You apply for a role, maybe even get to interview, and then… silence.

​

Or you get the vague line: “We’ve decided to move forward with other candidates.”

​

For candidates, it feels dismissive — even cruel. For recruiters, it’s business as usual. And for years, thought leaders on LinkedIn have been preaching: “We need to do better. We should follow up with every candidate. Always give feedback. No excuses.”

​

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: that ideal is not just unrealistic. It’s often impossible. Not only because of bandwidth, but because of legal, political, and reputational risk.

​

Saying the wrong thing to the wrong candidate doesn’t just sting feelings. It can trigger lawsuits, discrimination claims, or viral social media backlash. So the safest move for many recruiters is to say less — sometimes nothing at all.

​

If we want to fix this, we need to stop pretending recruiters can deliver unfiltered feedback to everyone. We need to set realistic ethical communication expectations.

​

​

​

Agency Recruiters: Serving Two Masters

​

Agency recruiters sit in the middle — accountable to candidates, but paid by employers.

 

And they work at volume.

​

• According to Gem’s 2025 Recruiting Benchmarks, the average recruiter is juggling 56% more open roles than just a few years ago, while handling 2.7× more applicants per role【gem.com】.

• In high-demand industries, a single recruiter might screen thousands of applicants in a quarter.

​

Even if they wanted to follow up with everyone, it’s a math problem. There are simply not enough hours in the day.

​

But the bigger constraint isn’t time. It’s risk.

​

If an agency recruiter tells a candidate, “The hiring manager thought you seemed nervous,” that could be spun as discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (disability bias).

​

If they say, “They wanted someone younger,” that’s age discrimination under the ADEA and yes client's still say that to agency recruiters.

​

Even, “Your accent made communication harder,” exposes risk under Title VII (national origin discrimination).

​

Agency recruiters know this. They’ve seen lawsuits where interview notes, rejection emails, and recruiter feedback become discoverable evidence.

​

So instead of honesty, they default to vague scripts: “Not the right fit.”

​

It frustrates candidates, but it shields the recruiter and protects their client.

​

Ethical bind: They’re judged on candidate experience and on keeping their clients safe. And when those collide, clients win every time.

​

​

Corporate Recruiters: The Company’s Risk Managers

​

In-house recruiters face even greater pressure. They’re not just managing candidate flow — they’re the front line of legal exposure.

​

• EEOC lawsuits and settlements regularly cite recruiter or hiring manager comments as discriminatory evidence.

• Company counsel often trains recruiters to say as little as possible in rejection notes.

 

That’s why many corporate processes feel cold or robotic. It’s not indifference — it’s legal strategy.

​

Research from Ashby’s 2023 Recruiter Productivity Report shows the average corporate recruiter conducts 88 interviews per quarter to yield just 10 hires【ashbyhq.com】. With hundreds of rejections in between, every one is a potential risk event.

​

One slip — one too-specific comment — and the company faces not only legal claims but also reputational blowback. We’ve all seen screenshots of rejection feedback go viral on Twitter or Reddit.

​

That’s why internal recruiters often hide behind “process language”:

​

• “We’ve gone with another candidate.”

• “The role requirements shifted.”

• “We’ll keep your resume on file.”

​

It’s not laziness. It’s risk mitigation.

​

Ethical bind: Corporate recruiters want to treat candidates with dignity, but their first duty is to protect the company from liability.

​

​

Personal Recruiters: The Candidate’s Advocate

​

Now imagine a different model: instead of depending on agency or corporate recruiters — who fundamentally work for someone else — you hire your own personal recruiter.

​

A Personal Recruiter (aka Career Advocate) isn’t constrained by employer liability. Their allegiance is 100% to you.

​

Because they aren’t worried about being sued by your potential employer, they can give you the real feedback:

​

• “Your resume doesn’t match the role because of XYZ.”

• “You lost the hiring manager at this moment in the interview.”

• “Here’s the pattern in your rejections — and how to fix it.”

​

They also control their client volume. Where a corporate recruiter might manage 200+ candidates per role, a personal recruiter might manage from 1 to 10 clients at a time. That makes high-touch communication not just built in, but practical.

​

This is where dignity reenters the process. With a personal recruiter, you finally get what agency and corporate recruiters can’t safely deliver: meaningful feedback, honest updates, and realistic strategy.

​

​

Why Silence Isn’t Always Unethical

​

It’s easy to bash recruiters for ghosting or vagueness. And yes, silence hurts. But here’s the paradox: sometimes silence is the ethical choice.

​

If saying, “We didn’t like your communication style,” could be spun into a discrimination lawsuit, then silence protects everyone. If feedback can’t be given safely or consistently, better to hold it than to expose risk unevenly.

​

The real ethical violation isn’t the lack of detailed feedback. It’s pretending you’ll always give it, then failing to deliver. That sets unrealistic expectations and erodes trust.

​

​

Setting Realistic Ethical Communication Expectations

​

So what should recruiters do?

​

1. Be transparent up front.

2. Use auto-acknowledgments and safe updates.

3. Adopt “no further updates” clauses.

4. Reserve feedback for safe scenarios.

5. Don’t promise what you can’t deliver.

​

​

Why Candidates Deserve More — and Where to Find It

​

Picture two paths:

​

• Path One: You apply to 20 roles, hear nothing, maybe get a canned rejection. You’re frustrated, no wiser than before.

• Path Two: You have someone in your corner. Every outreach is tracked. Every rejection comes with insight. Every interview is followed by feedback you can actually use.

 

That’s the difference between working with recruiters who work for employers — and hiring a career advocate who works for you.

​

If you want high-touch, high-impact, personalized support, stop relying on recruiters who are paid to serve someone else. Cut the noise with a professional who works just for you.

​

​

Sources

• Gem (2025 Recruiting Benchmarks): Average recruiter handling 56% more roles, 2.7× more applications per recruiter. Gem Blog

• Ashby (2023 Recruiter Productivity Report): Average corporate recruiter conducts 88 interviews per quarter for 10 hires. Ashby Talent Trends

• EEOC & Employment Law: Risks of feedback being used in discrimination claims (Title VII, ADA, ADEA). See e.g., Cavico, “Employer Duty of Honesty and Accurate Statements” (Campbell Law Review). Campbell Law Review PDF