The Living Need Not Apply.

Everyone's talking about Ghost Jobs lately. It's not a new concept, but it's a phenomenon that's on the rise. Essentially, Ghost jobs are positions that are advertised but go unfilled. The reason for these phantom postings varies; some companies post positions to "build up" a potential labor pool. Or they want to appear as if they are a growing, successful company. Maybe they have budget concerns and are creating "placeholders" for some time in the future when the job might be approved. Regardless of the reason, whether malicious, strategic, or unintentional, it's a very poor employment practice.

The issue is impactful enough to cause concern for the folks that make policy based on labor market data, as highlighted in a recent CNBC report:

"Since the beginning of 2024, job openings have outnumbered job hirings by more than 2.2 million a month, according to BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) data. That points to an ongoing problem with “ghost jobs” that never seem to get filled."

Many companies, particularly in the non-profit sector, will advertise a job vacancy for a specified time even if they intend to promote someone from within the organization. They do this because the HR department wants to show the veneer of "fairness" in the marketplace. Or they want to create leverage with the internal candidate. Or they are required by policy, particularly for government entities. Whatever the reason, we accept that if there is an internal candidate, our chances will be slim. If the job is "taken," so be it. But this is not that.

This is the galling situation where a job seeker finds the perfect listing, gets the interview, doesn't get the offer, doesn't get a rejection letter, has no idea what the status of the job is, and yet a month or so later mysteriously finds the job open again. More than one of my clients have experienced this, and it's exceptionally discouraging. When "none of the above" is the employer's choice, it means they either did a poor job of recruiting or they never intended to fill the position in the first place (See Purple Squirrel).

The rise of automated job application systems, whether internal or from platforms like LinkedIn, Indeed, Monster.com, and others, has made it remarkably easy to flood the market with job postings. For the job seeker, it's becoming more difficult to parse out if a job is real or not. In social media circles people are voicing their frustration-- sometimes on the very site they use to apply for the job (looking at you, LinkedIn...). Reddit has a healthy list of subreddit categories on the subject, from r/recruitinghell to r/jobsearchhacks and everything in between. All of this is bad for the employer, and yet the practice continues.

I know I sound like the proverbial broken-record Boomer, but to me the solution for the job seeker has been and will always be 1) networking, 2) research, and 3) taking an active role in your career search. That last one may seem obvious, but I am still astounded by the number of people who claim to have sent out 300+ resumes only to receive no interviews. That's no surprise to me. It's chasing phantom whispers of a job with low effort. We can fault employers all we want, but the current climate for job recruiting is stuck in an endless track of automation that makes the process opaque and nearly impenetrable. Yes, the steps above are time consuming and sometimes challenging, but they will bring forth truthful results whether you get the job or not, and in the end will save you from wasting time on positions that aren't going to be filled. Regardless of your belief in ghosts, a little sleuthing in the light is a lot more effective than chasing shadows in the dark.