Pallavi Ahuja recently shared something that made me stop scrolling: "The job market finally being honest with us.

"Make the candidate feel like they were strongly considered even if they weren't."

Now I know what every single "after careful review" actually meant." She added, "This is painful and healing at the same time."

That mix of humor, frustration, and relief is exactly what so many candidates feel when they read a rejection that sounds warm but says nothing. Pallavi's point is not that recruiters are villains. It is that the system has normalized a kind of professional theater: language designed to soften disappointment while withholding the truth.

In this post, I want to expand the conversation Pallavi started: why companies write rejections this way, what it does to candidates, and what a more honest (and still humane) hiring process can look like.

The hidden contract inside rejection language

Most candidates have learned the script:

"After careful review..."
"We were impressed..."
"We decided to move forward with other candidates..."
"Please apply again in the future..."

Sometimes those lines are sincere. Often, they are placeholders. Pallavi's quote, "Make the candidate feel like they were strongly considered even if they weren't," captures the uncomfortable reality: the goal can become emotional management, not transparency.

"Make the candidate feel like they were strongly considered even if they weren't."

Why does this happen so consistently?

1) Scale and time pressure

Many teams receive hundreds or thousands of applications. If a recruiter has 60 seconds to close out an application in an ATS, nuance disappears. Templates win.

2) Risk management and legal caution

Some organizations avoid giving reasons because they fear arguments, complaints, or legal exposure. The safest message becomes the vaguest message.

3) Brand protection

Companies want to be perceived as kind and professional, even when their process is rushed. "Careful review" sounds thoughtful. "We did not have time to look" sounds damaging.

4) Internal ambiguity

Sometimes the truth is messy: priorities changed, the role was paused, an internal candidate emerged, the hiring manager could not align on what they wanted. Instead of explaining complexity, teams default to generic language.

Why it feels "painful and healing" to candidates

Pallavi's final line is the emotional center. Painful, because it confirms a suspicion. Healing, because it provides clarity.

The pain: ambiguity creates rumination

Vague rejection language invites the candidate to fill in the blanks:

Was my resume even read?
Did I fail a hidden requirement?
Was I close, or nowhere near?
Should I have answered differently?

When people do not get clear feedback, they often assume the worst or obsess over tiny details.

The healing: naming the script restores agency

When you realize the phrase is a template, you stop treating it like a coded message. You can interpret it more realistically:

"After careful review" might mean "we are closing this out."
"We were impressed" might mean "we want to be polite."
"Apply again" might mean "we cannot promise anything."

That perspective does not remove disappointment, but it can remove confusion.

What honesty in hiring could look like (without being harsh)

Honesty does not require cruelty. It requires specificity and boundaries.

A better definition of "considered"

Many candidates think "considered" means "I was in a real comparison set." In practice, a company might have:

Screened your resume for 10 seconds
Auto-rejected based on knockouts
Prioritized internal referrals first
Already had finalists when you applied

Teams can reduce frustration by clarifying which stage the candidate reached.

A simple, more truthful rejection framework

If I were rewriting rejection templates inspired by Pallavi's observation, I would use this structure:

Stage reached (application review, recruiter screen, interview)
The true selection reason (as specific as is safe and accurate)
What the candidate can do next (if anything)

Here are examples that are honest and still respectful:

"We reviewed your application, but we are moving forward with candidates whose recent experience is more directly aligned with backend distributed systems. Thank you for applying."
"You were not selected for interviews because we prioritized applicants with 3+ years of production React experience. If that changes for you, we would welcome a future application."
"We interviewed several candidates and chose someone with deeper experience in stakeholder management for this role. We cannot provide detailed feedback, but we appreciate your time."

Notice what is missing: performative closeness. No pretending it was a near miss if it was not.

Kindness is not the same as vagueness.

Candidate experience is a metric, not a vibe

Candidate experience is often treated like a soft concept. But it affects:

Offer acceptance rates
Referral willingness
Employer brand (especially in tight communities)
Reapplication behavior

When people repeatedly experience vague, mass-produced rejection language, they stop trusting the process. They also stop investing deeply in future applications, which can reduce the overall quality of your pipeline.

Practical advice for candidates reading "after careful review"

Pallavi's joke lands because it is relatable. But you still have to move forward. A few grounded ways to interpret and respond:

1) Treat generic rejections as non-informative

If the message contains no specifics, do not overfit your learning to it. Use your own signals instead: interview performance, role fit, portfolio strength, and market demand.

2) Ask once, politely, with a narrow request

You can send a short follow-up:

"Thank you for the update. If you are able to share one area I could strengthen for similar roles, I would appreciate it."

Many will not respond. Some will. Do not chase.

3) Build a process that assumes randomness

Two candidates can be equally qualified and still get different outcomes based on timing, internal candidates, or hiring manager preferences. Track your applications like a pipeline so one rejection does not feel like a verdict.

4) Look for employers who signal transparency early

Clear job descriptions, realistic timelines, structured interviews, and consistent communication often correlate with more respectful rejections too.

What recruiters and hiring managers can take from Pallavi's post

Pallavi's line works as a mirror. If you are in hiring, it is worth asking: are we optimizing for comfort in the moment, or trust over time?

Principles for better rejection communication

Be accurate about the stage reached
Avoid implying a near miss if it was not
Offer a real reason category when possible (skills alignment, seniority, location, timing)
Keep it short and consistent
Do not promise future consideration unless you mean it

A small change that makes a big difference

Replace "strongly considered" energy with a transparent sentence:

"We had a high volume of applications and advanced a smaller set based on the most directly relevant experience."

Candidates can handle the truth. What they struggle with is uncertainty wrapped in warmth.

Closing thoughts

Pallavi Ahuja's post is funny because it is true, and it is true because the hiring market has trained everyone to speak in euphemisms. "After careful review" is not always a lie, but it is often a mask.

If more companies chose honest clarity over generic reassurance, rejections would still sting, but they would waste less human energy. And candidates could spend that energy where it belongs: learning, applying, and moving forward.

This blog post expands on a viral LinkedIn post by Pallavi Ahuja, AI | Software Engineering | Writes @techNmak. View the original LinkedIn post →