• People are changing jobs quicker these days, so I lost a new hire during the onboarding process.
• It made me rethink my management style, specifically with new hires.
• I now ensure all new employees have personalized onboarding plans and have one clear goal.

For hiring managers, this is a story as old as time: You find a candidate you like, hire them, and build out their onboarding plan. They're prepared to start attending client meetings and managing their workload. And then boom — they find a better offer and leave within a few weeks or months.

Accelerated job changes aren't new. Gallup reports that millennials are the most likely generation to seek a career change and that six out of 10 millennials are open to new jobs.

The reality is that, as managers, we're competing with a complicated, changing, and competitive job market.

I learned this firsthand as a manager in the public relations and communications industry. This year, I onboarded a new hire and then tried to manage their abrupt departure. It challenged a few assumptions I made about a new employee and what success looks like.

Here's how it made me rethink my management style.

Manage the person, not just the process

For many of us working in more structured industries, there's typically an onboarding plan for new hires. They're typically given training and a checklist to complete in a certain amount of time. Those in more corporate and bureaucratic companies know this well.

Things like 30-60-90 plans or SMART goals can feel almost endless to a new hire.

A process and plan are important, but managing the person is crucial to a new hire's early success.

Like a sports coach or trainer would develop a plan based on their individual players, I think our jobs as managers and employers would be made easier by treating new hires in the same manner. Every new employee will bring different attributes, attitudes, and personalities. Onboarding plans should be better shaped for each employee — not the other way around.

Set an achievable goal early on

The ambiguity of onboarding can feel overwhelming at times. Most companies agree that getting a new employee "up to speed" is the first and most important goal.

But that process is different in every organization. Do you allow shadowing? Do you conduct training? Are there guidelines for working with clients?

Instead of just focusing on training, I now plan to get laser-focused on my new hire's first work opportunity or goal. For example, should they be preparing to run a client call? Will they be presenting research? Are they expected to contribute to strategic planning internally?

Identifying a "big win" for your new hire builds their skills, helps identify regular work products they are expected to contribute to, and shows progress in their role.

If I could do things over, I'd be very specific about the first milestone for a new employee and the steps necessary to meet it. That way, they can get an early win.

Be a historian of your company

One of the biggest issues I felt managing a new hire was explaining our organization and culture. New employees should know about their department and their company: who the leaders are, how the business works, and what our work looks like across different clients and accounts.

Many managers can play an important role as "historians" of their company. They should know how their department runs inside and out. You should be able to give any new employee the lay of the land.

If hiring a new employee is about finding the best person and the right fit for your organization, then managing a new employee should focus on educating them about where they work. This simple task can help the new employee feel more at home in this new environment.

Take on a leadership role in the process

The famous business and management consultant Peter Drucker once said, "Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things."

Drucker hits on the challenge between good management and great leadership. This issue is crucial for managing new employees. It's important to follow the processes in place. But where do you see them excelling? Are they stronger in one area or weaker in another?

Managing a new employee is more about doing the right things for them to succeed compared to just doing right and following a process. If I could go back, I'd remember that managing a new employee may not be as straight of a line as the onboarding process tells us.

• Job seekers with prestigious schools or employers on their résumés can benefit from a "halo" effect.
• Yet education and experience are not reliable indicators of job performance, an expert told BI.
• Some employers are shifting focus to skills and behaviors to improve hiring outcomes.

Job seekers who are attractive, who went to the right school, or who worked at the right company can enjoy a so-called "halo effect" that outweighs other factors that often are better predictors of how well someone will perform in a role.

While they look good on paper, that's a problem for employers and many job seekers, executives told Business Insider.

Shiran Danoch saw firsthand how bias can affect hiring. Early in her career, she thought she'd found the perfect candidate for a role she was trying to fill.

Yet after Danoch's boss interviewed the woman, he called Danoch into his office.

"He said, 'Why did you bring her here? She isn't one of us,'" Danoch told BI.

It slowly occurred to Danoch that her boss's problem was with the candidate's ethnicity despite what Danoch saw as her obvious fit for the role.

There's a lot of work to do to reduce bias that unfairly hurts — and helps — candidates, said Danoch, an organizational psychologist who's the CEO and founder of Informed Decisions, an artificial intelligence startup that aims to help organizations reduce bias and improve their interviewing processes.

Danoch estimates that perhaps as many as nine in 10 hires either suffer or benefit from a bias that shapes the interviewer's perceptions of the candidate's aptitude for the role.

She said this means people who aren't a great fit could end up landing the role, and candidates who would do the job better might be sidelined.

Education and experience aren't sure bets

Danoch said analysis of thousands of interviews on the Informed Decisions interview platform, combined with findings from broader academic research, highlights that "dominant-skill" bias is a prominent risk.

"When you're interviewing a candidate, there might be one specific skill that paints your overall impression," she said. Often, Danoch said, that is "effective communication." That can mean job seekers who are strong communicators can talk their way past their weaknesses.

Another risk is being wowed by grads from top schools or those who worked at high-profile companies. Substantial bodies of research have shown that education and experience aren't good predictors of how successful someone will be in a job, she said.

Meantime, it's easy to see why a hiring manager might assume someone who'd worked at one big-name tech firm might be a good fit for another. That's not always the case, according to Alan Price, the global head of talent acquisition at Deel, a global HR company that helps employers hire abroad.

He told BI that in past roles at other companies, there was often a push to focus on Ivy League grads or people who'd worked at certain tech firms. That made it hard for candidates coming from small startups, for example, to get hired, he said.

"You'd work at Facebook. You'd work at Google. You'd go to LinkedIn. There's a merry-go-round," Price said.

Yet he said those in sales, for example, who had halo résumés by virtue of having been at top companies, weren't always the strongest contributors when it came to basic metrics like how much revenue they brought in.

"The top people weren't only coming from the big, established organizations," Price said.

Hiring for skills

To improve the quality of its hires, Price said, Deel reformatted its interviewing process to focus on behaviors and less on factors like education and experience. That's led managers to report being more satisfied with the work they were getting from new hires, he said.

Price said it's not that experience doesn't count. Instead, it's evaluated alongside factors like functional skills for doing the job, behaviors, and motivation. To gain insight into skills, Deel will often have job seekers complete assessments.

That can help root out candidates who might toss around industry buzzwords, though they might lack some abilities.

"Because you've worked here and you've worked on this problem type, my assumption is, from a halo CV perspective, you're going to be really good," he said.

Price said that because some job seekers might stay at an organization for two to three years, hiring managers could take that to mean the candidates are good at what they do.

Yet "that is a big assumption," he said.

Some employers have announced efforts to look more at abilities rather than pedigree. In some cases, this can mean waiving degree requirements.

However, David Deming, a professor of political economy at Harvard's Kennedy School, previously told BI that even as some employers do away with prerequisites that candidates for some roles have a bachelor's degree, those doing the hiring might still consider whether a candidate has one.

"Firms are wanting credit for removing a requirement, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're changing their hiring at the end of the day," he said.

Strong communicators can win out

Danoch, from Informed Decisions, said one reason strong communicators can benefit from a halo effect in interviews relates to those doing the hiring.

"Because a lot of interviewers are inexperienced in interviewing, that's what grabs them," she said, referring to a candidate's communication chops.

While such abilities are often among the soft skills many employers say they value, Danoch said being able to communicate well isn't likely to be the only attribute needed for a role. Even if communication is important, she said, it shouldn't be the sole factor for hiring.

Danoch said the halo effect can be problematic if it leads employers to hire candidates who might not be the best fit. Conversely, she said, a "shadow effect" can result in capable job seekers being discounted.

"The candidate is either all good or either all bad," Danoch said.

Do you have something to share about what you're seeing in your job search? Business Insider would like to hear from you. Email our workplace team from a nonwork device at [email protected] with your story, or ask for one of our reporter's Signal numbers.

• It's looking like job market conditions will improve in 2025.
• Employees who are feeling burned out and dissatisfied may decide to "revenge quit."
• Bosses can prepare by focusing on empathy and meaningful communication.

With a job market heating up and employee resentment boiling over, "revenge quitting" looks to be on the horizon for 2025.

Edel Holliday-Quinn, a business psychologist, told Business Insider that some workers feel burned out and undervalued in part due to increased workloads and a back-and-forth about hybrid working.

In 2025, she said, many people are therefore thinking: "New year, new job."

"The job market is starting to loosen up, and for those who have been simmering with frustration, this might be the year they finally quit—not just quietly, but loudly," Holliday-Quinn said.

"Revenge quitting," she said, is where employees leave not just to move on "but to make a point."

Burnout and toxicity

Employment analysts previously told BI that the Great Detachment is plaguing workplaces and is one of the biggest challenges leaders face.

Partner that with the fact it might be easier to switch jobs next year, and employers could soon realize their best talent is jumping ship.

"If we as HR leaders don't act now, we do run the risk that a lot of those employees will just decide the opportunities are not there for them in the current company," Ciara Harrington, the Chief People Officer of the corporate training platform Skillsoft, told BI.

"Once the market opens up and they start getting the calls again, you could see an increase in your attrition," she said. "If any other employer wants this person, they're probably somebody you want to retain as well."

According to workplace experts, employees across all industries are increasingly engaging in "productivity theater" and performative busyness to get through their workday, and the workforce as a whole is disengaged.

They're struggling in other ways, too. For the ninth year in a row, the employee benefits platform Businessolver surveyed 20,000 employees, HR professionals, and CEOs across six industries on the state of workplace empathy. The report found that 42% of all respondents and 52% of CEOs reported working in a toxic environment.

In 2023, people were "rage applying" for jobs, angrily scrolling through job ads when they were fed up. Revenge quitting is similar, with the added vengeance of moving on to something better.

Stretched too thin

Beth Hood, the founder and CEO of the leadership and management training platform Verosa, told BI that employee dissatisfaction "rarely stems from a single event."

"It's often a gradual erosion of 'intrinsic motivators' such as connection, meaning, and safety," Hood said. "When these motivators are left unmet, resentment and detachment can grow, eventually leading to employees walking away, often in frustration or as a way of reclaiming control."

Holliday-Quinn, who has worked in senior roles at Citi and PwC, said employees have reported being stretched thin, due to cuts and heavier workloads, made worse by the attack on middle managers.

"Dissatisfaction has been quietly brewing," Holliday-Quinn said, with a period of layoffs and RTO mandates.

"This disconnect between leadership and the workforce isn't just a communication issue," she said. "It's a retention crisis waiting to happen."

Generational dynamics are also at play, with Gen Zers being skeptical about climbing the corporate ladder for little payoff. Younger workers are "less willing to tolerate outdated workplace cultures or rigid hierarchies," said Holliday-Quinn.

"Companies that don't adapt to these expectations will struggle to retain the next wave of talent," she said.

How to prepare

Harrington told BI that company leaders need to be trained to have crucial conversations with their direct reports because "most team members leave a manager, not a company."

The Businessolver report found that while 55% of CEOs believe they lead with empathy at work, only 28% of employees actually agreed.

Harrington said listening goes a long way, as does filtering down information from above effectively.

"I'm a really big believer in investing in leaders really is investing in the company as a whole," she said. "Because if they're doing their job, they're going to be working on the individual team member engagement, retention, and motivation."

Harrington said if an employee has been treated with empathy and felt heard in their current role, they're more likely to help with the transition or stay longer to meet deadlines during their notice period rather than being checked out and unhelpful.

"You're much more likely to get that really helpful and good transition," Harrington said. "Which will help massively with business continuity.

For others, though, "revenge quitting" could impact them greatly.

"2025 is shaping up to be a wake-up call for employers," Holliday-Quinn said. "Those who have relied on control over connection or ignored the mounting dissatisfaction within their teams are about to face the consequences."

Over the past two years, American businesses have been engaged in a rapid-fire restructuring of their corporate hierarchies. In the name of "flattening," they've been waging war on middle managers — trimming an entire tier of supervisory jobs that Mark Zuckerberg derided as nothing more than "managers managing managers, managing managers, managing managers, managing the people who are doing the work." Following Meta's lead, Citi reduced its 13 layers of management to eight. UPS axed 12,000 of its 85,000 managers. And in September, Amazon announced plans to increase its ratio of workers to supervisors by at least 15%. "I hate bureaucracy," CEO Andy Jassy declared, echoing the zeal for "efficiency" that Elon Musk, one of the pioneers of the current corporate flattening, is now seeking to unleash on the halls of government.

But here's the thing: It's not just that tens of thousands of middle managers have lost their jobs. It's that the jobs themselves have been eliminated — and they may not be coming back.

To test that theory, I asked Revelio Labs, a workforce analytics provider, to crunch the numbers for me, using its database of job postings aggregated from across the internet. It divided employees into two buckets of managers (senior leadership and middle management) and two buckets of lower-level employees (experienced associates and junior workers). Then it looked at how many job openings employers are posting today, compared with the hiring heyday of 2022.

What the data reveals is stark. Earlier this year, when white-collar hiring was at its lowest point, openings for junior roles — entry-level positions requiring little to no prior experience — were down by 14%. But hiring had plunged by 43% for middle managers and 57% for senior leaders. If you had any sort of management experience, your job prospects were bleak.

Since then, though, we've seen a significant rebound in job postings for almost everyone — except middle managers. In October, employers were still advertising 42% fewer middle-management positions than they did in April 2022. Which means that those who lost their jobs in the Great Flattening are now facing a whole new horror: There aren't any positions left for them to take.

The assault on middle managers dates back to the 1980s, when globalization gave rise to a new philosophy of management that prioritized cost cutting over everything else. Supervisors — earning big salaries for rubber-stamping the work of their subordinates — became an easy target. Trim the fat, the thinking went, and the efficiencies will follow. From 1986 to 1998, one study found, the number of managers reporting to division heads dropped by 25%. At the same time, the number of managers reporting directly to a CEO nearly doubled.

Executives got the flattening that they wanted. But it's unclear whether getting rid of middle managers actually made companies run more efficiently. As I wrote last year, one study found that businesses with fewer layers of management were able to deliver their products faster. But study after study found that when middle managers do their jobs right, they bolster performance more than either top executives or ground-level employees. Supervisors do real work. They motivate. They mentor. They communicate critical information to and from different parts of the company. They smooth out glitches and spot opportunities. They're the ones who keep the trains running.

But now is an especially bad time to be an experienced supervisor. According to an analysis by Live Data Technologies, another workforce analytics provider, middle managers made up 32% of layoffs last year, compared with 20% in 2019. And as the data from Revelio Labs shows, companies appear to have no intention of refilling those supervisory roles, even as they resume hiring for lower-level jobs. That has created a double whammy for middle managers: There's a sharp spike in job seekers, and they're competing for an increasingly small universe of open roles.

Over the past year I've heard from hundreds of managers mired in this double whammy. What's struck me is how eerily similar their stories are. They all come across as smart and articulate. They're all in their late 40s to 50s. When they got laid off from their supervisory jobs, they didn't expect their job search to be too difficult. After all, they'd spent decades honing their skills and climbing the corporate ladder, often at leading companies. Surely, all that experience had to count for something. But despite sending out hundreds of applications, they can't get anyone to return their calls. They're utterly baffled, and they all have the same question: What is going on here?

It's the question I've been asking, too — combing through government data, talking to employers and economists, studying applicant-tracking systems. Because so many of the frustrated job seekers are older, I thought maybe we were seeing some new form of age discrimination: Call it the Curse of the Gen X Professional. But it's only after seeing the data from Revelio Labs that I finally understand what's going on: There just aren't enough supervisory jobs to go around anymore.

In response, many displaced managers have swallowed their pride and started applying to jobs lower on the corporate food chain. As Revelio Labs' data shows, nonmanagerial jobs are faring much better these days — and you'd think companies would be thrilled to get the experience and know-how of seasoned professionals on the cheap. But take the example of a former middle manager I'll call Rick, who is 54. After getting rejected for all the supervisory jobs he could find, he widened his search to include entry-level positions — only to be rejected for being overqualified.

At this point, all Rick wants is a chance to prove himself. "Forget the titles, forget all that other stuff," he told me. "I just need a job. My unemployment runs out in about 30 days. I'll come in and do a great job for you."

This is the paradox that lies at the heart of the Great Flattening: The very experience that should be a selling point for senior leaders has become a liability. Some have tried deleting former jobs from their resumes, to hide their supervisory experience. Others, like Rick, omit the year they graduated from college. One former chief operating officer, whose search has gone so poorly that she's now applying to be an executive assistant, told me she addresses her overqualified-ness in her cover letters. "I understand that my résumé has some big titles on it, but let me tell you who I am at heart," she writes. "I really want to be doing this, and I'm not wedded to the title."

What all the out-of-work managers want to know is: When is the hiring freeze for supervisors going to thaw? That depends, in large part, on whether companies come to view the flattening as a success. Many CEOs insist they aren't getting rid of middle managers just to save money. They think having fewer layers of management will, as Zuckerberg put it, create a "stronger" company that can build "higher-quality products faster." That hints at a dark prospect for managers like Rick: The rung of the corporate ladder they spent their careers reaching could be gone for good.

There's a chance, of course, that the current craze for corporate flattening could ease over time. Companies are already discovering that having few middle managers is placing an enormous strain on their operations. The supervisors who survived the purge have been forced to take on much larger teams, and they're burned out to a crisp. Gen Zers, deprived of their mentors, are increasingly disengaged. Departments are more siloed than ever, with no one to do the tedious and thankless and essential work of coordinating across different teams. The best hope for managers like Rick is that CEOs are getting a real-time refresher in the value of managers.

"I'm not at that point in my life where I'm ready to take that step back," Rick told me. "I just want to work with good people and enjoy what I'm doing. I could go to Domino's and start delivering pizza. But I know I can do a lot more than that."

Aki Ito is a chief correspondent at Business Insider.

• Job seekers may face 'love-bombing' from hiring managers during interviews.
• Love-bombing involves excessive praise to keep candidates interested without real intent.
• Experts advise setting expectations and keeping options open to avoid being manipulated.

If a hiring manager is excessively complimenting you and telling you you're the top candidate during an interview, you may be being "love-bombed."

The term originated as a way to describe the manipulative tactics some toxic people employ in romantic relationships to hook in their victims, showering them with affection, gifts, and promises for the future, only to later flip the script and show their real selves.

But the same pattern may apply to the workplace, too. Many job seekers complain of inconsistent behavior from hiring managers, CNBC reported, being flattered and praised one minute and ghosted the next.

"Love-bombing during job interviews happens all too often when recruiters or hiring managers want to keep you interested in them while they figure things out behind the scenes," Renee Barber, the global director of recruiting for TYR Talent Solutions who has over 20 years of experience in the recruitment industry, told Business Insider.

"They may overhype your chances to keep you interested," Barber said. "Especially if they're not ready to make a decision or they need to buy time without being direct about the actual situation."

Janine Chidlow, the managing director of EMEA at the global talent firm Wilson, told BI that love-bombing not only disrupts a candidate's career expectations "but also raises questions about organizational integrity and employer branding."

"This phenomenon isn't new," she said. "But its frequency and impact have surged."

How to recognize love-bombing

It's looking like the job market may see a boost next year. But white-collar hiring is still in a slump, with tech jobs being hit the hardest.

Love-bombing may serve as a "morale-booster" for both candidates and interviewers, Chidlow said.

Amanda Fischer, an executive leadership and career coach who is the founder of AMF Coaching & Consulting, said that some recruiters and hiring managers want everyone they are interviewing to feel optimistic about the role so they don't lose out on the best candidates.

They may also want to create a strong connection so the candidate to make them less likely to negotiate further.

"In this particular instance, that is a highly manipulative move," Fischer said.

It may not always be a scheme, though, and some recruiters and hiring managers may be love-bombing without realizing it.

"They could genuinely be excited about a candidate and might not see how the excessive compliments could backfire," Barber said.

There are plenty of ways to recognize love-bombing during the interview stages.

According to Barber, some signs are excessive compliments, like being told you're exactly what the company is looking for, or that you're the best candidate being interviewed, or being given unrealistic promises, such as if they talk about you "being a great fit for the team" or "starting soon" before they've actually made a decision.

Fischer told BI that pressure for a quick decision is also "a huge red flag."

"From my perspective, there are very few circumstances where you should accept a role the moment it's offered," Fischer said.

Barber agreed, adding that if there is a long delay or no communication after the interview, "it's a sign that the praise might have just been a way to keep you interested before they made their decision."

What to do about it

Love-bombing during the interview process is symptomatic of deeper issues in recruitment, Chidlow said.

"While it may yield short-term gains in market perception, the long-term costs — disillusioned candidates, damaged reputations, and high turnover — far outweigh the benefits," she said.

"By prioritizing transparency and respect, organizations can foster genuine connections with candidates, ensuring a healthier, more productive recruitment process."

If you think the person on the other end of the interview desk is love-bombing you, it's good to set expectations early, Barber said.

"Before you wrap up the interview, feel free to ask when you can expect to hear back and what the next steps are," she said. "This can help you keep track of the process and avoid getting strung along."

Barber also recommended following up after the interview, sending a thank-you email, and asking for feedback.

"This allows you to gauge whether the praise was sincere and whether the company is genuinely interested," she said.

"If something feels off, trust your instincts," Barber added. "If it all felt too polished or disconnected from your experience, be cautious."

Keeping your options open is also a good move because being in a stronger position yourself makes you less likely to fall for manipulative tricks.

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket," Barber said. "Otherwise, you could be waiting around for a response that might never come."

• A woman's creative out-of-office emails sparked debate on professionalism and workplace norms.
• Experts say OOO emails should reflect a company's culture.
• Legal and social issues can arise if OOOs don't align with employer expectations.

The backlash to a woman's creative out-of-office emails has caught the attention of TikTok and ignited a debate over how much personality to bring to work.

Thara Moise, better known as Chef Moise, is a TikTok creator and private chef who also works a regular 9-5 as a catering and sales manager.

In a recent TikTok, which amassed more than a million views, she said she had received the "same talking to" from her boss at her day job multiple times due to her "super cute" out-of-office emails.

The emails would include stories she'd made up, historical facts, or wellness tips.

"Tell me why I had another conversation with this man today about how unprofessional that is," Moise said, adding that she felt like her personality was being "smothered by corporate America."

"Am I wrong?" she asked.

Being creative can work

Some saw her creative automated emails as unprofessional, while others thought it was a sign that her workplace was stifling and restrictive.

"Imagine you sent an urgent email to someone and their automated response was a story instead of letting you know who to contact while they're out," read one comment, which received 21,000 likes.

Workplace analysts are also divided on the issue, saying it may all depend on the specifics of your office and the people in it.

Carla Bevins, an associate teaching professor of business management communication at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business in Pittsburgh, told Business Insider that OOO emails are an extension of workplace communication.

"While injecting personality can make them memorable, it's important to balance creativity with professionalism," she said.

However, Rich Mehta, the founder of the digital marketing agency Rigorous Digital, said that adding some personality into an OOO email could be beneficial in the right workplace setting.

"From the sendee's perspective, getting an OOO isn't usually a nice experience," he said. "Surprising someone with what can otherwise be a bit of a rubbish experience introduces dissonance, which usually means you'll be remembered."

Issues can arise

In more traditional workplaces, legal issues might arise.

Jo Mackie, a partner and employment law specialist at the law firm Burlingtons, told BI that inappropriate, offensive, or rude messages should never be tolerated, "but that begs the question of who decides what is and is not appropriate."

Raising the conversation three times shows that Moise should take notice, Mackie added, as failing to "follow a wilful management instruction" in employment law can potentially lead to disciplinary action, she said.

"If this continues, there is also scope for an employer to claim there has been a breakdown in trust and confidence between the employer and employee," she said. "And that is grounds for a breach of contract claim and may lead to dismissal."

Reading the room

Joelle Moray, a psychotherapist, workplace dynamics consultant, and the author of "What Are We Doing?! Radical Self-Care for the Hustle Culture," said that Moise's story is an example of the need to "get it right" rather than "being right."

Moray advises that individuals start by reading the room and deciding whether their workplace is more conservative or relaxed.

Then, they should take some time to consider who will read the email and why they want to add a casual tone or anecdote.

"Are you adding a wellness tip because you're the wellness committee chairperson?" she said. "Are you adding a historical factoid because you think they would be interested, or are you adding this so that you appear interesting?"

Moise told BI that she had found the response to her video funny for the most part, though some had veered into bullying or calling for her to be fired, which was "unnecessary," she said.

"Most people expressing negative thoughts are projecting their insecurities about being different or odd," she said. "I am incredibly accomplished on my own and have always navigated the workforce with ease."

Moise's workplace did not respond to a request for comment.