To answer your questions in basic terms, the quality of the answers you get from a decision maker is usually tied to the quality of the questions posed by the candidate. If the information you are getting isn't all that helpful, it's possible the way you are going about asking for feedback needs some tweaking. I'll share techniques for soliciting feedback in the post I'll be writing in your honor.

There are times when the questions are perfect in timing and content and the answers still aren't helpful. That usually means there is some sort of awkward factor involved. Maybe the feedback you need to hear isn't something anyone wants to commit to words. If there is something about your personality, attitude, hygiene, etc., that is coming up short, that's the stuff you are least likely to hear about. I'm not saying this is your issue, I'm just being straight forward about human nature and how we are wired to steer clear of the landmines associated with those types of things. It's also possible the decision maker has an experience in his or her past where feedback was given and a person went to pieces. If they've had a mess in their past from someone handling constructive feedback poorly, they may be less inclined to go that route again.

By the way, you may have inspired an additional post. It's my experience in talking with decision makers few companies are finding they have a multitude of candidates who fit the "exactly qualified group." They are a bit perplexed over the problem considering unemployment in Michigan just spilled over 15%. There are several reasons why this is the case and now I'm thinking we need to discuss it here so everyone can noodle over it a bit.

With today's economy, employers not only have the under- and over-qualified, but they have a multitude of those that fit the exactly qualified group. How does one stop being the runner-up?