Recently, I received a job rejection email that, at first, made me feel unexpectedly warm, even grateful. That fleeting gratitude, however, quickly soured into a familiar self-loathing—the kind that hits when you reread long, desperate messages to an ex whose monosyllabic replies make it clear they’ve already moved on. The rejection was a form letter, not even a late-stage, personalized note like, “We gave serious consideration, but ultimately hired the VP’s nephew.” I had become so accustomed to being treated with indifference that the barest acknowledgment of my existence felt like a victory.
Setting aside whether the job market itself is in good or bad shape—it’s bad—the code of acceptable behavior seems to have broken down entirely. Ghosting has surged, both among employers and job seekers. Candidates reviewing companies on Glassdoor mentioned “ghosting” nearly three times more in 2024 than in 2020. A 2023 Indeed survey found that 62 percent of job seekers planned to ghost a prospective employer in the future, up from 37 percent in 2019. Employers are not innocent: many ask applicants to endure multiple interviews or time-consuming tests and then disappear without a word. According to a Greenhouse survey, nearly two-thirds of U.S. candidates have been ghosted after an interview. Some who accept offers never show up on day one—even for six-figure positions. Today, convenience, self-protection, and resentment have eroded the pretense of courtesy, leaving a job market that is simultaneously rude and dysfunctional.
Blaming the problem on a loss of manners may sound trivial, but etiquette has historically smoothed over deep inequalities. Social norms often mask the imbalance of power between employer and employee. In societies where workers wield little power, manners are the difference between a functioning system and one roiled by humiliation and resentment.
Historically, manners regulated social conflict. In 18th- and 19th-century Europe and America, etiquette served to enforce separation between classes. Sociologist Cas Wouters, in Informalization, explains that people maintained psychological distance through extreme formality: the upper class could be openly violent toward those beneath them, while lower-class retribution was penalized. An 1859 guide, The Habits of Good Society, even advised that a gentleman could settle a “dishonest cabman” with a single blow—so long as the cabman was socially inferior. Class conflict was mitigated through avoidance and ritualized forms of interaction.
By the late 19th century, urbanization and class mixing forced different social groups into closer contact. Courtesy evolved into a system of self-regulation: the upper class had to act tolerant of those beneath them. Etiquette manuals reminded readers that social inferiors were human beings, even if the tone suggested authors were convincing themselves as much as instructing others. As these norms spread, everyone became theoretically entitled to decency, though status differences persisted and were increasingly expressed through material displays rather than overt deference or violence.
Modern workplace courtesy evolved from these norms. A boss “asks” an employee to complete a task they cannot refuse; an employee politely replies “sure,” despite knowing there’s no choice. HR form rejection emails claiming “careful consideration” mirror this tradition—they obscure power while maintaining the illusion of civility. Polite responses from candidates often hide their true feelings as well.
This delicate veneer of courtesy requires constant effort. Technology has weakened it, allowing people to avoid direct contact altogether. Screens give an illusion of distance and moral exemption: if you cannot see someone flinch, you may feel no responsibility for hurting them. As etiquette expert William Hanson notes, convenience has replaced civility. Good manners, he insists, demand effort—the very thing modern technology often removes.
Discourtesy signals power. Employers, who control the hiring process, are prone to abuse it. Ghosting is only one example; others include reposting positions despite already having qualified candidates or using “ghost job postings” to mine applicant data. In Ontario, Canada, employer ghosting has become illegal. When courtesy disappears, the edges of status reappear, sharper than ever.
The consequences of ghosting differ sharply between employers and applicants. A candidate ghosted repeatedly may face financial precarity or homelessness, whereas an employer inconvenienced by a new hire who disappears is simply delayed. This imbalance underscores the low bar of courtesy some employers meet. Even when the workforce once trusted the system, most understood the precariousness of employment; the cruelty lies in how ghosting flaunts power.
For job seekers, the breakdown of courtesy has fueled a tit-for-tat logic. Gen Zers, most likely to be ghosted, are also the most likely to ghost back. Claire, a candidate who accepted two offers, intending to show up for only one, explained that months of rejection, poor treatment, and personal hardship left her with little power—but ghosting gave her a measure of control. Poor employer behavior has eroded trust: a Checkr report found that 83 percent of job seekers agreed that ghosting and other discourtesies had created an “extreme lack of trust.”
Ultimately, the rise of ghosting reveals an uncomfortable truth about work: the veneer of benevolent collaboration has always masked stark imbalances of power. Courtesy may have disguised the realities of inequality, but its decline exposes them. Complaining about a form-letter rejection overlooks the deeper lesson: for most workers, power has never been theirs to wield.