By Sarah Swain, UK & US Marketing Director at Welcome to the Jungle
Having worked in marketing for over a decade now, I’ve seen some pretty toxic – and sometimes outright unethical – hiring practices over the years. Marking the very beginning of the relationship between an employer and an employee, the recruitment process sets the tone for the rest of the relationship.
In a competitive industry, employers often exploit this dynamic to their own benefit, advertising roles that don’t exist or forcing candidates to complete a never-ending list of assessments. Recently, it seems that businesses, and especially startups, are becoming more audacious as they come under economic pressure to do more with less.
Economic pressure does not, however, justify outright unethical recruitment methods. And that’s why it’s time someone called them out so we can all see them for what they truly are, stand up for the marketing community, and let go of them for good.
The rise of the “Fractional” marketer
It’s no secret that budgets are tight for a lot of companies right now. The past year has been tough, and marketing is often the first business activity that leadership retract funding from, seen (unjustly) as only semi-necessary.
As a result, many companies are offering smaller compensation packages, while maintaining the same – or even higher – expectations of the people they hire. Especially when it comes to the level of seniority associated with each role, there’s a significant disconnection between that and the actual responsibilities associated with them. This is also linked to the rise in ‘fractional’ roles that involve, in reality, full-time responsibilities.
One might argue that this is simply market dynamics at play, but it can actually be harmful for the businesses that practise this. It sets the wrong expectations from the outset, creates an unfair imbalance between employer and employee, and is likely to result in discrepancies further down the line.
The unicorn marketer myth
Employers aren’t only expecting marketing employees to do more work than would previously seem reasonable, they also expect them to wear multiple hats, covering the expertise of a variety of different roles. They’re hiring people as strategists, but expecting them to also manage paid media, design, PR, and more.
This is, of course, linked to declining budget sizes, especially in the world of startups, but it’s also connected to the emergence of AI. Many employers, especially startups with limited budgets, are hoping that AI is simply going to replace some roles and give others superpowers to do anything and everything, all at the same time.
In essence, these companies are holding out for ‘unicorns’ – people who can expertly perform a handful of different roles. But these people are exactly that: unicorns. They don’t exist.
AI is certainly going to make many marketing tasks much easier and faster. But employers still need to be careful about the way they integrate it into their operations. They also shouldn’t expect miracles; it’s likely going to take a long time before we learn to effectively employ these tools in business operations.
Employers that expect individual employees to become experts in a range of roles are, again, lining themselves up for disappointment. Candidates who find themselves in these positions are inevitably going to end up burnt out, resentful, and simply ineffective in performing the tasks they’re expected to carry out.
Ridiculous recruitment tasks
Someone needs to say it: recruitment processes are out of hand.
It’s a trend that has been growing for some time. In the past, I’ve personally been asked to submit entire campaign decks, including timelines, creative concepts, and performance plans – just to somehow prove that I’m capable of a job, which I was already performing in a senior position at another reputable company.
Recent reports suggest that companies are now asking for even more than they were five years ago. Recruitment processes become these relentless series of tasks, often with no end in sight. Some companies might perceive this as a benefit. They think that they will filter out the people who are less interested or passionate about the roles by forcing them to persevere through marathon recruitment processes.
There may be some truth in that, but from my perspective, these same companies are also missing out on some of the best candidates. Talented people who understand their worth are much more likely to drop out of extended recruitment processes when they feel that the employers are not respecting their time or previous experience.
Far too often, companies think that they’re saving a few bucks or enticing better applicants by employing these toxic recruitment practices. But the reality is, they’re most often harming their businesses by setting unrealistic expectations and reducing retention rates. It’s time for them to stop.
