The Job Ad Says One Thing, the Actual Job Another

During the interview, the position sounded like a genuine step forward: more independence, room for ideas, involvement in important projects, and opportunities for professional development. The candidate already had a stable job, but it was precisely because of these expectations that they decided to accept the offer.

A few weeks later, reality looked different. Instead of independence, almost every decision required several levels of approval. Instead of working on the projects discussed during the interview, most of the time was spent on operational tasks. And the opportunity for development existed more as an idea than as an actual plan.

After a few months, the employee started looking at job openings again...

One of the most common reasons for disappointment after starting a new job is neither the salary nor the team, but the gap between what was presented during the recruitment process and what the job actually involves.

For example, the position may be presented in the job ad as dynamic, with a high level of independence, room for ideas, and involvement in important projects. During the interview, professional development and the opportunity to take on greater responsibility may also be emphasized.

Once the person starts working, however, everyday reality may look quite different. Most tasks are operational, almost every decision requires approval, while the projects and development opportunities remain something that is supposed to happen “in the future.”

This is where the problem begins!

In an effort to attract high-quality candidates, companies may sometimes unintentionally present positions as they would like them to be rather than as they actually are at that moment.

But every promise made during the recruitment process creates an expectation, and every unmet expectation gradually reduces trust. After a few months, dissatisfaction can easily lead to another job search.

At that point, the company often asks why the new employee is leaving so quickly, even though a more important question might be whether a realistic picture of the position was provided from the very beginning.

That is why good recruitment is not about successfully convincing the best candidate to accept an offer. Good recruitment is about making sure the candidate knows exactly what they are accepting.

Sometimes it is much better to be transparent during the interview and explain that the position currently involves more operational work, that the processes are not perfect, or that the promised level of independence will come gradually.

Some candidates may decide to withdraw because of this. But those who stay will join because of the real job, not because of an idealized version of it.

And perhaps that is exactly why, before saying that “the new employee simply wasn’t the right fit,” it is worth asking a different question:

Did we hire the wrong person, or did we present them with the wrong picture of the job?