[emodendroket]

According to the papers, candidate ghosting has been happening more and more often. With such a senior, high-paid position as that, it doesn't really apply, but I can't help but feel a bit of schadenfreude at employers lamenting ghosting candidates, after themselves being the ghosting party so routinely.

[sombremesa]

Sometimes a recruiter or hiring manager leaves the company halfway through the hiring process, leaving the candidate in a limbo.

It'd be funny (in a sad way, I suppose) if the same becomes true on the other side..."sorry, my online assistant just quit so my resignation at the current firm never got filed."

[sidr]

At a company there's a reporting chain and an HR department to ensure that even in this situation, the candidate isn't left ghosted - offer to shop the candidate's resume around and switch teams, or at the very least inform them. There is no valid excuse for a company ghosting an accepted candidate.

[marcus_holmes]

this. I recently went through the job-hunting process, and employer's behaviour was terrible (on average, there were some good ones).

I don't think they understand that if they set the bar that low, then we'll all accept that and behave similarly badly.

Like loyalty - employers stopped being loyal to their employees, so employees stopped being loyal back. Every time I see an employer moan about how employees don't care any more, I feel schadenfreude.

We mirror the behaviour we see, because game theory.

[thelettere]

"employers stopped being loyal to their employees, so employees stopped being loyal back."

On what basis do you make this claim? It was always my understanding that it started with employees - because what changed was not that employees suddenly started working for multiple employers in the same field but that changing careers was the norm. I don't know how you point the finger at employers for that.

[marcus_holmes]

In the dim and distant past of my Dad's youth, it was expected that you'd join a company in your late teens / early twenties, and that company would train you in the skills you needed, pay you a living wage to do your job (enough to raise a family on without another income), and employ you for your entire life, eventually paying you a salary-linked pension until you died. If the company did badly, then it was still obligated to continue employing everyone, and in return the employees were obligated to remain with the company, being "company men", putting the company near the top of their personal priorities. Career advancement meant getting a promotion within the company. If you didn't manage to get promoted, then you stayed in your job, possibly for decades, until you could retire.

Then somewhere in the 70's, that changed, and companies no longer considered themselves obligated to look after their employees (at least in the UK, this was an age of massive strikes, and labour relations at a terrible low). Then in the 80's, the Yuppies took control of their careers and the modern idea of a self-made career where you hop from job to job within the same industry became popular.

I'm old enough to have had the old ideas of loyalty taught to me in school, only to then discover that the world had changed and loyalty was an outdated concept. I'm kinda glad - I would not make a good "company man". But for many it was depressing and strange, and I know a few people who were sacked in mid-career and had no idea how to continue.

[dragonwriter]

> It was always my understanding that it started with employees

It did not.

> because what changed was not that employees suddenly started working for multiple employers in the same field

That's wrong, that's exactly what happened (from the employee side, though it wasn't the start) first and most, though, and that remains more common than changing career fields (which, of course, happens, too.)

[throwaway6734]

Agree. Having been ghosted in the past by potential employers I have zero qualms now about doing the same in return

[codewithcheese]

You have been treated unethically in the past, now you have zero qualms acting unethically? That's not cool, its very easy NOT to ghost people it basically costs you nothing, you might want to seek some therapy.

[throwaway6734]

It's standard operating procedure for the hiring process

[TimonKnigge]

I understand the sentiment but there is a difference between ghosting the during recruiting process and ghosting after committing to the job.