. How do you know the candidate will be 'understanding' about what I tell them? Especially if it's their first ever interview.

@cst1992 You can go around always assuming the worst of people, but you will definitely get a reputation for doing that. That will mean the really good people that you really want won't have anything to do with you. It's your choice. Would you rather have a reputation for working cooperatively with people, giving them a positive experience, and helping them whether or not they wind up getting a job or a reputation for wasting people's time and leaving them with the belief that you rejected a qualified candidate for no reason?

+1 for the bolded line alone.

@DavidSchwartz It provides zero benefit for the company, and it provides zero benefit for the individual most of the time. If the company is honest and says something like "Well, we feel you are totally unqualified and grossly inflated your resume", it could lead to arguments, and/or frivolous-waste-of-time discrimination suits brought on by people who simply cannot take criticisms in a professional manner. It's a risk to the company, with no potential benefits - why would they take it?

@SnakeDoc You are assuming the very worst possible case where the truth is entirely negative despite no reason to think this case is that case. You tend to get what you assume.

@DavidSchwartz In business - it is not foolish to prepare for the worst.

@SnakeDoc Agreed. But don't go in assuming the worst or, if the other side has done the same, the worst is assured.

"Not owing an explanation" -> This can actually vary by jurisdiction and by circumstance details. In Germany, this is a rather tricky topic: Your are not obliged to explain, yet it may end in a lawsuit if the candidate claims to be rejected because of non-equal opportunity. In that case, the company is required to open up their argumentation, and better has one that proves equal opportunity (or better: the German equivalent thereof, which is not as strict as US eq-op)

@Will Who pays for that time? What benefit is there to the company to sit and argue with a rejected candidate?

@corsiKa You missed my point entirely. I'm saying you can give the reason for rejection (provided it is actually based on something non-discrimantory: i.e., actual skills or qualifications), without giving in to the fear that the applicant might become argumentative. If that happens you don't need to argue or say anything else at all because by then you've already been more forthcoming/transparent than most companies. Just say something like "Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I must now attend to <insert task here>, but I wish you <insert platitude here>".

@corsiKa So why bother? Because showing a sliver of honesty is just the decent thing to do, on a human level. Showing that your company is not a big cold faceless machine, can actually benefit its reputation in the long run, believe it or not.

@DavidSchwartz I think the problem is statistical. A manager deals with a lot of people. You're bound to run into a few bad apples along the way, even if the majority are great. If you take your chances, there's a very high chance that it will blow up your face for one of them.

@jpmc26 That is the cost of doing business I'm afraid. So long as you didn't actually do anything wrong, you can live with that. The alternative is to treat everyone like they're going to be the worst person you ever dealt with which is almost a guaranteed self-fulfilling prophecy.

"a candidate who may believe that you wasted their time and reports bad things about your recruiting process" Yeah, no one cares. There are always loons out there on glassdoor and similar sites that feel vindictive and have to vent about how they were treated poorly. Most companies only give token feedback and that itself is not worth worrying about. A company's reputation won't suffer because of it. Only outrageous hiring practices have the potential to cause this kind of reputation loss and this just isn't it.

@SnakeDoc "We feel you are unqualified" is not discriminatory, and cannot possibly lead to a dsicrimination lawsuit any more than a simple "You were not chosen" can. They can still try it both cases, but it won't be any more successful. As for not having an upside (and Lilienthal's comment saying there is no downside), I disagree -- Glassdoor exists specifically because potential employees are interested in this kind of information. I certainly avoid companies known for wasting the time of interviewees.

@Will no, I didn't. 1) Why risk any accidental leak of information that fuels a discrimination case? Even if there wasn't, if they can make a case that there might have been, you're going to be tied up in legal battles. 2) That aside, you could give the reason, but again, who pays for that? Who pays for analyzing the reason to make sure it's safe and legal to give? Unless you're quickly picking from a pre-selected list, in which case it probably isn't going to really help the candidate anyway.

@MatthewRead, lots of well qualified people are rejected for jobs because more than one person is often technically qualified for the opening. But you can't hire 5 when you have 1 opening; the choice between them is subjective and often comes down to personality. Rejecting a place for a reputation for not telling people why they were not selected might be counterproductive. That says NOTHING about how good the place is to work. Many good places to work have these policies. So do many bad places. And vice versa on the ones that don't have the policies.

@MatthewRead, you also have to remember that it is rare to interview someone who does not appear to be qualified from their resume. Some people, of course, make it clear their resume was not accurate when they are interviewed. So all the people rejected were likely qualified in some sense or thought they were.