Menu

HRStrategy

Correcting the Course: Measures to Improve Employee Conduct

by

Correcting the Course: Measures to Improve Employee Conduct

What if the real reason workplace discipline is crumbling isn’t lazy employees—but a leadership vacuum no one wants to name? 

In an era of endless flexibility and fear of confrontation, a quiet epidemic has emerged: rules exist on paper, yet no one believes they’ll be enforced. 

This HR Spotlight asks the question most companies dodge: when accountability feels optional, how do you rebuild it without turning into the villain? 

From daily walkaround inspections to data-tracked operator costs, from frontline CEO hammer-swinging to peer committees reviewing every case, veteran leaders expose the surprisingly simple levers that restored order—often without a single written warning. 

Their answers reveal a provocative truth: discipline doesn’t return through stricter policies; it returns when people see undeniable proof that standards actually matter—and that someone still cares enough to fight for them.

Read on!

Justin Smith
CEO, Contractor+

“Discipline improves when expectations are clear, leadership is consistent, and people feel genuinely supported.”

Employee discipline isn’t just about enforcing rules, it’s about reinforcing a culture where people feel accountable, valued, and aligned with our mission.

HR can take the lead by setting clearer expectations, re-establishing consistent policies, and ensuring managers are trained to address issues early and fairly.

At the same time, we must strengthen employee engagement by recognizing good performance, creating open communication channels, and offering support where discipline issues stem from burnout or unclear guidance.

When people understand what’s expected and feel supported, discipline naturally improves.

The goal isn’t punishment, it’s building a workplace where responsibility, trust, and performance thrive together.

Build Accountability Through Clarity and Support

Justin Carpenter
Founder, Jacksonville Maids

When I managed cleaning crews, things got messy fast if people weren’t sure what their job was or if feedback took forever.

We switched to online checklists and automated performance reviews.

Suddenly, the expectations were clear for everyone to see, and we could spot issues right away.

When HR adds some actual coaching to the mix, people start taking responsibility for their work almost immediately.

Clear Expectations and Automation Boost Responsibility

Aja Chavez
Executive Director, Mission Prep Healthcare

From running healthcare teams, I learned to start by pulling people from different departments into a committee to review discipline cases.

It made sure the rules were applied fairly to everyone, even though it took some time to get right.

I also noticed most discipline problems stemmed from burnout, so we began simple things like regular check-ins and stress workshops to deal with the actual source of the issues.

Fair Review Committees Address Burnout Sources

Joshua McAfee
CEO & Founder, McAfee Institute

I’ve investigated workplace misconduct cases across Fortune 100 companies and trained thousands of law enforcement and military personnel, and here’s what most organizations get wrong: they wait until discipline has already collapsed before addressing the system that allowed it to happen.

When I built Amazon’s Loss Prevention program from scratch, we didn’t start with punishment–we started with documentation standards.

Every single incident required a written report following a specific format: what happened, what evidence exists, what policy was violated, and what the next step is.

This wasn’t busywork. It forced managers to confront whether they actually had a case or just a feeling.

Within six months, we saw frivolous complaints drop by 60% because managers knew they’d have to justify their actions in writing.

The bigger issue is accountability gaps.

I’ve reviewed investigation reports where the same employee had twelve documented violations over two years with zero consequences because each incident was handled by different managers who never communicated.

HR needs a centralized tracking system where patterns become visible.

When we implemented quarterly audits of the top 10% of repeat offenders in one organization, discipline issues dropped dramatically because employees realized someone was actually watching the data.

Here’s the part nobody wants to hear: if discipline has “significantly declined,” your investigation and documentation process is probably broken.

Train your managers on how to write proper incident reports using the active voice and factual language–no emotion, just evidence.

“Employee arrived 47 minutes late” beats “Employee has a bad attitude about punctuality.”

When managers can’t hide behind vague accusations, real accountability starts.

Documentation Standards and Centralized Tracking Restore Accountability

Steve Mlynek
CEO & Founder, HomeBuild Windows Doors & Sliding

I’ve been running HomeBuild in Chicago since 2005, and here’s what turned around our crew discipline when things got sloppy around year three: I started showing up unannounced at job sites.

Not to catch people, but to work alongside them for an hour or two on actual installations.

When I’m out there sealing windows with the crew or helping load materials, two things happen immediately.

First, I see exactly where our training gaps are–like when I noticed three different installers measuring window frames three different ways.

Second, the team remembers that I’ve done every job I’m asking them to do, often in worse conditions than they’re facing.

We implemented what I call “the 2-hour rule” after that.

Every supervisor, including me, spends a minimum of two hours per week doing frontline installation work.

Our callback rate for installation issues dropped from 8% to under 2% within six months because supervisors caught problems in real-time instead of hearing about them in complaint calls.

The money part matters too–we tied quarterly bonuses directly to crew performance metrics like on-time completion and zero-defect installs.

When a crew completes 20 consecutive jobs without callbacks, everyone on that crew gets $500.

Suddenly peer accountability handled most discipline issues before I ever heard about them.

Frontline Presence and Performance Bonuses Drive Results

Sandro Kratz
Founder, Tutorbase

At Tutorbase, we used to just react when discipline problems blew up.

Then we started tracking behavior data, and all of a sudden we could intervene before things got bad.

It felt fairer too, since it wasn’t just someone’s opinion.

My advice is to start tracking, use that data to coach your team, and let everyone see the progress. It actually works.

Track Behavior Data to Intervene Early

Jeffrey J. Miller
President & CEO, Kelbe Brothers Equipment

I run a fourth-generation equipment company in Wisconsin, and I’ve learned that discipline problems in construction operations usually trace back to accountability systems, not people.

When we took over leadership during industry transition, we found that clear documentation and measurement fixed most issues faster than any HR policy.

We implemented daily walkaround inspection protocols where operators had to physically check and document equipment conditions before use.

The game-changer wasn’t the inspections themselves–it was that everyone knew their work was being tracked and measured.

When operators see their inspection records compared against equipment downtime costs, behavior changes fast because the consequences become real and visible.

The most effective thing we did was tie individual performance to measurable outcomes.

We started tracking undercarriage wear patterns and maintenance costs by operator, then rotating equipment to identify who was actually following best practices versus who was cutting corners.

When one operator’s machines consistently needed repairs at 30% higher rates, the data made the conversation straightforward–no HR drama needed, just facts about cost per hour.

What surprised me was how much discipline improved when we gave people ownership of specific metrics.

Operators who previously ignored maintenance suddenly cared when they could see their fuel consumption numbers or repair costs compared to the team average.

Make the impact of poor discipline visible in dollars and equipment lifespan, and most people fix themselves.

Measurable Outcomes and Ownership Fix Discipline

Flavia Estrada
Business Owner, Co-Wear LLC

In a workplace where employee discipline has collapsed, the standard HR reaction is usually just to write more rules and hand out more warnings.

That completely misses the point. Discipline problems are usually symptoms of a failing system, not failing people.

The first measure HR must implement is a Culture of Relentless Clarity.

The action needed is a complete overhaul of expectations.

This means stopping the vague performance conversations and replacing them with clearly documented, specific behavioral metrics tied to core business goals.

If the problem is consistently late shipments, the metric isn’t “be on time”; it’s “ensure zero shipment errors before the 3:00 PM cutoff.”

Clarity stops people from being able to rationalize poor performance.

This shift works because it makes accountability objective, not personal.

When discipline issues arise, the conversation stops being a painful argument about effort and starts being a factual audit of process failure.

HR’s job becomes the enforcement of the documented system, not the judgment of the person.

This focuses everyone on shared competence, not punishment, which is the only way to genuinely restore order.

Replace Vague Rules With Specific Behavioral Metrics

Yoan Amselem
Managing Director, German Cultural Association of Hong Kong

Managing teams in schools taught me something simple.

We ditched the long policy documents and started holding ten-minute check-ins every Friday.

Anyone could bring up what was bugging them, big or small.

Suddenly, people knew exactly where they stood and started taking ownership of their work without me having to push.

Weekly Check-Ins Create Ownership and Clarity

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

Discover the latest HR Tips and trends with our weekly newsletters!

Policy Pushback: Why Employees Resist and How Leaders Should Respond

by

Policy Pushback: Why Employees Resist and How Leaders Should Respond

HR policies often spark resistance, from mandatory meetings to time tracking, eroding morale despite good intent. 

This HR Spotlight article compiles insights from business leaders and HR professionals on the most contested policy and how to counter pushback. 

Experts highlight documentation demands, on-call duties, and rigid leave rules as top friction points, recommending transparency, data-driven proof, and employee involvement to align policies with realities. 

By linking rules to personal gains like higher pay or trust, and modeling compliance, leaders turn resistance into buy-in. 

In 2025’s hybrid era, these strategies foster ownership, boosting engagement 18-30% and retention without sacrificing standards.

Read on!

Amy Mosset
CEO, Interactive Counselling

Running a team of therapists, I found mandatory meetings were a constant battle. Everyone’s client schedule is different.

Once I let go of fixed times and moved to async updates, the groaning stopped. The best move was letting the team vote on core meeting hours themselves.

Listening to their real complaints and actually changing the policy made all the difference in whether they showed up ready to work.

Async Updates End Meeting Gripes

Mike Townsend
Chief Visionary Officer, Veteran Heating, Cooling, Plumbing & Electric

The biggest pushback I’ve gotten is around structured post-job documentation.

My techs would finish a furnace repair or plumbing job and want to move straight to the next call, but I required them to spend 10 minutes photographing their work and logging details in our system.
Guys with 15+ years in the field saw it as bureaucratic nonsense that cut into their productivity.

I flipped the script by showing them our warranty data. In Q3 2023, we had seven callbacks where customers claimed we didn’t complete work we’d actually done.

Without photo evidence, we ate the cost of return trips–around $340 per callback in lost labor.

The moment I showed them we were losing $2,380 in a single quarter because we couldn’t prove our work, they got it.

Now our team uses it as a selling tool. When a homeowner questions a repair recommendation, our techs pull up photos from similar jobs showing exactly what failure looks like.

One of our electricians used documented photos from a panel upgrade to help a Parker homeowner understand why their insurance required the work–closed a $4,800 job on the spot because trust was already built through transparency.

The resistance disappeared when documentation became their shield, not my requirement.

Data Proof Wins Documentation Buy-In

Lawrence Irby
President, Bay Area House Buyer

My team always hated having to wear safety gear for inspections. I saw this pushback at two different companies.

But when I brought the gear in for them to try on and told stories about accidents I’d seen, that’s when it clicked.

People will wear equipment that’s comfortable and doesn’t get in the way. Long memos never worked.

Comfort Gear Reduces Safety Pushback

Peter Kim
Owner, Odigo Real Estate Club

Real estate agents at ODIGO Realty always complain about lead distribution. They think it’s rigged for senior agents.

Here’s what worked for us: we made the whole process visible.

We either use a simple rotation algorithm or let agents claim neighborhoods they know best.

When agents can see exactly how leads get assigned and why, they stop complaining and focus on selling.

Transparent Leads Calm Agent Complaints

Mike Wislinsky
Owner & President, Denver Floor Coatings

I’ve managed teams of 100+ at 3M and run multiple businesses since 2004, so I’ve seen plenty of HR policies that create friction.

The one that consistently gets the most pushback? Requiring detailed time tracking and project documentation from skilled tradespeople and technicians.

At my previous business, our installers absolutely hated filling out detailed job reports after every project.

They’re craftsmen who want to focus on the work, not paperwork.

We were losing 30-45 minutes per job just on documentation resistance–guys would sit in their trucks delaying it, or rush through and give us garbage data we couldn’t use for estimating future jobs.

I fixed it by showing them their own money. I pulled our profitability data and showed the crew that detailed job reports let us quote more accurately, which meant we won more bids at better margins.

Better margins meant I could pay them more–our average installer compensation went up 18% once we had solid data to price jobs correctly.

Suddenly the same guys who fought me on paperwork were texting me photos and notes from job sites without being asked.

The key was connecting the annoying policy directly to their bank account, not just company goals.

Nobody cares about “operational efficiency” but everyone cares about take-home pay. I made the math visible and let them see how their 15 minutes of documentation was earning them real money.

Pay Links Ease Paperwork Resistance

JP Moses
President & Director of Content, Awesomely

My teams were always skeptical of unlimited PTO, worried it would look bad to use it.

Things changed when we started tracking days off and managers began taking vacations first.

People finally started taking breaks. Just giving the policy doesn’t work.

Leaders have to actually use it and make it normal.

Leaders Model Unlimited PTO Usage

Yoan Amselem
Managing Director, German Cultural Association of Hong Kong

Teachers especially hate rigid leave policies. We had a strict sick day rule that everyone fought until we let educators cover for each other’s classes.

If you want people to follow a policy, get them involved in writing it.

They’ll come up with practical solutions that actually work on the ground, and they’ll be more likely to stick to them.

Co-Created Leave Rules Gain Traction

Mack Blair
Owner, Blair & Norris

I’ve grown Blair & Norris from a one-truck operation to a multi-million-dollar well drilling and septic company over 30 years, so I’ve dealt with plenty of policy resistance–especially in a 24/7 emergency service business where guys want flexibility.

The biggest pushback I get is on mandatory after-hours phone availability.

Nobody wants to be on call when they’re off the clock, especially our senior techs who’ve earned their stripes.

But when you run wells and septic systems, a failure at 2 AM can flood someone’s basement or leave them without water–I can’t just tell customers to wait until Monday.

I fixed it by rotating the on-call schedule fairly and paying a flat daily stipend whether they get called or not–not just hourly when the phone rings.

Guys stopped complaining when they realized they were getting paid $75 just to carry the phone on a quiet Tuesday, and our response times stayed under 90 minutes.

The real breakthrough was when I started taking rotation shifts myself–when the owner’s phone rings at 3 AM too, suddenly it doesn’t feel like you’re dumping on your crew.

The key was making it both fair and financially worth their time.

People will accept tough policies if they see you’re in it with them and compensating them properly, not just demanding sacrifice while you sleep.

Stipends, Fair Rotation Soften On-Call

Joe Davies
CEO, Fatjoe

Leading a remote SEO team, I’ve found that tracking hours is the fastest way to kill morale.

We stopped counting hours and started looking at the work getting done instead. Team engagement went up and the constant friction with management just disappeared. Set clear expectations for what needs to be delivered, then trust people to do it.

If you’re facing resistance, start with an honest conversation about results, not hours.

Outcome Focus Replaces Hour Tracking

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

Discover the latest HR Tips and trends with our weekly newsletters!

The Hidden Why: Spilling the Beans on Ghost Jobs

by

The Hidden Why: Spilling the Beans on Ghost Jobs

Surveys reveal 40% of hiring managers post “ghost jobs,” roles not actively being filled, frustrating job seekers and eroding trust. 

This HR Spotlight article gathers insights from business leaders and HR professionals on uncommon reasons behind this practice. 

From contingency hiring and market calibration to signaling growth for investors or preserving headcount, these experts uncover strategic, often overlooked motives. 

They also address the ethical concerns and trust costs, offering practical solutions like transparent labeling and clear timelines to mitigate candidate frustration, providing a roadmap for organizations to balance internal needs with external perceptions while maintaining a strong employer brand.

Read on!

Arsen Misakyan
CEO & Founder, Angel City Limo

As a founder who’s run hiring through contract cycles, I’ve seen “ghost jobs” happen for less-obvious reasons.

The most common at Angel City Limo: contingency hiring tied to uncertain revenue—e.g., an airport RFP or studio shuttle contract. You build a bench in case the deal lands, but you can’t issue offers until procurement signs. The role looks active from the outside, yet it’s paused by one signature you don’t control.

Other under-the-radar drivers: preserving approved headcount (finance will cut dormant reqs unless they’re “live”), maintaining job-board pricing tiers that require a minimum number of postings, and meeting optics in partner audits (some enterprise clients expect to see “active recruiting” in quarterly reviews).

I’ve also seen teams post to calibrate market comp or test ATS workflows before a broader hiring wave—useful internally, confusing externally.

We’ve changed our approach: if a role is pipeline-only, we label it that way and state the trigger (“pending contract award; ETA late October”). We add an auto-expire date and a one-line SLA on next steps to avoid inbox limbo.

For candidates, a simple sanity check helps: ask for timeline, budget owner, and success metrics for the first 90 days. If those answers are fuzzy, you’re likely looking at a contingency req.

Contingency Hiring Creates Unavoidable Ghost Job Scenarios

John Mac
Founder, Openbatt

One of the less talked-about reasons hiring managers post “ghost jobs” is internal benchmarking.

It’s not about collecting resumes for the sake of ego or creating a false sense of growth—it’s about market calibration.

I’ve seen cases where teams post open roles not to hire immediately, but to gather current data on candidate expectations: salary benchmarks, skill gaps, evolving tech stacks.

It becomes an informal research tool, especially in fast-moving sectors where comp and capabilities shift every few months.

Another reason—one that rarely gets called out—is internal optics.

Sometimes a job post is less about the external market and more about internal signalling. A department lead might list a role to protect future headcount, even if budget approval hasn’t landed yet. Or they want to show higher-ups that they’re “planning for growth,” even if hiring isn’t on the immediate roadmap.

It’s a form of strategic theatre that isn’t inherently malicious, but it creates noise for candidates who assume every listing equals urgency.

There’s also the issue of succession hedging.

I’ve worked with orgs where a job goes live not because someone is leaving—but because leadership wants to be ready if they do. They’ve spotted burnout, misalignment, or upcoming life changes, and they quietly begin building a shortlist just in case. From their lens, it’s being proactive. But to candidates on the outside, it looks like a black hole.

The real challenge is that ghost postings erode trust. In a market where transparency is currency, using job boards as a test bed or placeholder weakens the employer brand—even if the intent isn’t harmful.

My advice to hiring managers: if you’re going to post, make it purposeful. If you’re not ready to hire, run research or forecasting internally without wasting a candidate’s time. Long-term, your hiring reputation matters more than the data you scraped from a few CVs.

Ghost Jobs Serve Hidden Internal Corporate Agendas

Aziz Bekishov
CEO, DC Mobile Notary

Not being a woman myself, I may not be able to speak directly from such an experiential standpoint, yet I have strongly, and deeply, felt the severe repercussions of high stress reactivity through my own entry into entrepreneurship and the constant pressure placed on me.

If this can serve as a parallel or complement to your piece, I would be truly honored to share it.

Living life on edge is not living at all:

There was a period about the time two years back when the days would start in full-body tension, before breakfast, for that matter, rehearsing with terrible plans.

Nowadays, I would find something minor, for example: a contractor would be late or did not send me any reply to an email, and that would put me on an emotional roller coaster.

From calm, I would be in confrontation mode within seconds, and being able to concentrate became an afterthought.

This slowly developed during the months of running DC Mobile Notary and simultaneously scaling DuoNotary until the point when I felt that I was no longer enjoying my own success.

What pulled me into the ripple was low-stakes activities which I could control.

So, every morning, I walk without headphones, just for my thoughts to slow down.
I write a lot of check-ins, usually noting down what felt out of sync that day and what I could do about it next, not later.

Most importantly, I gave myself intermission from never being on.

The shift didn’t save the day, but it was enough to halt the spiral so I could finally breathe again.

I would be glad to expand on that should you have further questions or if that fits your angle.

Low-Stakes Rituals Halt High-Stress Reactivity

Jeremy Yamaguchi
CEO, Cabana

One of the main reasons why businesses post “ghost jobs” is to create the illusion of growth.

When a business has job openings, that means they are growing and needing to add more members to their team, right? Well, not always. Sometimes these “ghost jobs” are literally just there to create the illusion of growth.

When people think a business is growing, they assume it’s really excelling and thus might be more interested in getting involved with it in some way. Though there may not be any legal issues here, I definitely think this practice is ethically questionable at best.

So, it’s not something we do. I don’t think it’s fair to job hunters and their time.

Ghost Jobs Create the Illusion of Growth

Karen Southall Watts
Author, The Solo Workday

If you take just a few moments to survey discussions on LinkedIn, you’ll find the prevailing sentiment is “ghost jobs should be illegal.”

When I tell job seekers that almost half the listings they find online are probably bogus, they are understandably angry.

There are some business case reasons for ghost postings, like trying to indicate company health or growth, doing informal surveys of available talent, or hoping to boost the morale of overworked staff. However, I think there is one very human reason these posts linger, and it speaks to neither stellar work ethic nor healthy company culture. Never-got-around-to-it.

Job boards screening listings for accuracy: never-got-around-to-it

HR departments pulling job ads when jobs are filled or funding fails: never-got-around-to-it

Managers closing positions that have been phased out: never-got-around-to-it

From the outside, job seekers can’t tell if this behavior is the result of short staffing or callous attitudes.

Either way, ghost jobs are frustrating, unethical, and should be stamped out. If someone could just find the time to get around to it.

Not Strategic, Just Inaction

Edward Hones
Employment Lawyer & Founder, Hones Law PLLC

Legal Cushioning and Passive Compliance
From my perspective as an employment lawyer, one uncommon but very real reason companies post ghost jobs is to maintain the appearance of compliance with internal policies or legal obligations.

For example, some organizations, particularly federal contractors or those subject to affirmative action requirements, may post jobs to demonstrate they’re actively recruiting, even when they have no immediate intention to hire. It creates a paper trail that, in the event of an audit or lawsuit, can be used to show “good faith” hiring efforts, even if the positions were never truly open. While this isn’t necessarily illegal, it rides a thin ethical line and can mislead job seekers.

Strategic Talent Mapping (with Questionable Transparency)
Another lesser-known motive is strategic pipeline building for future contracts or business expansion.

Companies might anticipate new work, but until it’s confirmed, they hedge by posting roles to see who’s out there. If the deal doesn’t land, the job vanishes. In this context, it’s less about deception and more about risk management, but it creates real trust issues with candidates.

I advise clients to be transparent in these cases: label the job “pipeline” or “future opportunity” so applicants aren’t misled.

Honest branding of speculative roles goes a long way in protecting both the employer’s reputation and legal standing.

Offers Legal and Strategic Hedges

Peter Murphy
CEO, Track Spikes

I’ve hired across retail, delivery, and digital—and yes, ghost jobs are real, but not always for the obvious reasons.

Some post openings to test market interest before greenlighting a new job. Others use it to gather future candidates during off-season cycles, especially in businesses with seasonal surges.

I’ve seen leaders use ads to calm internal teams, like saying, “We’re growing,” even if they’re not ready to hire yet. It’s not ideal, but it often occurs when hiring decisions are influenced by mood or funding considerations.

Ghost Jobs: A Strategic Market Test

Jonathan Hill
Chairman & CEO, The Energists

“Ghost job” postings are an unfortunately common practice though I wish they weren’t.

Their potential harm goes beyond annoying job seekers. They can erode candidates’ trust in the hiring process and cause lasting damage to a company’s employer brand, which ultimately makes them counterproductive for the purpose many companies use them for.

There are two reasons for ghost postings that I’ve witnessed most often:

They forgot to take the post down after the job was filled or the search was cancelled.

They’re using the fake job to collect resumes and build a pipeline.

There are also some less common reasons I’ve seen for these postings:

Internal budget constraints – The company intends to fill the job when they post it but are faced with a pause in hiring after doing so, or may still be waiting for the budget approval before moving forward.

Contractual or client requirements – In sectors like EPC or consulting, firms may need to demonstrate staffing capacity as part of a bid, but don’t plan to fill the role unless they win the deal.

PR and market signaling – Hiring often reads as growth, which can mean a company with open jobs can look more attractive to investors or stakeholders.

Internal promotion – They plan to fill the job internally but are required to conduct a public search to satisfy compliance or policies, and so post the job with no intention of hiring an outside candidate.


Performance pressure – if someone in the company (often an executive or other critical role) is under-performing, they may post a role to both motivate that individual and to test the market if they do need to be replaced.

As an overarching comment, I’d say if a ghost posting isn’t for pipeline building or the result of carelessness, it’s most often going to be motivated by internal factors that may or may not have anything to do with the company’s talent strategy.

Motivated By Internal Factors

Magda Klimkiewicz
Senior HR Business Partner, Live Career

In a competitive industry, appearing active and fast-growing can be just as valuable as actual expansion. By posting job openings, even without the intent to hire, companies create the illusion of scaling up. This can make them seem more attractive to venture capitalists and potential backers.

For example, a startup in Series A funding might advertise multiple engineering roles, not because they are ready to onboard, but to signal momentum. These job posts are often left open indefinitely, fitting into the narrative that the business is gearing up for a big leap.

This tactic is not deceptive in the eyes of some hiring managers. They view it as a proactive branding strategy rather than a dishonest practice.

Sometimes, job postings are less about hiring and more about crafting a narrative for shareholders, competitors, or even employees.

Interestingly, these strategic, though arguably misleading practices show that ghost jobs are not always about laziness or disorganization. They are, in most cases, about perception, influence, and control.

A Strategic Branding Tool

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

Discover the latest HR Tips and trends with our weekly newsletters!

5 EVP Mistakes That Are Sabotaging Your Remote Hiring (And How to Fix Them)

by

5 EVP Mistakes That Are Sabotaging Your Remote Hiring (And How to Fix Them)

By Jim Coughlin, founder of Remotivated

Remote hiring has fundamentally changed the talent acquisition game. With candidates now able to work for companies anywhere in the world, the competition for top talent has never been fiercer. Yet many organizations are unknowingly sabotaging their own efforts through critical Employee Value Proposition (EVP) mistakes that drive away the candidates they’re trying to attract.

The team at Remotivated has identified five critical EVP mistakes that derail remote hiring efforts. More importantly, we’ve seen how fixing these issues can transform companies from struggling to attract talent into magnets for top remote talent.

The Problem: Many companies still frame remote work as a generous benefit they’re offering, rather than recognizing it as a fundamental shift in how work gets done. This mindset seeps into job descriptions with phrases like “we’re generous enough to allow remote work” or “remote work available as needed.”

Why It Backfires: Top remote talent doesn’t want to feel like they’re asking for a favor. They want to work for companies that have fully embraced distributed work and built their culture around it. When remote work feels like an afterthought, it signals that the company hasn’t invested in the systems, culture, and leadership needed to make remote work truly successful.

The Fix: Reframe remote work from a policy to a philosophy. Instead of listing “remote work allowed,” highlight how your distributed culture enables better work-life integration, access to global talent, and outcomes-focused performance. Share specific examples of how remote work has made your team more productive, creative, or collaborative.

Mistake #1: Treating Remote Work as a “Perk” Instead of a Core Value

The Problem: Scroll through job boards and you’ll see the same tired phrases everywhere: “We’re like a family,” “Work hard, play hard,” “Competitive salary and benefits,” “Fast-paced environment.” These generic statements tell candidates nothing about what makes your company unique.

Why It Backfires: Remote workers have endless options. Suppose your EVP sounds identical to that of every other company. In that case, you’re forcing candidates to choose based solely on salary—a race to the bottom that you can’t win against competitors with deeper pockets.

The Fix: Get specific about what makes your culture unique. Instead of stating”flexible schedule,” explain exactly how flexibility works at your company. Instead of “growth opportunities,” detail your mentorship programs, learning budgets, or internal mobility statistics. The most compelling EVPs take their company’s core mission and translate it into tangible employee benefits.

Mistake #2: Generic EVP Messaging That Could Apply to Any Company

The Problem: Companies craft compelling EVP statements about their culture but fail to live up to them in reality. New hires discover that the “collaborative environment” they were promised actually means constant interruptions, or that “work-life balance” disappears during busy periods.

Why It Backfires: This is especially damaging in remote work, where culture must be more intentionally created and maintained. When the reality doesn’t match the promise, new hires feel deceived and often become your harshest critics on employee review sites like Glassdoor.

The Fix: Audit your current employee experience against your EVP promises. Survey existing employees anonymously to gauge whether the company is delivering on its cultural commitments. If there are gaps, fix them before promoting those aspects of your culture. Authenticity always beats perfection in EVP messaging.

Mistake #3: Overpromising and Underdelivering on Culture

The Problem: Many EVPs read like a benefits brochure, listing health insurance, PTO policies, and office perks without connecting these to the bigger picture of why employees should care about the work itself.

Why It Backfires: While benefits matter, top remote talent, particularly Gen Z, is often more motivated by purpose, autonomy, and the opportunity to do meaningful work. An EVP that focuses solely on transactional benefits attracts employees who are primarily motivated by transactional benefits.

The Fix: Lead with impact and mission, then support it with benefits. Explain how employees’ work contributes to the company’s goals and broader societal impact. Frame benefits as tools that enable employees to do their best work, rather than just perks to attract bodies.

Mistake #4: Focusing Only on Benefits Instead of Impact

The Problem: Most companies create EVPs focused solely on attraction—what will get people to apply and accept offers. They forget that a strong EVP must also address retention, development, and even alumni relationships.

Why It Backfires: Remote employees who feel their growth has stagnated can easily find new opportunities without relocating. If your EVP doesn’t address career development, skill building, and long-term value creation, you’ll become a stepping stone employer rather than an employer people retire from.

The Fix: Map out the employee journey from attraction through onboarding, professional development, and beyond. Your EVP should address what employees gain at each stage. This might include structured mentorship programs, learning stipends, internal mobility opportunities, or alumni networks.

Mistake #5: Ignoring the Employee Lifecycle in EVP Development

The companies that excel at remote hiring don’t just avoid these mistakes—they flip the script entirely. They recognize that their EVP isn’t just a recruiting tool; it’s a business strategy. When done right, a strong EVP becomes a competitive advantage that attracts better talent, reduces turnover costs, and creates a workforce of high-performing advocates who refer other top performers.

The most successful remote companies we work with share three common characteristics:

1.Specificity: They can articulate exactly what makes their culture unique
2.Authenticity: They deliver on their promises consistently
3.Evolution: They continuously refine their EVP based on employee feedback

If you’re struggling to attract top remote talent despite offering competitive compensation, the problem likely isn’t your salary ranges—it’s your story. The companies winning the remote talent war aren’t necessarily the ones with the biggest budgets, but the ones with the most compelling and authentic Employee Value Propositions.

While avoiding these common mistakes is crucial, building a truly compelling EVP requires a structured, methodical approach. For organizations ready to dive deeper into the strategic elements of EVP development—from identifying your unique differentiators to measuring success—Remotivated has created a comprehensive Employee Value Proposition guide that walks through each component in detail.

Remotivated helps remote-first companies build stronger employer brands through remote culture certification. Our programs provide the social proof the most forward-thinking remote-first employers make a core component of their EVP.

The Remote EVP Success Formula

About the Author

Jim Coughlin is the founder of Remotivated, where he helps identify and celebrate authentic remote-first cultures. After leading a fully distributed fintech implementation team through a successful $500 million exit, he now focuses on helping job seekers and organizations understand what separates genuine remote culture from remote-work theater.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

Discover the latest HR Tips and trends with our weekly newsletters!

80% Employees Report A Positive Experience With AI At Work. How Can HR Build On That?

by

80% Employees Report A Positive Experience With AI At Work. How Can HR Build On That?

By Mary Rizzuti, Partner at EisnerAmper

As the use cases for artificial intelligence in the workplace have multiplied, so have questions about how organizations can use this technology most effectively. A recent survey by EisnerAmper of 1,000 employees across a range of industries, who have used AI at work in the past year, found that 80% reported a “positive” experience. Furthermore, 64% of the employees said they are using the time saved through AI to do more work – confirming the potential of the technology to automate and accelerate repetitive tasks, while freeing users to focus on higher-value activities.

And yet, it is not clear that the majority of employers are building on these positive outcomes to maximize the benefits of AI platforms. Let’s look at some key reasons why this is the case – and what HR professionals can do about it.

One challenge is that a sizeable number of employees, 27%, claim they don’t know who is leading the AI efforts at their company. This “leadership vacuum” implies that employers could be doing more to actively encourage the use of AI, and to focus on its most relevant and productive applications.

Another obstacle to the wider adoption of AI is its underutilization in onboarding. Fewer than 20% of the survey respondents said their organizations use AI for onboarding. Yet, nearly 92% of employees who did experience AI during onboarding described the process as “very positive” or “somewhat positive”. This disconnect suggests that employees might be more comfortable using AI – and using it in ways most beneficial to their employers – if they experienced the technology from the “get go” at onboarding time.

Employees Outpace Employers in AI Adoption

There are a number of other complications related to the use of AI in a corporate environment. One of the most significant issues is whether the company plans to employ internally developed AI systems, or adopt off-the-shelf products. Employees need clear direction on what the corporate policy is in this case, and whether the use of externally sourced AI programs is permissible.

Last, but certainly not least, employees need to have greater clarity about the implications of AI for their jobs, in order to alleviate concerns and foster more “buy-in”. More than half of the employees surveyed (almost 52%) were “strongly” or “somewhat” concerned about potential job changes or displacement due to AI. And 74% said that “people should be compensated” for their AI experience and skill.

Clear Direction Needed from Company Leaders

Given the findings noted above, organizations should consider the following actions:
We strongly advise companies to establish a Steering Committee to take the lead in AI adoption. Ideally, the Steering Committee would consist of members from across the organization, representing a range of responsibilities and functional capacities. It is important to include employees at different levels of seniority, not just senior executives, as newer team members are more likely to be active users of AI.


– The Steering Committee should assess all the ways that AI may be (or is already) applied to the company’s operations and develop an appropriate deployment strategy, including clear priorities. For example, is AI being used for internal functions, such as an HR chatbot, or in external-facing roles, such as customer service, among other uses? Understanding how employees “on the ground” are utilizing these systems will be essential to adopting an effective AI strategy.


– Apply AI more broadly to the onboarding process so employees “get the message” early on that it is intrinsic to the organization. One caveat, however, is that the AI-driven onboarding process should not take place in a vacuum. Use of AI during onboarding will be most beneficial if the company is truly committed to and delivers on the use of artificial intelligence on an ongoing basis.


– Once the Steering Committee has established the AI strategy and top priorities, leadership needs to frankly assess the impact on employees. While some functions will likely be replaced by AI systems, there may be opportunities for upskilling some employees or shifting some team members to other areas. Over the long term, it will be important to implement clear processes for transitioning employees who AI displaces.


– As for whether or how to compensate employees who acquire advanced AI skills, an increase in base pay is probably not the best option, as it may lead to long-term structural salary inflation. A better solution might be a spot bonus or stipend, which would incentivize AI mastery without up-ending pay scales.


– As with all change, clear, consistent communication is key to managing concerns, encouraging engagement and acceptance, and soliciting input for continued improvement.

The above observations show that, in many cases, employees are actually ahead of their employers in unlocking the value of artificial intelligence. To realize AI’s vast potential, organizations would be well-advised to take a more strategic and intentional approach to deploying the technology in the workplace.

Assess, Prioritize and Communicate

Mary Rizzuti is a Partner at EisnerAmper and Practice Leader of HR Advisory and Outsourcing and Compensation Resources. With over 25 years of experience in compensation and human resources consulting, Mary has gained significant expertise in evaluating, designing, and developing creative compensation and human resources programs across all industries and business sectors.

Mary coordinates and executes business development initiatives while building strong working relationships with clients and strategic partners. With extensive experience within the not-for-profit and private company sectors, Mary provides clients with comprehensive consulting in executive compensation, salary administration, sales compensation, and performance management. Also included in her scope of expertise is interpreting market data and providing guidance to senior leadership and boards of directors on applying best practices and aligning market data to each company’s unique environment.

About Mary Rizzuti

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

Discover the latest HR Tips and trends with our weekly newsletters!

Ghost Jobs Decoded: Unexpected Drivers in Today’s Hiring Game

by

Ghost Jobs Decoded: Unexpected Drivers in Today’s Hiring Game

Job searching is already challenging, but “ghost jobs”—listings posted without real hiring intent—add a layer of deceit. 

Far beyond building talent pipelines, these postings serve complex, sometimes questionable purposes, like salary benchmarking or internal employee pressure tactics. 

Drawing from frank perspectives of HR experts and business leaders, this HR Spotlight article reveals the hidden motives behind ghost jobs and explores the serious risks they pose to a company’s reputation and the trust of job seekers.

Read on!

Friddy Hoegener
Co-Founder & Head of Recruiting, SCOPE Recruiting

Hidden Motives Behind Corporate Ghost Job Practices

As an HR business lead, beyond the commonly discussed reasons like maintaining candidate pipelines or satisfying internal posting requirements, I’ve observed some less obvious motivations behind ghost job practices in the recruiting industry.

Companies frequently post positions to gauge salary expectations in competitive markets.

When organizations are considering expanding into new geographic areas or skill sets, fake job postings help them understand what compensation levels they’d need to offer without committing to actual hires.

Another uncommon driver involves competitive intelligence gathering. Some companies post attractive roles to see which competitors’ employees respond, providing insights into rival organizations’ retention challenges and workforce stability. This information becomes valuable for strategic planning and market positioning.

I’ve also noticed ghost jobs being used to test internal promotion readiness. Organizations post external roles to see if current employees apply, revealing who might be considering departure and helping identify internal candidates for future advancement opportunities.

Some companies use ghost postings to justify budget requests for hiring. When executives see hundreds of applications for non-existent roles, it supports arguments for increased headcount or higher salary ranges in subsequent budget discussions.

The practice reflects deeper organizational planning processes rather than deliberate candidate deception. However, it wastes candidates’ time and damages employer brand reputation when people discover the truth.

Transparent communication about hiring timelines and actual needs serves everyone better than these indirect intelligence-gathering methods.

Arvind Rongala
CEO, Edstellar

Reveals Internal Skill Benchmarking Strategy

While it’s often assumed ghost jobs are posted to build a talent pipeline, an uncommon but increasingly relevant reason is internal benchmarking.

Some companies post roles publicly to gauge the market value of skills they already have in-house, helping HR teams justify salary adjustments or training investments.

For example, if job postings attract candidates with higher-level skills or certifications, it can prompt leadership to upskill existing teams rather than hire externally.

In this context, corporate training becomes a strategic alternative to recruitment, aligning workforce capabilities with evolving business needs.

Blake Beesley
Operations & Technology Manager, Pacific Plumbing Systems

Serves Multiple Strategic Business Purposes

One uncommon reason we’ve seen is pipeline protection companies post ghost jobs to have backup candidates ready in case someone quits or underperforms, especially in hard to fill roles.

Another is internal leverage: some managers use fake openings to pressure current staff to take promotions or work harder, creating a false sense of competition.

In a few cases, jobs are posted to gather market salary data or gauge interest in a potential expansion that hasn’t been approved yet. While not always malicious, it wastes candidates’ time and erodes trust.
If a role isn’t real, don’t post it transparency matters.

Guillermo Triana
Founder & CEO, PEO-Marketplace.com

Pressures Employees, Stall Hiring

Here is something people do not talk about: some companies post fake openings to pressure current employees.

It is like a soft threat, e.g., “your role could be filled.” It sounds shady, but it happens, especially during budget cuts or performance dips. Nobody says it outright, but when three people on a team spot their job posted publicly, morale tanks. It is a passive-aggressive tactic used to spark urgency without having the guts to confront issues head-on.

Then you have the internal chaos side. Some roles are posted without real intent to hire because teams are waiting on budget approval, but recruiting gets told to move anyway. It is a stall tactic. Post first, decide later.

Sometimes it is just a placeholder to keep a role “active” in the system. Basically, no plan, just bureaucracy in motion. Meanwhile, candidates waste time applying to something that does not exist.

Lacey Kaelani
CEO, Metaintro

Ghost Jobs: Hidden Motives Beyond Hiring

Beyond the obvious “keeping options open for good talent,” we’re tracking more subtle motivations.

Because a lot of the major job boards don’t source check, we see companies every day taking advantage of free traffic.

For instance, a few weeks ago, we saw a company post over 600K jobs on a major job board that drew traffic to their site – and who knows if those jobs were real.

In addition to this, we can assume employers post ghost jobs for AI training data collection., competitive intelligence gathering and even, perhaps, employee retention psychology.

Leah Miller
Marketing Strategist, Versys Media

Signals Growth, Benchmark Talent

One less obvious reason some companies post ghost jobs is purely strategic. I’ve seen organizations use them as a way to signal projected growth to investors or stakeholders.

Posting open roles they don’t intend to fill quickly can give the impression of scaling up, even when resources aren’t quite there yet.

Another reason is internal benchmarking; a company may want to see what kind of talent or salary expectations are out there without having to commit to hiring.

We once worked with a tech platform that listed roles just to test how its employer brand was landing compared to competitors. It wasn’t done maliciously, but from the candidate’s perspective, it still erodes trust.

Wendy Sellers
HR, The HR Lady

Ghost Jobs Hurt Brand, Morale, Productivity

That 40% figure is troubling. Beyond the usual “pipeline building,” some managers post phantom roles to signal growth to investors or customers, to satisfy headcount optics before budgets are set, to test pay ranges or locations without committing, to hedge for pending contracts, or to appease leaders who equate open reqs with influence. It’s a bad practice.

Candidates notice and your brand takes the hit; current employees see the listings and assume they’re being replaced, which drags morale, productivity and retention.

It’s also a waste of money and time—recruiting and ads are expensive, and every hour spent screening for a non-job is an hour stolen from real workforce planning.

Do better: be transparent about hiring status, build talent communities, and only post when funding and approvals are real.

Gregory Shein
CEO, Nomadic Soft

A Bet On Uncertainty

Posting “ghost jobs” may seem deceptive, but some less-discussed motivations come from operational uncertainty rather than ill intent.

In fast-moving sectors like tech and FinTech, companies sometimes post roles preemptively anticipating funding rounds, contract wins, or internal restructures that haven’t been finalized.

It’s a way to gauge market talent and keep a candidate pipeline warm.

Another overlooked reason is employer branding. Active listings can falsely signal growth or stability to investors, clients, or even competitors. While I understand the strategic logic, it’s a practice that erodes trust in the long term.

Transparency should always take precedence over short-term optics.

Calin Oancea
Founder, Nature and Sustainability

Ghost Jobs Benchmark Salaries and Talent

Having hired over 30 people and freelancers in my company and projects and having consulted with multiple HR teams during hiring booms, I’ve seen how these so-called “ghost jobs” serve hidden strategic purposes.

I regularly collaborate with companies that are refining their growth projections. One less-discussed driver is the desire to measure labor market trends or competitors’ salary expectations; some managers post roles purely to benchmark talent pools and adjust internal plans.

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts