Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / The Silent Exit How Ghosting Candidates Destroys Your Brand
Transcript
- Lucas: There's a moment in the hiring process that almost every candidate has experienced, and almost every company pretends doesn't matter. It's the silent treatment. You interview, you follow up, and then — nothing. No email, no call, not even a form letter. Luna: Right. The candidate is left in this weird limbo, refreshing their inbox, wondering if they should send another follow-up. It's awful. Lucas: And it's shockingly common. A 2025 survey by a recruiting software firm found that 62 percent of job seekers reported being ghosted after at least one interview. That's up from about 48 percent five years ago. Luna: So it's getting worse, not better. Lucas: It is. And I think a big reason is that companies treat rejection as an administrative burden instead of a brand moment. They think silence is neutral, but it's actually active damage. Look, this show exists because people like you and I care about how hiring decisions ripple outward. And if these conversations have helped you think differently about your own hiring process, or even just given you a new angle to consider, the simplest way to keep them ad-free and independent is throwing a couple of dollars our way at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It genuinely makes a difference — keeps the lights on and lets us keep digging into stuff like this. Luna: Yeah, it's a small thing that adds up. And now back to the silence problem — what's the actual cost? Because I've seen numbers suggesting ghosted candidates are less likely to buy from that company. Lucas: Exactly. A study from a few years ago by the Talent Board showed that candidates who had a negative experience — ghosting being one of the top complaints — were 40 percent less likely to purchase products from that company. For a B2B firm, that's potentially millions in lost revenue. Luna: Forty percent — that's huge. And it's not just the candidate themselves. They tell friends, they post on social media. Lucas: Exactly. The multiplier effect. I spoke with the head of talent acquisition at a midsize tech company — let's call them CloudScape — who started tracking this. They found that each ghosted candidate had an average of two direct social posts and about five conversations with peers. So one ghosted candidate might influence 10 to 15 people's perception of the brand. Luna: And those people are potential future applicants, too. It's a recruiting tax. Lucas: Exactly. So why do companies do it? I think there are three main reasons. First, volume. When you get 500 applicants for a role, responding to each one feels impossible. Second, fear of legal liability — some companies worry that any feedback could be used in a discrimination claim. And third, plain neglect — the hiring manager just moves on. Luna: Let's tackle volume first. Big companies like Google or Amazon get thousands of applications. But they still manage to send automated rejections. It's not that hard. Lucas: It's not. And the tech exists. Most applicant tracking systems have templates. But the problem is that many companies use the same generic 'we've decided to move forward with other candidates' — which, honestly, is better than nothing. But what really helps is specificity. One study found that candidates who received a personalized rejection — even just two lines referencing something they said in the interview — were 50 percent more likely to apply to that company again. Luna: So a little effort goes a long way. What about the legal fear? I've heard HR folks say they're afraid to give any feedback because it could be used against them. Lucas: That's a real concern, but it's also overblown. Most employment lawyers will tell you that as long as the feedback is factual and job-related — not subjective opinion — you're fine. For example, 'We needed someone with five years of Python experience and your resume shows two' is safer than 'We didn't feel you were a culture fit.' The first is verifiable; the second is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Luna: That makes sense. So there are ways to be honest without being risky. Lucas: Yes. And then there's the neglect issue. That's the hardest to fix because it's about discipline. I've seen companies implement a simple rule: within 48 hours of a decision, the recruiter or hiring manager must send a rejection. No exceptions. If they don't, it escalates to the head of HR. Luna: That's a forcing function. And it probably reduces ghosting a lot. Lucas: It does. At one company I profiled, they went from a 35 percent ghosting rate to under 5 percent in six months just by enforcing that rule. They also added a feedback loop: after the rejection, they sent a one-question survey asking the candidate how they felt about the process. That gave them data to improve. Luna: So the solution isn't complicated. It's just about prioritization. Lucas: Exactly. And I'd add one more thing: consider turning rejection into a talent pipeline. I know of a startup that, every time they reject a candidate, they add them to a 'future interest' list. Then they send quarterly updates about the company — new products, funding news, whatever. When a new role opens up, they reach out to that list first. They've hired about 15 percent of their current staff from that list. Luna: That's smart. It turns a negative into a positive relationship. And it costs almost nothing. Lucas: Exactly. And it respects the candidate's time and effort. So the bottom line is: ghosting is a choice, not an inevitability. It hurts your brand, your revenue, and your future talent pool. And the fix is mostly about systems and discipline. Luna: Right. So next time you're tempted to just move on and not send that rejection email, remember that silence isn't neutral — it's a message. Lucas: And it's a message that says 'we don't respect you.' Which is not the brand you want to build.