The term “ghosting” is usually associated with online dating: one person suddenly stops replying after a promising conversation or an awkward first date.
However, ghosting has also become increasingly common in recruitment.
Candidates may stop answering calls, ignore emails, fail to attend interviews or, in some cases, accept an offer and never arrive for their first day. For recruiters and hiring managers, this behaviour can delay appointments, waste valuable time and disrupt workforce planning.
Although candidates may have understandable reasons for withdrawing, disappearing without explanation creates unnecessary problems for everyone involved.
Candidate ghosting occurs when an applicant abruptly stops communicating during the recruitment process.
This may happen:
Instead of formally withdrawing, the candidate simply becomes unreachable.
Candidates may disengage for several reasons.
Strong candidates are often involved in several recruitment processes simultaneously. If another employer moves faster or presents a more attractive package, they may decide to pursue that opportunity instead.
A candidate may discover that the salary, responsibilities, working arrangements or organisational culture differ from the original advertisement.
An inaccurate or unclear job description can quickly undermine confidence in the opportunity.
Poor communication, an uncomfortable interview or an unnecessarily lengthy process may cause candidates to lose interest.
They may also interpret delays or silence as evidence that the organisation is disorganised or not genuinely interested in them.
Candidates may withdraw when they do not understand:
Uncertainty makes it easier for other opportunities to take priority.
Some candidates simply do not know how to decline professionally. Rather than having an awkward conversation, they avoid responding altogether.
Technology has made disengagement easy, but it has not made it professional.
For years, job seekers have complained about being ignored by recruiters and employers after submitting applications or attending interviews.
Candidates may receive no acknowledgement, feedback or formal rejection, despite investing significant time in the process.
This does not justify ghosting, but it may help explain why some applicants feel little obligation to communicate professionally. Recruitment works best when courtesy and transparency are expected from both sides.
Employers and candidates should hold themselves to the same standard.
There is nothing wrong with deciding that a role is not suitable.
Candidates are free to withdraw at any stage, but they should communicate that decision promptly.
A short message is enough:
“Thank you for the opportunity. After careful consideration, I have decided to withdraw from the process. I appreciate your time and wish you every success with the appointment.”
This allows the employer to progress other applicants and protects the candidate’s professional reputation.
Industries can be surprisingly small. A recruiter or hiring manager encountered today may be involved in a future opportunity, so ending the process respectfully is always worthwhile.
Candidate ghosting can lead to:
If ghosting occurs regularly, employers should review whether aspects of their own recruitment process are contributing to the problem.
Explain the recruitment process from the beginning, including:
Candidates are less likely to disengage when they understand what is happening.
Even when there is no final decision, a brief update helps maintain engagement.
Silence may lead candidates to assume they have been unsuccessful and focus entirely on other opportunities.
Lengthy recruitment processes increase the likelihood of losing strong applicants.
Secure interview availability, approvals and salary parameters before launching the campaign wherever possible.
An interview should remain professional, but it does not need to feel hostile or intimidating.
A balanced conversation allows both sides to assess suitability and gives candidates a more positive impression of the organisation.
Avoid exaggerating progression, flexibility, salary or organisational culture.
Candidates are more likely to withdraw when the reality begins to contradict what they were initially told.
Transparency may reduce application numbers, but it improves the quality and commitment of those who continue.
Ask candidates what matters most to them and whether they are considering other opportunities.
This can reveal potential concerns around salary, location, flexibility or timing before they become reasons to disappear.
At each significant stage, check whether the candidate still wishes to proceed.
This creates a natural opportunity for them to raise doubts or withdraw professionally.
Candidate experience is a two-way responsibility.
Employers should:
An organisation cannot reasonably expect professional communication from candidates while failing to offer the same courtesy in return.
Try contacting the candidate through the usual channels and provide a clear deadline for response.
For example:
“We have tried to contact you regarding the next stage of your application. Please let us know by 5pm tomorrow whether you remain interested. If we do not hear from you, we will assume you have withdrawn.”
If there is still no reply, close the application and continue with other candidates.
Avoid repeatedly chasing someone who has clearly disengaged.
Candidate ghosting is frustrating, but it often reflects wider problems within the recruitment experience: poor communication, slow decisions, inaccurate job descriptions or discomfort around saying no.
Candidates should always withdraw courteously rather than disappear. Employers, meanwhile, should create a transparent, respectful and efficient process that gives applicants fewer reasons to disengage.
A telephone call or short email takes only a few minutes. In recruitment, that small act of communication can protect relationships, save time and preserve professional reputations on both sides.
Take a look at the positions we're advertising to see how employers are framing this requirement.
