Sometimes, you do not receive any response from the company. This type of rejection can be very frustrating because there is no clarity. Delayed communication or the absence of a reply can fuel feelings of unfairness or uncertainty. Research shows that waiting for a response and the ”I don’t know what happened” type of ambiguity negatively affects candidates’ perception of fairness in the recruitment process (for example, Barattucci and colleagues have studied the impact of communication delays in applicants).

For students, this ”silence” can trigger rumination (”What did I do wrong?”), decreased confidence in their own competencies, and the tendency to interpret the situation as a sign of low professional value. However, research shows that the way candidates organize their cognitive and emotional response can considerably reduce the negative impact. Helpful coping mechanisms include reframing the situation (”the delay does not reflect my value, but the company’s procedures”), maintaining a realistic perspective on the process (employers receive hundreds of applications, and silence is not personal), actively seeking clarification after a reasonable period, and redirecting attention toward controllable actions, such as improving the CV or applying to new opportunities.

Additionally, students with a positive perception of their own employability - meaning confidence that they can find alternatives - are more resilient in the face of non-response. Emotional regulation strategies, such as journaling, talking to a mentor, or taking deliberate breaks to reduce anxiety, help restore balance. In essence, the absence of a response should not be interpreted as an evaluation of personal worth, but as a manageable situation in which cognitive reframing and active coping allow students to continue the process with clarity and motivation.

Candidates who receive a generic rejection message often face feelings of anonymity and lack of recognition, which can diminish their motivation and self-efficacy in continuing their search. Cortini and colleagues (2019) show that the tone and clarity of the message influence the perception or procedural fairness: a brief and impersonal reply can be perceived as more frustrating than a detailed rejection, even if the outcome is the same.

For students, the cognitive and emotional management of this type of rejection involves:

• Cognitive reframing - understanding that the standard message does not reflect their personal value, but rather the company’s policy of sending mass feedback.

• Focusing on controllable aspects - reviewing the CV, adjusting the cover letter, and preparing for future interviews.

• Social and emotional support - discussing the experience with colleagues, mentors, or friends to reduce the negative impact of the message’s impersonality.

• Maintaining self-efficacy - remembering one’s own skills and relevant experiences in order not to lose self-confidence.

Thus, even standard responses can be turned into opportunities for reflection and adjustment of the application strategy, if students access appropriate cognitive and emotional coping mechanisms.

Some recruiters provide personalized feedback, meaning concrete reason for rejection. When a candidate receives detailed feedback about the reasons for the rejection - such as insufficient skills, lack of experience, or cultural mismatch - this type of refusal can be more difficult to manage emotionally than a standard message, but it also offers concrete learning opportunities.

Studies show that personalized feedback, if communicated in a constructive manner, can increase the perception of fairness and transparency in the process, which helps maintain candidates’ motivation.

When a student receives detailed feedback about the reasons for the rejection, it may initially be perceived as a harsh criticism, affecting emotions and self-confidence. However, approaching it through the lens of growth mindset (Dweck, 2006) transforms this experience into an opportunity for learning and development. Instead of interpreting the feedback as a fixed verdict on their personal value, a student with a growth mindset sees it as a set of information indicating which skills or experiences need improvement.

This way of thinking supports constructive cognitive reframing, reduces the anxiety associated with rejection, and encourages an objective analysis of strengths and areas for improvement for future applications. This analysis can be turned into a concrete action plan, such as participating in additional courses, strengthening practical skills, or applying for other opportunities. Moreover, combining a growth mindset with social support and mentoring allows the integration of feedback into a realistic plan for professional development, maintaining self-efficacy and motivation.

Thus, personalized negative feedback is no longer just a source of stress, but a valuable tool for strengthening competencies and preparing for success in future applications.

In the best-case scenario, you receive not only the reason for the rejection but also suggestions on what you could improve and, sometimes, even an invitation to reapply later. From the perspective of a student who receives rejection accompanied by an invitation to pursue other opportunities within the same organization, the experience can be surprisingly motivating.

Although the initial disappointment is normal, a message suggesting that future opportunities may exist conveys that the student’s effort and skills are appreciated. In this context, cognitive reframing becomes essential: the rejection does not represent a definitive verdict on their value but offers clues on how to adjust their application strategy and skill development.

Adopting the same growth mindset will help them see constructive feedback as a learning resource and focus their energy on concrete actions, such as gaining experience, developing new skills, or expanding their professional network.

Emotionally, it is useful to manage frustration through social support, discussions with mentors or peers, and simple stress-reduction techniques such as controlled breathing or journaling. Thus, the invitation to pursue other opportunities becomes more than a formal message: it transforms into an open door that offers direction and motivation, allowing an initially negative experience to become a stage of growth and strategic planning for future applications.

Albert Bandura defines self-efficacy as the belief that you can successfully carry out a certain behavior or achieve a specific goal. According to his theory, people with a high level of self-efficacy persist longer in the face of obstacles. For you, this means:

• Set small and achievable goals (for example, sending 2-3 applications per week, requesting feedback).

• Document your ”wins”: write down every step forward (even rejections can be progress if you learned something from them).

• Seek people who can recommend you: talk to colleagues, mentors, or professionals who might refer you to companies they work for.

• Attend job fairs and make time to meet and talk to the recruiters working for the companies you are targeting.

• Join a student association and volunteer in projects that can bring future opportunities (hackathons, marketing, engineering, or business competitions help you practice your skills in real contexts).

• Participate in career workshops and webinars organized by your university or professional platforms; these help you develop practical skills and can offer valuable contacts. Online platforms (Coursera, EdX, Udemy, LinkedIn Learning) are also appreciated by recruiters because they demonstrate proactivity and self-discipline.

• Create a 3-month development plan, with clear objectives: which skills you want to improve, what types of jobs you apply for, what resources you use, etc.

• Ask for feedback from friends, teachers, mentors - not only about your application, but also about how you feel after a rejection.

• Create a social support system: friends, student groups, and professional networks can offer emotional support and external perspectives.

• Be proactive: don’t just wait for a ”yes”; send follow-up emails, improve your LinkedIn profile, and participate in personal development workshops.

• Reevaluate your strategy: use contemporary scientific reviews on job-search self-efficacy to adapt the way you apply - for example, by strengthening your competences or prioritizing roles that alling better with your values.

• Create an application cycle: apply → receive a response or not → reflect → adjust → reapply. Each rejection becomes a part of a learning process, not an endpoint.