Ghosting in recruitment: a bad habit that has become the norm

A phenomenon with many faces

Behind the word ghosting lies a variety of situations, not all having the same impact. First, there is company ghosting. This is the most frequently reported form. It happens when the recruiter or company stops communicating with a candidate at some point during the process.

Several cases can be distinguished:

1/ After submitting the application. The candidate never receives any response, not even an automated one. This is now almost “normalized,” especially in large organizations.

2/ After one or more interviews. The silence occurs even though the candidate has already invested time. This is the worst experienced form because it creates a concrete expectation.

3/ After a promise or a positive signal. For example: “we’ll get back to you quickly,” “you are very well positioned”… then nothing. Here, ghosting is perceived as a form of brutal disengagement, even disrespect.

There is also sometimes candidate ghosting. This is a more recent but rapidly growing phenomenon. The candidate disappears without warning, sometimes at advanced stages: ceasing to respond after initial contact, canceling an interview without notice, no-show on the agreed date. Some even accept an offer… then never give any further sign of life.

Ghosting is skyrocketing

If ghosting has become widespread in recruitment processes today, it’s no coincidence. It results from a combined evolution of the labor market, tools, and behaviors. In other words, it’s not just an individual misstep but a systemic phenomenon. Some experts also say it reflects an era where a culture of switching channels has become the norm, moving from one thing to another without regard for the people we’re interacting with.

Several factors explain this phenomenon. On the company side, a massive volume of applications is often impossible to handle individually. One job opening can generate hundreds or even thousands of CVs, while HR teams are sometimes understaffed. Another explanation is the fragmented process across multiple departments (HR, managers, executives), creating the feeling that no one is truly responsible.

From the candidates’ perspective, several reasons can explain ghosting as well. In certain sectors, the job market has tightened in their favor. Qualified profiles are highly sought after, with multiple, fast-moving opportunities, leading candidates to adopt opportunistic behaviors.

Recruitment is now largely digitized. Application platforms, automated emails, applicant tracking systems (ATS), and remote interviews have become standard at every stage. These digital tools have undoubtedly increased efficiency, allowed handling more profiles, and sped up some procedures. But this transformation also has a less visible effect: it has gradually weakened direct human connection. When interactions mostly occur through interfaces, relationships become diluted. It becomes easier to ignore a message, simpler not to respond, and almost natural to disappear with no immediate consequences.

At its core, the mechanism is simple: you don’t ghost a person, you ghost an email.

The consequences of ghosting

For candidates, silence is rarely neutral. It creates ongoing uncertainty (“Is this still in progress? Is it over?”) and prevents closure. Gradually, it feeds a sense of injustice. Beyond immediate frustration, the psychological impact involves loss of self-confidence, feeling unvalued, and mental fatigue from waiting. The more advanced the process, the stronger the effect. As some candidates put it, “it’s not just a lack of response; it’s a lack of recognition.” Over time, this experience leaves tangible scars: candidates become more wary, invest less in processes, and themselves adopt withdrawal behaviors.

For companies, the consequences are just as real. Ghosting directly weakens employer branding. Nowadays, candidates share their experiences, reviews circulate on platforms and social media, and HR reputation affects choices. A bad experience can quickly become public. This leads to reduced attractiveness, greater difficulty recruiting certain profiles, and an image of a disorganized or disrespectful company. More importantly, a company that doesn’t respond sends a clear signal: human relationships are not a priority.

Operationally, ghosting also harms recruitment efficiency. It fuels a vicious circle: candidates respond less, drop out more easily, and processes lengthen. What might have seemed a time saver — not responding — actually causes lost time through more uncertainty, higher costs, and delays.

At a broader scale, the phenomenon fosters a genuine culture of mistrust in the labor market. Candidates no longer believe promises, recruiters doubt candidate engagement, and relationships grow colder and more transactional. The trust relationship, central to professional interactions, weakens. When everyone starts anticipating the other’s silence, the relationship disappears before it even begins.

Finally, ghosting creates a troubling feedback loop: it fuels itself. A candidate who was ignored is more likely to disappear in turn. A recruiter confronted with this behavior will make less effort to reply systematically. The phenomenon spreads, normalizes, and gradually becomes an implicit norm. In other words, ghosting does not just exist: it self-perpetuates.

Concrete solutions?

Faced with the normalization of ghosting in recruitment, solutions exist. They don’t necessarily require heavy investments or complex changes but rather a set of simple, commonsense practices based on a single requirement: reintroducing respect and clarity into the relationship.

The first is to systematically provide responses, even negative ones. Automated replies can suffice if personalized and contextualized. The goal is not lengthy messages but minimal consideration. A candidate receiving a reply, even standardized, is not left in uncertainty.

Clear deadlines are also key. Setting clear timeframes — “you’ll hear from us within a week,” for example — and respecting them helps structure the relationship. Silence is often less badly experienced when replaced by a framed waiting period.

Another lever is simplifying processes. In many organizations, recruitment stretches over several weeks or months, involving multiple interlocutors and steps. Extended delays encourage communication breakdowns. Shorter, clearer processes mechanically reduce ghosting risk.

Training recruiters is also crucial. Beyond technical skills, it must include relationship management: knowing how to say no, handle waiting periods, maintain contact. Recruitment isn’t just selecting a profile; it’s managing an experience.

Finally, responsibility does not rest solely with companies. Candidates also have a role to play. Engaging in a process requires some reciprocity: informing in case of withdrawal, responding to inquiries, respecting agreed steps. Here too, the goal is to restore balance.

Ultimately, the issue is not about means but culture. Ghosting thrives where relationships are seen as optional. Conversely, it recedes when respect becomes an implicit norm. In an increasingly competitive labor market, how a company treats its candidates (including those it does not hire) says a lot about who it truly is.