Career development

Stuart Harper

1d

I had a job interview last Wednesday. The HR person said they’d call me back in a few days. I know a week is normal to wait, but how long does it usually take to hear back? If they didn’t call soon, does that mean it’s a no? Thanks

1

Nyange benjamin
1h
Pray about it , so your file does not get lost or be disconsidered.
Once you get to the interview, another strategy is to be upfront: make a summary... of your strategies (what you said in the interview), put it in a beautiful slide, and share it with HR as a way to professionally reconnect with them by saying:
"Thank you for the opportunity you offered to attend the last interview. Here is a summary of my responses and strategy."
Something like that.
God be with you.
more
Rester Kabuku
1h
If they don't call back in time, that's a definite No.

Anonymous member

Career development

20h

I have been unemployed for two years. I've been searcing for work the whole time and only got two interviews. Both interviews went badly. I have lost confidence in my self and skills. How can I best keep my mind sharp and improve job seeking results

1

Nyange benjamin
1h
“Look beyond your skills and ask yourself: ‘What if I’m a recruiter?’
What should you look at in a profile?
Understand that the recruitment process is... not just one person making a decision — there is a team and different opinions. Most of them are outsiders and not directly linked to the job you’re looking for, so they will address general behavior and technical questions.
Make sure to put yourself in their shoes , not making yourself out to be the best, but asking: What does the organization need? What expectation of a candidate should I hire? What makes this candidate the best for them?
Know the job market is a competition , a shop where everyone wants to go. Treat it as a sugar market: everyone needs sugar, so it remains in short supply. Everyone is hungry who will go for it?
She’s starting to address these questions , not putting yourself in front, but looking to be part of a partnership. What would the recruiter like?
Also, if you are a Christian, keep it in prayer to seek God’s more
George Wildonger
2h
Another way to go is get a job in another field that does not need experience.

Career development

1h

Impact Career Growth Introduces Enhanced 'Impact Accelerator' Program to Support Corporate Professionals Navigating Competitive Job Market

If you are a Home delivery print subscriber, online access is included in your subscription. Activate your Online Access Now

The Impact Accelerator program moves beyond conventional career coaching approaches that often emphasize résumé updates and general networking advice. Instead, it offers a structured, campaign-based strategy that helps professionals connect more directly with hiring... decision-makers and executive search firms, bypassing the limitations of traditional online application processes.

"The reality is that many qualified professionals are not being seen, despite strong experience," said Andrea Tropeano, Founder of Impact Career Growth. "This program is designed to help individuals communicate their value , and engage directly with the right stakeholders in a more intentional and strategic way."

(In Frame: Andrea Tropeano, Founder of Impact Career Growth)

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:

https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/12386/295977_8dcae21c945839a4_001full.jpg

Delivered virtually to clients across the United States, the program has a 5-step framework - Focus, Prepare, Activate, Execute, and Land. The fast-track program combines resume development, LinkedIn optimization, interview preparation, and effective targeted outreach to improve response rates from decision makers. more

Career development

1h

Impact Career Growth Introduces Enhanced 'Impact Accelerator' Program to Support Corporate Professionals Navigating Competitive Job Market

The Impact Accelerator program moves beyond conventional career coaching approaches that often emphasize résumé updates and general networking advice. Instead, it offers a structured, campaign-based strategy that helps professionals connect more directly with hiring decision-makers and executive search firms, bypassing the limitations of traditional online application processes.

"The reality is... that many qualified professionals are not being seen, despite strong experience," said Andrea Tropeano, Founder of Impact Career Growth. "This program is designed to help individuals communicate their value , and engage directly with the right stakeholders in a more intentional and strategic way."

(In Frame: Andrea Tropeano, Founder of Impact Career Growth)

To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:

https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/12386/295977_8dcae21c945839a4_00 ...

Delivered virtually to clients across the United States, the program has a 5-step framework - Focus, Prepare, Activate, Execute, and Land. The fast-track program combines resume development, LinkedIn optimization, interview preparation, and effective targeted outreach to improve response rates from decision makers.

Tropeano brings vital and relevant perspectives to her work, drawing on experience in corporate recruiting, human resources, executive search, and career coaching. Having reviewed thousands of applications and collaborated closely with hiring managers, she offers insight into how candidates are evaluated, how applicant tracking systems filter profiles, and how shortlists are constructed.

"Understanding how hiring decisions are actually made allows professionals to approach their search more strategically," she noted. "It's not just about visibility, it's about relevance and timing."

In addition to the Impact Accelerator, the firm offers a career rediscovery program for professionals considering a career pivot or evaluating whether to stay in their current roles. The program includes a series of assessments and coaching sessions designed to help individuals gain clarity around their strengths, motivations, direction, and long-term career alignment. more

Career development

2h

Early-career employees explore what's N.E.X.T. in Aviation careers

To help early-career employees define their professional paths and expand their understanding of career options within Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, the Procurement Process Support Directorate, often referred to as BP, hosted the "What's N.E.X.T.?" career development briefing at Defense Supply Center Richmond.

N.E.X.T., which stands for Navigate, Excel, Xpand, Thrive, is a new initiative... designed to equip recent graduates of the Pathways to Career Excellence (PaCE) Program with tools and insights to shape their careers within the acquisition workforce.

The session brought together employees, hiring managers and subject matter experts to focus on three areas: self-awareness, team-building skills, and career path exploration. Participants identified personal strengths, refined their goals, and learned about varied roles available within their occupational series.

The morning began with an icebreaker activity aimed at networking among contract specialists and sparking conversations about individual career roadmaps. Sherry Mitchell, branch chief within Procurement Training Division, and Jennifer Deskins, senior analyst within Procurement Process Support, opened the session with presentations on aligning career plans with personality, interests, and values.

The team also created a personalized career development workbook for participants, encouraging ongoing self-reflection and skills tracking.

"The icebreaker game at the beginning was a great way to connect and hear about different career opportunities in an informal manner," said Julie Best, contract specialist within Strategic Acquisitions Division. "The slides and the information shared during the presentation were beneficial. I appreciate opportunities such as the N.E.X.T. Career Development Briefing as it provides action items if you are willing to take the information and utilize it. Being part of the PaCE program has provided me with so many opportunities for career development. There are so many wonderful people part of the program, and I know that is what drives the program's success. Throughout my entire time in the program, there was intentionality in the planning and a true respect and appreciation for feedback."

Gwendolyn Pearson and Alicia Jones, program managers within Procurement Process Support, spoke about certification and warrant requirements, providing insight into career progression within the acquisition field.

"My hope for career development is to see what options are presented, and that it doesn't restrict us to follow that one path, and this event was able to show just that," said Arjun Mandgi, contract administrator within OEM Post-Award Division.

Another key portion of the sessionincluded briefings from experienced hiring managers Rick Alexander, division chief of Strategic Acquisitions, and Floyd Moore, director of the Engineering Directorate. Both emphasized transparency in hiring practices and shared strategies for lateral and upward mobility.

"Sharing perspective with PaCErs as they enter Federal Service is an investment in the future workforce.Mentoring begins now as we prepare them to take our places someday," said Alexander. "Helping them get off on the right foot with realistic expectations, targeted career goals, and a commitment to expertise development is mutually beneficial to each individual and to the organization."

"Throughout my career, many people have taken time to mentor and develop me.Nothing good I have achieved has happened alone. I stand on the shoulders of greatness," he added. "This was an opportunity to pay it forward. It is a delight to share the journey with passionate and committed public servants at every stage of their career as we pull together to accomplish the mission."

Moore said he's "instilled with a sense of obligation to support and mentor colleagues," and "strives to fulfill that commitment daily."

The N.E.X.T. briefing is one of several efforts to build a culture of growth and professional development among early-career employees at DLA Aviation. more

Career development

2h

Will A.I. Make College Obsolete?

Jay Caspian Kang writes that more and more families may decided that college isn't worth the cost, amid the rise of A.I. and easily found information.

For the next few weeks of this column, I will dig into questions about the viability of the American university system. The pressures on higher education seem extraordinary, even to someone like me, who is generally convinced that real change is... rare, perhaps especially when it comes to America's tried-and-tested system for replicating its élites.

Private and state universities have had their funding cut by the Trump Administration, professors report rampant A.I. -assisted cheating by their students, and seemingly every week brings a new report about how nearly all entry-level white-collar jobs -- whether they're in consulting, insurance, finance, management, or the sciences -- will be replaced by friendly chatbots that may or may not someday destroy the world.

A recent survey found that more than one in four college students in America believe that their tuition was not a good investment, at a time when more than forty per cent of college graduates between the ages of twenty-two and twenty-seven hold a job that does not require a college degree. According to Pew, seven in ten Americans think that the "higher education system in the United States is going in the wrong direction," with most respondents expressing concern about the high price of tuition.

With all this happening, should I continue to contribute to my children's 529s? The short, easy, and most likely correct answer is yes -- I should assume that, when my nine-year-old reaches high school, she will go through the familiar gantlet of academic competition and spend much of her time building a résumé for college-admissions committees. I should also assume that the cost of whatever college she attends will not come down during the next nine years.

The university system in America has survived worse than A.I. : pandemics, wars, campus unrest, massive open online courses, the internet. If colleges seem impervious to revolutions in information technology, is it possibly because their actual appeal has less to do with the transfer of knowledge than their administrators might want to admit? As the economist Bryan Caplan has observed, "The main function of education is not to teach useful skills , but to certify students' employability.

By and large, the reason our customers are on campus is to credibly show, or 'signal,' their intelligence, work ethic, and sheer conformity. " As long as college remains a way for upwardly mobile kids to stand out from one another, and as long as employers believe that a better college degree is a sign of a better potential worker, the American university system should survive, even if teaching methods change.

Nonetheless, it seems a bit odd that, when it comes to predictions about our A.I. future, which typically range from friendly revolution to organ-harvesting apocalypse, declarations about higher education have been relatively mellow. Granted, many of the commentators offering these predictions are employed by traditional universities, and might tend to believe more strongly in the enduring relevance of the academy. There are exceptions: the OpenAI C.E.

O. Sam Altman has suggested that his own kid might not attend college; Howard Gardner, a psychology professor at Harvard, recently surmised that A.I. will significantly shorten the time children need to be in school. But the consensus is that college will still exist in ten or twenty or thirty years, a forecast that, for a parent of two staring down future tuition bills, is a bit disappointing.

Even some pundits who are open to A.I. as a major development agree that higher education isn't going anywhere. Tyler Cowen, for instance, Caplan's colleague in George Mason University's economics department, has argued that more instruction time should be devoted to A.I. in American classrooms -- and mused that A.I. might help students better understand the Odyssey -- but maintains that the traditional subjects and pedagogy of higher education should largely remain intact.

Sal Khan, the founder of the free online-learning service Khan Academy, has launched a partnership with TED and the Educational Testing Service called the Khan TED Institute, which aims to provide a "world-class higher education accessible throughout the world at a radically low cost. " But Khan doesn't see his latest venture as a wholesale replacement for the brick-and-mortar university; he has described it as a reasonably priced alternative that can keep pace with a world that is changing "very, very fast.

" Scott Galloway, a professor, a popular podcaster, and perhaps the most influential public voice on the value of a university education, has declared that "this narrative that A.I. is going to destroy higher education is such ridiculous bullshit.

" Higher education could drastically change soon, he says, if tech giants start partnering with prestigious universities to expand their enrollment through online degrees, thereby effectively shutting down hundreds of smaller, private colleges. But those changes would be driven by supply and demand, rather than a fundamental shift in opinion about whether it's still good to go somewhere, in person, to learn things.

I don't believe that these thinkers are necessarily wrong to dismiss the idea that enormous changes will come to higher education during the next two decades; as long as Americans want to distinguish their children from other children, the hierarchical college system will prevail. But these defenses of higher education feel almost performatively cynical, especially for an institution that has traditionally draped itself in high-flown sentiment about the pursuit of truth and the shaping of young minds, or whatever.

I also wonder if the skeptics might be overstating the power of inertia, especially at a time of extremely low public trust in all institutions, not just those of higher education.

In the world of prestige media that includes The New Yorker, for example, it has long been much harder to break in without an Ivy League degree, and that remains the case; but the draw of working at a legacy-media institution has also never been weaker. Would a fifteen-year-old hellbent on a journalism career be best served by working himself to the bone both academically and extracurricularly to get into Harvard, or should he just start a Twitch stream and get to work?

Reasonable people can disagree about that. But I feel certain that most of the ambitious fifteen-year-olds who already know what they want to do these days would choose the self-made option -- particularly if they come from families that can't easily afford college tuition, let alone thousands of dollars in supplemental application prep.

A.I. might not factor directly into such a decision for an aspiring reporter, but the already impressive abilities of large language models to hone research, approximate historical knowledge, and target potential sources would soften any disadvantages that this hypothetical student might suffer from skipping college. Perhaps this ambitious teen would be more susceptible to the algorithmic and predictive gutters of these machines -- when the A.I. companies set the guidelines for what the L.L.

M. says back, you will always be receiving their version of the truth -- but professors and college curricula also have their gutters, some of which are far deeper than what you'll find at the bottom of Claude. Can college really be laid so bare and survive?

Will the roughly sixty per cent of recent high-school graduates who invest in higher education still see the value of it if they come to believe -- rightly or wrongly -- that the whole knowledge part of college has been replaced by an agreeable chatbot? Our hypothetical ambitious fifteen-year-old is exceptional, of course, and certainly not the bellwether for today's disaffection about higher education.

Few teen-agers know what they want to do in life, and it's not always good for kids of that age to limit their choices. What I find concerning, however, is that so many other white-collar industries and professions -- finance, consulting, the law -- are even more institutional in their thinking than the media is.

They, too, are held in low esteem by the public, and that decline in trust has frayed the traditional line of thinking that you should join one storied institution, a university, to later work at another. If we agree that college primarily serves a credentialling process that stamps select young people as worthy of work, and, if we agree that A.I. helps to expose it as such, might we not conclude that, at some point, people will collectively stop paying into the system, or will start seeking out other, less expensive credentials?

I do not think that A.I. will singlehandedly destroy college. But I do think that it will accelerate an already growing disillusionment with higher education. In 2013, seventy-four per cent of eighteen-to-thirty-four-year-olds polled by Gallup said that a college education was "very important.

" By 2019, three years before the public adoption of ChatGPT, that number had dropped to forty-three per cent; it fell again, in 2025, to thirty-five per cent, a decline that represented the steepest drop among all age groups that were surveyed. This drop might level off at some point, simply because most things regress to previous norms.

But I cannot come up with any reason why the trend would reverse direction without radical changes to cost and access at the types of élite colleges that facilitate class mobility. What seems likely is a winner-takes-all scenario, in which the élite schools and flagship state universities survive on account of their cultural, financial, and reputational advantages, while other schools die out, leading to either a huge expansion in enrollment among the survivors or a steady drop in the number of young people who seek out a four-year degree.

That may be a good outcome, but the gospel that I grew up with -- the idea that everyone should get a college education not only for upward mobility but also to explore reading, thinking, and writing for their own sake -- will be dead. The future of college as we know it may rely on the ability of people who have a stake in the credentialling economy to convince the youth that there is still value in classroom instruction, in writing papers without A.I. assistance, in talking to imperfect humans about misshapen ideas.

But they will be making this case to a generation of students who learned many things -- skateboarding, the piano, cooking -- from YouTube, and who have been able to ask Claude to assist them in every academic endeavor they've undertaken. Who will be the most receptive audience for this sales pitch? Probably those who trust institutions the most, and who can sacrifice some efficiency for an outdated but fancy stamp of approval -- in other words, the children of the wealthy and educated.

But, when you consider that the vast majority of students at élite private colleges -- which is to say, this same group -- already use A.I. in nearly all aspects of their academic lives, it can seem as though this fight has already been lost. College will still exist as a place -- or, at least, as a website or app -- that employers will use to distinguish one applicant from another.

But will it still look the way it does today, with thousands of campuses around the country, of varying reputation, quality, financial health, and philosophical missions? We'll get into all that next week. ♦

Higher Education College

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Live Updates for No. 20 Boston College Baseball's Rubber Match at ClemsonThe Eagles and the Tigers split the first two games of the series.

Read more "

Jacksonville 14-year-old graduating high school early, earns 90+ college offersJACKSONVILLE, Fla.

Read more "

Bard College's president to retire after scrutiny of relationship with Jeffrey EpsteinDocuments released by the Justice Department showed that Leon Botstein met and communicated with the sex offender on numerous occasions.

Read more "

No. 20 Boston College Baseball Gives up Late Lead, Suffers Series Loss at ClemsonThe Tigers have now beaten the Eagles in a series 17 straight times.

Read more "

Ravens Rookie RB Adam Randall Shares Story Behind Position Switch in CollegeThe Baltimore Ravens newest dynamic weapon made a selfless sacrifice for the sake of his team as a senior and it paid off major dividends for both sides.

Read more " more

Career development

4h

Don't chose 11 am slot for an interview, says a career consultant. Google Gemini mostly agrees and gives the reason

Job interview anxiety is common. Career coach Simon Ingari suggests avoiding 11 am interview slots. He believes interviewers may be tired or distracted then. Some internet users agree, preferring mid-afternoon slots. However, other users and AI models like ChatGPT disagree. They argue 11 am can be a peak productivity time for interviewers.

Job interview anxiety is something almost every... professional experiences, whether it's preparing for tough questions, waiting nervously for your turn, or managing stress during the actual conversation. From sleepless nights and overthinking resumes to second-guessing answers and fearing rejection, interview stress can feel overwhelming. The pressure to impress recruiters while staying confident often makes the process mentally exhausting. But do you know that n today's competitive job market, even choosing the right interview time can influence performance? Career coach Simon Ingari echoes a similar sentiment in one of his latest X-posts.

In the post, which received over 14 million views, Simon Ingari made a rather bold claim, stating that when an HR representative of a company asks a candidate to choose an interview time, job-seekers must avoid the 11 am slot. His surprising advice has received several comments, forcing many to rethink their interview strategy.

One user speculated that by 11 am, HR professionals are often already drained from back-to-back morning meetings, overflowing inboxes, and workplace demands. With lunchtime approaching, they may struggle to focus entirely on a candidate, potentially affecting the interview dynamic. Suggesting that mid-afternoon may be a better choice, the user recommended opting for a 3 pm slot instead, when interviewers could be more settled and attentive.

'11:00 AM is dangerous. You are basically being judged by someone whose coffee has worn off and lunch has not arrived,' agreed another. Unable to understand Simon Ingari's advice, an individual asked, 'Why avoid 11:00? something about timing or energy levels around then?' Begging to differ, someone else noted that if a candidate is confident and well-prepared, they have the potential to crack an interview at anytime of the day, be it 11 am or 11 pm.

The hunger factor: By 11:00 AM, interviewers may already feel mental fatigue after hours of decision-making, while hunger and approaching lunch can reduce patience, focus, and mood -- potentially making them more rushed or irritable during your interview.

Mid-morning pileup: Around 11:00 AM, unfinished meetings, urgent tasks, or workplace issues often build up, leaving interviewers distracted or pressured by pending responsibilities instead of being fully engaged in evaluating you.

Serial position effect: Psychologically, candidates interviewed first or last are often remembered best. The 11:00 AM slot can fall into the less memorable middle, where you risk being overshadowed and associated with pre-lunch distraction.

Peak productivity window: By 11:00 AM, many interviewers are fully alert, settled into their workday, and past early-morning distractions, allowing for sharper focus, better engagement, and more thoughtful evaluation than rushed first-slot interviews.

Avoiding early chaos: Unlike early morning slots, 11:00 AM often comes after inbox checks, team updates, or urgent priorities are handled, meaning interviewers may be more present and less distracted during your conversation.

Balanced timing advantage: Positioned before lunch but after the day stabilizes, 11:00 AM can offer a practical middle ground, avoiding both morning grogginess and late-day fatigue while giving candidates enough preparation time. more

R R

Career development

6d

I have two jobs, sales b2b and life insurance and cannot make one sale either way. Any suggestions?

2

Jordan Stroud
4h
is more
Jordan Stroud
4h
Get into building online businesses instead of over the phone. Build a website for it and people are far more likely to spend far more time on it... than conversation, because a phone or computer is not only theirs, but is faster than interfacing with the real world and they can go at their own pace. more

Career development

5h

Top Employee Engagement Strategies for 2026

Have you ever watched your team drift through the workday, going through the motions but not really present? People scroll past emails without reading them. Meetings feel like a waste of time. Productivity drops, morale sinks, and you can tell something is off, but you can't quite pinpoint what needs to change. Here's the good news: you can fix this.

Recent research shows that companies with... strong employee engagement strategies see 21 percent higher profitability than their competitors. That's a massive difference. Engaged workers stay longer, produce better work, and genuinely care about where the company is headed.

They become your best advocates, telling friends and colleagues how great your workplace is. This post walks you through the most effective employee engagement strategies for 2026. You'll find practical steps to boost morale, sharpen communication, and build a place where people actually want to show up.

What Is Employee Engagement?

Employee engagement means your team members care about their work and your company's success. Engaged employees show up with energy, put in real effort, and stick around longer. They feel connected to their jobs, their coworkers, and the organization's mission. This connection goes beyond collecting a paycheck. It's about finding meaning in what they do each day.

According to February 2026 polling data from Gallup, just 31% of U.S. full-time employees are actively engaged at work. That's an 11-year low, down from 36% in 2020. It means that nearly 70% of your workforce may be disengaged or quietly quitting right now.

That's a serious problem, but it also shows just how much room there is to improve. Here's what an engaged employee actually looks like in practice:

* They bring energy and focus to their work each day

* They care about team goals, not just personal tasks

* They stay longer and contribute more to organizational culture

* They speak positively about your company to people outside it

Think of engagement as the spark that ignites workforce motivation and job satisfaction. Your staff retention rates climb when people feel valued and heard. Engaged employees collaborate better, communicate more openly, and deliver stronger results across the board.

Why Is Employee Engagement Important?

Engaged workers drive real results. They show up ready to contribute, they care about quality, and they stick around longer than disengaged staff. When your team feels connected to their work and valued by leadership, productivity soars. Staff retention improves because people don't leave jobs they actually enjoy.

Morale lifts across departments, and collaboration happens naturally. Motivation flows from genuine investment in the work itself, not just from paychecks. Companies that prioritize employee engagement see their bottom line improve because focused workers accomplish more in less time.

Disengagement costs money, plain and simple. A March 2026 analysis by Paycor reveals that low employee engagement costs U.S. companies approximately $2 trillion in lost productivity every year. That's not a soft HR metric. It's a massive financial hit that touches every level of the business.

When talented people walk out the door, turnover expenses pile up fast. Lost productivity hits hard when workers go through the motions without real commitment. Poor communication and lack of recognition create frustration that spreads quickly through teams. Career development stalls, and your best performers start looking elsewhere for growth. Performance management becomes reactive instead of proactive. Job satisfaction drops, absenteeism rises, and quality dips.

* Recruiting and training new staff drains time and money

* Disengaged workers drag down team morale

* Poor recognition leads to high turnover

* Lack of feedback blocks career growth

* Leadership gaps multiply performance problems

Organizations that ignore employee engagement spend all their energy recruiting, training, and rebuilding their workforce. The cost of replacing a single employee often reaches thousands of dollars. Engagement strategies are simply smart business.

Key Benefits of Employee Engagement

When you invest in employee engagement, your organization gains stronger productivity, holds onto talented staff longer, watches employee mental health improve, and sees profits climb.

Increased productivity

Engaged employees work harder, faster, and smarter. They bring real energy to their jobs, which lifts workplace productivity to new heights. Staff retention improves when workers feel valued. This stability creates momentum. Your team gets more done in less time because people genuinely care about their work.

Workplace productivity soars when leaders foster team collaboration and open communication strategies. Employees who receive regular feedback know exactly what success looks like, so they hit targets with confidence.

"Engaged employees produce better results because they care about what they do."

Career development opportunities keep people sharp. Job satisfaction rises when workers have autonomy over how they complete tasks. Performance management systems that feel fair encourage people to bring their best selves to work every day. Your bottom line benefits when you prioritize employee satisfaction and empowerment across the organization.

Higher employee retention

Productivity gains mean nothing if your best people walk out the door. Staff retention directly ties to your bottom line, since replacing workers costs money and time. Companies that invest in employee satisfaction see their teams stick around longer. Strong job satisfaction keeps talented staff from jumping ship to competitors. Your workforce motivation skyrockets when people feel valued and heard at work.

Career development opportunities lock in your top performers for years to come. Employees who see clear paths forward stay put, build greater skills, and contribute more to organizational culture.

* Recognition practices show staff that leadership values their growth

* Mentorship programs build deeper connections and skills

* High retention cuts hiring costs significantly

* Long-tenured employees carry institutional knowledge that money can't replace

Improved mental wellness

Keeping your team happy at work directly impacts their mental health and job satisfaction. Employees who feel valued and supported show up with better morale and less stress. Strong retention rates mean workers stay longer, build deeper relationships with colleagues, and develop a real sense of belonging. This stability creates a foundation where mental wellness can actually flourish.

Your staff experience lower anxiety when they know their jobs are secure and their contributions matter. Mental health struggles drop when people feel heard through open communication and honest feedback. Career development opportunities give workers a sense of purpose and control over their futures. By supporting mental wellness, you build a workplace culture where people genuinely want to show up and perform at their best.

Enhanced organizational profitability

Engaged employees drive your bottom line straight up. When staff members feel valued, they produce more in less time. They make fewer mistakes. They stay longer. All of this cuts costs and boosts profits. Staff retention alone saves money on hiring and training. Productivity gains mean you get more output from your current workforce.

Here's what that looks like in practice:

* Fewer costly hiring cycles each year

* Higher output without adding headcount

* Stronger financial results from motivated teams

* Less rework and fewer quality errors

Companies with high employee satisfaction report stronger financial results year after year. Profitability grows when you invest in your people's career development and wellbeing.

Recognition and appreciation programs cost little but deliver big returns. Workforce motivation directly impacts your ability to compete in tough markets. Your organizational culture becomes a real asset when people want to show up and do their best work every single day.

Common Challenges in Employee Engagement Strategies

Even the best employee engagement strategies fail when leaders don't back them up or when teams can't communicate clearly. Companies often stumble because they don't recognize hard work, or they design jobs that leave people feeling stuck and powerless.

Lack of leadership support

Leadership support makes or breaks employee engagement efforts. Without buy-in from top management, engagement strategies crumble fast. Leaders who fail to champion workplace motivation send a clear message to staff: this doesn't matter. Employees pick up on that signal fast. They notice when executives skip town halls, ignore feedback, or refuse to invest in career development programs.

Weak leadership creates a culture where morale tanks, retention suffers, and organizational health deteriorates. According to the 2026 Predictions Report by Perceptyx, poor management drives turnover risk up by four times and costs U.S. businesses approximately $408 billion annually. That number is impossible to ignore.

Managers hold the keys to workforce motivation and job satisfaction. They shape daily interactions, model company values, and decide whether to support team collaboration or shut it down.

When leaders don't actively promote employee recognition or champion work design improvements, engagement scores plummet. Staff feel invisible and undervalued. The ripple effect spreads across departments.

* Performance management becomes inconsistent across teams

* Talent development stalls across the organization

* Workers stop believing their voices count

* Teams lose confidence in their direction

Leaders must show up, listen hard, and back their words with action and real resources.

Ineffective communication

Broken communication lines kill employee engagement faster than almost anything else. Managers fail to share company goals clearly, so workers feel lost and disconnected from the bigger picture.

Teams don't understand what leadership expects, feedback gets lost in translation, and rumors fill the gaps left by silence. This lack of transparency creates confusion, breeds frustration, and tanks morale across the entire workforce. Employees start to doubt whether their work matters, and motivation takes a nosedive.

Poor communication strategies also block career development and job satisfaction. Staff members don't know about internal mobility opportunities because announcements never reach them. Recognition gets buried in email chains nobody reads.

* Performance management becomes a guessing game without clear expectations

* Collaboration breaks down when roles feel disconnected

* Disengagement spreads when silence replaces transparency

* Top talent leaves for workplaces that communicate openly

The result: employees disengage, productivity drops, and your best talent walks out the door looking for a workplace that actually talks to them.

Poor recognition practices

Poor recognition practices create a massive gap between what employees do and what leaders acknowledge. When staff members work hard but hear nothing back, their motivation takes a nosedive. Managers often skip praise because they assume good work speaks for itself, or they simply forget to say thank you. This silence damages morale fast. Employees start feeling invisible, undervalued, and disconnected from their jobs.

Your best talent walks out the door looking for appreciation elsewhere. Recognition programs that lack authenticity or consistency fail even harder. Staff members see through fake praise or rewards that feel random and meaningless.

Strong recognition practices flip this script entirely. Leaders who celebrate wins, big and small, build workforce motivation that sticks. Personalization matters here. A sincere note about someone's specific contribution hits very differently than a generic email to the whole team.

* Tie recognition to specific behaviors and results

* Mix public praise with private acknowledgment based on individual preferences

* Make recognition consistent, not just a once-a-year event

* Connect appreciation to career development opportunities where possible

Your organizational culture transforms when recognition becomes part of how your team operates, not an afterthought tacked on at the annual review.

The Most Effective Employee Engagement Strategies for 2026

Companies that want their teams to thrive in 2026 need smart, practical strategies that actually deliver results. Here's what works.

Start with well-designed surveys

Well-designed surveys form the foundation of any strong employee engagement strategy. Your team members hold the answers you need, and surveys give them a voice to share their thoughts, concerns, and ideas. Ask specific questions about job satisfaction, workplace productivity, team collaboration, and organizational culture. Keep surveys short and straightforward so employees actually complete them without frustration.

The data you collect becomes your roadmap for improvement, showing you exactly where morale stands and what changes matter most to your workforce motivation. Act on what your surveys reveal. Employees notice when leaders ignore feedback, and that kills engagement fast. Share the results with your team, explain what you learned, and outline concrete steps you'll take based on their input.

This transparency builds trust and shows your staff that their voices shape real decisions. Different departments may need different support, so dig into the data by team.

Performance management improves when you ground it in actual employee perspectives rather than assumptions. Surveys become powerful tools for career development conversations and recognition practices when you use them thoughtfully.

Foster workplace autonomy

Giving your team members control over their work creates powerful motivation. Autonomy means employees make decisions about how they complete tasks, which projects they tackle, and when they work best.

This approach builds job satisfaction because people feel trusted and valued. Your staff takes ownership of their results when you step back from micromanaging. Productivity rises naturally when workers shape their own workflow.

Managers who grant workplace autonomy see real shifts in workforce motivation and performance. Your team members develop stronger skills because they solve problems independently. They feel more connected to their work when they have real control.

This freedom reduces stress and supports a better work-life balance. Staff retention improves because people stay longer at companies where they feel genuinely empowered.

Establish mentorship programs

Mentorship programs light a fire under workforce motivation by pairing experienced employees with newer team members. Senior staff share knowledge, offer guidance, and help junior employees navigate career paths. This type of talent development builds stronger connections across your organization. Employees feel valued when someone invests time in their growth. Mentors gain leadership experience and fresh perspectives from their mentees.

Both parties develop skills that boost workplace productivity and job satisfaction. Your team members see clear pathways for advancement, which keeps morale high and reduces turnover.

* Match mentors and mentees based on career goals and skills

* Schedule regular check-ins to track progress and address challenges early

* Let mentees gain hands-on experience through real projects

* Recognize mentors publicly for investing in others' growth

Employees who participate in mentorship programs report higher engagement levels and greater job satisfaction. Your organization builds a pipeline of prepared leaders ready to take on bigger roles. These relationships transform how people view their future with your company.

Encourage employee recognition and appreciation

Mentorship programs plant seeds for growth, yet recognition waters those seeds and helps them flourish. Employees thrive when their hard work gets noticed and celebrated. Recognition doesn't have to be fancy or expensive. A simple thank you, a shout-out in a team meeting, or a small bonus can lift morale sky-high. Staff retention improves when workers feel valued, and job satisfaction climbs when people know their efforts matter.

Appreciation comes in many forms, and personalization makes it stick. Based on Snappy's 2026 Workforce Study of U.S. employees, while 70% of companies have recently increased their recognition efforts, 73% of employees say recognition only feels genuine when it is highly personalized. Generic praise misses the mark. Specific, thoughtful acknowledgment is what actually moves people.

Some team members love public praise, while others prefer private acknowledgment. AI tools now help managers track accomplishments and suggest timely recognition moments, which takes the guesswork out of performance management.

When you tie recognition to specific behaviors and results, employees understand exactly what drives success in your organization. This approach builds stronger team collaboration, boosts workplace productivity, and creates a culture where people genuinely want to show up and do their best work.

Recognition programs that connect to career development opportunities make the impact even stronger, turning appreciation into real pathways for growth.

Promote internal mobility opportunities

Your staff members want to grow, and internal mobility gives them that chance. When employees see career paths within your organization, they stay longer and work harder.

According to 2026 workplace retention data from LinkedIn, employees at organizations with strong internal mobility stay an average of 5.4 years, compared to just 2.9 years at companies without it. That's an extra 2.5 years of experience, institutional knowledge, and productivity you keep in-house.

Companies that support staff retention through internal promotions cut turnover costs significantly. Let workers move between departments, take on new roles, and build fresh skills. This approach strengthens your organizational culture while filling positions with people who already know your company.

* Map out which roles connect to each other across departments

* Share internal opportunities openly through your communication channels

* Highlight the success stories of staff who advanced internally

* Give employees time to explore new skills before committing to a role change

When people see their colleagues climb the ladder, they believe advancement is possible for them too. That belief is powerful for workforce motivation and long-term job satisfaction.

Prioritize employee well-being and work-life balance

Your workforce thrives when they have time to recharge outside the office. Employees who maintain a healthy work-life balance show stronger job satisfaction and deliver better workplace productivity.

Companies that support wellbeing initiatives see staff retention rates climb significantly. Offering flexible schedules, remote work options, and reasonable workload expectations sends a clear message: your team members matter as people, not just workers.

Here are some well-being initiatives that make a real difference:

* Mental health resources and access to counseling support

* Wellness days and fitness program stipends

* Flexible start and finish times, where the role allows

* Regular workload check-ins to prevent burnout

Leadership development starts with leaders who model a good balance themselves. Showing that stepping away from work is not laziness, but a necessity, sends a powerful signal to your team.

Burnout kills motivation faster than almost anything else. Addressing workload and stress becomes critical for performance management. Collaboration improves when people feel rested and valued. Praise rings hollow if workers are exhausted. Organizations that invest in workforce motivation through wellness programs see teams communicate more openly and work together more effectively. This approach creates loyalty that lasts.

Emphasize transparent communication

Transparent communication forms the backbone of strong organizational health. Leaders who share information openly build trust with their teams. Employees feel valued when they know what's happening, why decisions get made, and how their work matters. This openness cuts through workplace confusion and reduces the rumor mill that spreads fast in offices.

Teams collaborate better when everyone has the same facts. Managers should communicate strategy, changes, and goals in plain language. Avoid corporate jargon that leaves people scratching their heads. When staff understand the big picture, they stay motivated and engaged.

* Town halls keep everyone aligned on the company's direction

* One-on-one meetings build trust and surface concerns early

* Anonymous suggestion tools give quieter voices a channel

* Regular team updates prevent rumors and fill information gaps

Feedback flows both ways in transparent cultures. Your team members need to hear from you, but you also need to hear from them. Create channels where employees can speak up without fear. Staff retention improves when people feel heard and respected. Your workforce motivation soars when transparency replaces secrecy. People perform better when they trust their leadership and know exactly where they stand.

Offer continuous learning and growth opportunities

Your team grows when you invest in their skills. Companies that offer continuous learning programs see higher job satisfaction and stronger staff retention rates.

Employees want career development paths, not dead-end jobs. Provide access to online courses, workshops, and certification programs that match your workers' goals. Let your people take time during work hours to learn new skills. This shows them you value their growth, and they repay that investment with better performance and loyalty.

Growth opportunities come in many forms, so mix them up:

* Pair junior staff with experienced mentors for talent development

* Rotate employees into different roles for broader experience

* Host lunch-and-learn sessions where team members share knowledge

* Offer tuition reimbursement for degrees or professional certifications

When employees see a clear path forward, their motivation climbs, and workplace productivity soars. These strategies build a culture where people feel empowered to reach higher. That energy spreads across your entire workforce.

How to Measure the Success of Employee Engagement Strategies

You'll want to track how your employee engagement strategies perform so you can spot what works and what needs fixing.

Use employee feedback surveys

Employee feedback surveys act as your organization's listening device. They give workers a real voice in how things run, and they show staff that leadership actually cares about their thoughts. Surveys reveal what drives your team, what frustrates them, and where they see growth opportunities. Companies that deploy regular feedback surveys see higher job satisfaction scores and stronger organizational health.

Make your surveys short and simple so employees actually complete them. Ask clear questions about work design, team collaboration, and career development opportunities. Track the feedback over time to measure real shifts in morale and motivation.

Act on what you learn, then tell your team what changes you made based on their input. This cycle of listening, acting, and reporting back builds trust. It shows workers that their voice shapes the workplace.

Track retention and turnover rates

Tracking retention and turnover rates gives you a clear picture of your staff retention strategy's real impact. Your turnover rate tells you what percentage of workers leave your company each year, while retention metrics show you who stays.

Pull these numbers every quarter to spot trends early. If your retention drops, you know something needs to change fast. High turnover costs money through recruitment, training, and lost productivity. Low turnover means your workplace productivity stays strong and your organizational culture remains stable.

Your data reveals which departments struggle most with keeping talent. Compare your turnover rates against industry standards to see if you're ahead or behind. Track which employees leave after six months versus those who stick around for years.

This performance management insight helps you fix problems in your onboarding or work design. When retention improves, your job satisfaction scores typically climb, too. Your team collaboration strengthens as people build longer relationships with coworkers.

Assess productivity metrics

Productivity metrics tell you what your workforce actually accomplishes. You can measure output per employee, project completion rates, sales figures, or customer service response times.

These numbers reveal whether your engagement strategies move the needle on real business results. Pull data from your project management tools, sales systems, and performance tracking software. Compare these metrics before and after you launch new engagement initiatives.

Your team's performance management system should track individual and team contributions. Look at the quality of work, not just the quantity. An employee might complete ten tasks, but did they complete them well?

Higher productivity often signals that your workforce motivation is climbing and your staff retention efforts are working. These metrics connect directly to organizational health and your bottom line, making them essential for measuring whether your employee engagement strategies deliver real value.

Final Thoughts

You now have a clear picture of the core strategies that drive employee engagement in 2026, from well-designed surveys to transparent communication that builds real trust across your organization. These approaches work because they center on what employees actually want: recognition, growth opportunities, and genuine work-life balance that respects their personal lives.

Start small. Pick one or two strategies that fit your company culture, then measure results through retention rates and feedback surveys to see what sticks. Your team members perform better when they feel valued, heard, and supported in their career development.

Ask yourself right now: which strategy could you launch this month to show your workforce you care about their wellbeing and job satisfaction? Your people are your greatest asset. When you fuel their motivation through collaboration and empowerment, your entire business transforms.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Employee Engagement Strategies

1. What are the most effective employee engagement strategies for 2026?

Focus on open communication, flexible work options, and regular feedback. A 2025 Gallup study found that companies with flexible work arrangements report 21% higher engagement scores.

2. How can managers boost employee motivation in 2026?

Set clear goals and recognize good work often. When you celebrate small wins, motivation stays high.

3. Why does employee engagement matter for business success?

Engaged workers are more productive, stay longer, and contribute better ideas. According to a 2024 Gallup report, highly engaged teams show 23% higher profitability.

4. How can companies measure employee engagement levels?

Run short surveys, track turnover rates, and hold regular one-on-one check-ins. Tools like Culture Amp help you measure engagement quickly. When you act on what you learn, trust grows fast. more

Career development

6h

He Couldn't Land a Job Interview. Was AI to Blame?

Even recruiters will admit it's fair to wonder. The CEO of a hiring platform said last fall that his industry is in "an AI doom loop": HR departments complain of a wave of AI-generated job applications, prompting the need for more AI filters. Applicants complain they're getting unfairly filtered out. Some fight AI with AI, filling their résumés and cover letters with buzzwords. "It feels very... dystopian to me," one job seeker told researchers from Northeastern University. "My worthiness as a human and as an employee, as a worker, is based on my ability to filter myself through a series of automated gateways."

Only a handful of states have regulated the use of AI screening tools to make hiring decisions. Laws in Illinois, New Jersey, and Colorado (not yet in effect) prohibit employers from using discriminatory tools, but mandate little in the way of transparency beyond requiring employers to notify applicants that AI is being used. California's regulations are more robust, requiring employers to regularly test their AI hiring tools for bias. But none of those rules empower an individual to understand how a particular AI hiring tool judged them, or whether it discriminated against them.

So Markey went to work on an impossible task. He would spend the next six months writing emails, research papers, legal requests, and a constant stream of Python code, trying to peer inside the AI screener. "It turned into obsession," Markey told WIRED in February. "I don't think I've ever been this upset before in my life."

Markey's first medical training came in high school, when he sorted through the gallon ziplock bag where his father kept his prescription medications, recorded the names, and went to the local community college library to research their purposes. His dad was bipolar and addicted to alcohol, a charismatic, unpredictable ball of energy capable of showing great love and causing great pain.

One Christmas, which is also Markey's birthday, his father didn't show up because he'd been arrested for drunk driving. Another Christmas, Markey looked out the front window to find his truck being repossessed because his father had put it up as collateral for a payday loan. While Markey was away at college on Pell Grants, his family was forced to declare bankruptcy and lost their house. When he was 21, his father died.

Markey can recall the moment he became interested in pursuing psychiatry. It was when his father explained why he started drinking so heavily: In manic periods he would go days without sleeping, and the only thing that could force his eyes closed was a fifth of vodka. "It's just so sad to think if I said, 'Hey, let's go to a psychiatrist and get a low-dose Seroquel prescription and just have you sleep and address some of your mania,' like who knows what would happen?"

Markey had been preparing for a career on Wall Street. But after that conversation with his dad, he took a job in health care informatics and made plans to go to medical school. The summer before he started at Dartmouth in 2019, the stiffness he'd experienced in his back since he was a teenager grew worse and his pelvis began to feel like a cement block. By the end of his second year of school, Markey was laid flat by ankylosing spondylitis. He took a leave of absence, going from doctor to doctor seeking treatments that would allow him to continue with school.

During that same time, the Covid-19 pandemic was roiling the medical profession. Among myriad challenges, hospitals saw a massive increase in the number of applications for their residency programs. Prior to the pandemic, students typically had to travel to each hospital for interviews. When interviews went virtual, they could apply to dozens more programs than before. Markey applied to 82.

That surge has made it harder for hospitals to sort through and prioritize applications. In 2023, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) announced a partnership with Thalamus, the maker of a screening tool for residency applications called Cortex. Starting in 2025, the tool would be free to use for residency programs. more

Career development

6h

He Couldn't Land a Job Interview. Was AI to Blame?

Career development

6h

Medical School Applicant Suspects AI Bias in Residency Rejections

A medical school graduate with strong credentials suspects an AI screening tool may be unfairly impacting his chances of securing a residency, leading him to investigate the issue after receiving only rejections despite a competitive application.

Instead, Markey was alone in his apartment, deep down a rabbit hole, preparing to go to war. He'd wake each morning, eat breakfast, open his laptop at... the kitchen table or settle into the tan armchair with the good back support, and start coding.

Some days, he wouldn't notice the sun had gone down until one of his roommates came home and asked why the lights weren't on. For days, Markey had been scrolling through a Discord group about medical residency, a font of crowdsourced knowledge where students report back to their peers on every stage of the application and selection process. He'd watched as other students, lots of them, posted about the interview invitations they'd received.

Markey didn't have any interview offers, only outright rejections. That seemed not just odd but wrong to the quiet-mannered 33-year-old from Houston, Texas, who speaks confidently about his accomplishments without bragging. He had good grades from an Ivy League medical school, author credits on articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet, a heart-wrenching personal statement, and glowing letters of recommendation.

One professor wrote that they had "never met a medical student who is more skillful, talented, and appropriately situated in his pursuit of the field of medicine than Chad. " Markey combed through his application looking for a fatal flaw. He didn't find anything he thought would prompt a residency program director to toss an otherwise competitive application, so his suspicion turned to another culprit.

He'd heard rumblings that some hospitals were using a free AI screening tool to help process applications -- and that it had been displaying incorrect grades for some students. He began to wonder whether AI was responsible for his lack of interview offers. On the first page of his Medical Student Performance Evaluation, a comprehensive summary of his early career prepared by his school, Markey spotted language that he suspected might trigger an automated screening tool to downgrade his application.

The MSPE stated that Markey had "voluntarily" taken three separate leaves of absence, totaling about 22 months, and had chosen to extend his third year of coursework over two years for "personal reasons. " That wasn't quite true. In 2021, Markey was diagnosed with ankylosing spondylitis, an autoimmune disease that affects the spine and could flare up to the point where he couldn't stand, much less do the intensive physical work expected of medical students during clinical rotations.

He was on track to graduate from medical school in seven years, rather than the typical four, but his absences had been unavoidable and medically necessary. This was explained in a narrative paragraph on the first page. Calling the absences "voluntary," Markey felt, might be interpreted as evidence that he had succumbed to the pressure of medical school and not been able to keep up with his studies.

As the days went on, Markey said, he felt increasingly afraid that his years of training would end in failure.

"I crawled out of a fucking black hole," he told WIRED, referring to his diagnosis. "I could not walk for six months. I've come this far, and this is happening? " He was asking himself the same question that pops into the minds of millions of other job seekers every day: Did an AI trash my application?

Even recruiters will admit it's fair to wonder. The CEO of a hiring platform said last fall that his industry is in "an AI doom loop": HR departments complain of a wave of AI-generated job applications, prompting the need for more AI filters. Applicants complain they're getting unfairly filtered out. Some fight AI with AI, filling their résumés and cover letters with buzzwords.

"It feels very dystopian to me," one job seeker told researchers from Northeastern University. "My worthiness as a human and as an employee, as a worker, is based on my ability to filter myself through a series of automated gateways. " Only a handful of states have regulated the use of AI screening tools to make hiring decisions.

Laws in Illinois, New Jersey, and Colorado prohibit employers from using discriminatory tools, but mandate little in the way of transparency beyond requiring employers to notify applicants that AI is being used. California's regulations are more robust, requiring employers to regularly test their AI hiring tools for bias. But none of those rules empower an individual to understand how a particular AI hiring tool judged them, or whether it discriminated against them.

So Markey went to work on an impossible task. He would spend the next six months writing emails, research papers, legal requests, and a constant stream of Python code, trying to peer inside the AI screener.

"It turned into obsession," Markey told WIRED in February. "I don't think I've ever been this upset before in my life. " One Christmas, which is also Markey's birthday, his father didn't show up because he'd been arrested for drunk driving. Another Christmas, Markey looked out the front window to find his truck being repossessed because his father had put it up as collateral for a payday loan.

While Markey was away at college on Pell Grants, his family was forced to declare bankruptcy and lost their house. When he was 21, his father died. Markey can recall the moment he became interested in pursuing psychiatry. It was when his father explained why he started drinking so heavily: In manic periods he would go days without sleeping, and the only thing that could force his eyes closed was a fifth of vodka.

"It's just so sad to think if I said, 'Hey, let's go to a psychiatrist and get a low-dose Seroquel prescription and just have you sleep and address some of your mania,' like who knows what would happen? " Markey had been preparing for a career on Wall Street. But after that conversation with his dad, he took a job in health care informatics and made plans to go to medical school.

The summer before he started at Dartmouth in 2019, the stiffness he'd experienced in his back since he was a teenager grew worse and his pelvis began to feel like a cement block. By the end of his second year of school, Markey was laid flat by ankylosing spondylitis. He took a leave of absence, going from doctor to doctor seeking treatments that would allow him to continue with school.

During that same time, the Covid-19 pandemic was roiling the medical profession. Among myriad challenges, hospitals saw a massive increase in the number of applications for their residency programs. Prior to the pandemic, students typically had to travel to each hospital for interviews. When interviews went virtual, they could apply to dozens more programs than before.

Markey applied to 82. That surge has made it harder for hospitals to sort through and prioritize applications. In 2023, the Association of American Medical Colleges announced a partnership with Thalamus, the maker of a screening tool for residency applications called Cortex. Starting in 2025, the tool would be free to use for residency programs.

A handful of hospitals had already been working with Cortex, which displays application documents in an easily digestible dashboard and allows reviewers to search by keyword or filter applicants based on a wide variety of characteristics. Cortex also uses fine-tuned versions of OpenAI's generative models to standardize grades between schools with different practices. The AAMC partnership opened the door to broader adoption of the tool.

According to Thalamus, about 1,500 residency programs around the country, or 30 percent, used Cortex to review applicants and make selection decisions during the 2025-2026 cycle. Issues emerged within weeks of the September 2025 deadline when hospitals started reviewing applications. The company issued a statement saying some residency programs had reported that Cortex was displaying inaccurate grades for some people. In places like Markey's Discord group, the applicants chattered.

As Markey's anxiety about his lack of interviews was peaking, he got an exciting bit of news: A research abstract he'd submitted was accepted to be presented at the American Society of Hematology's upcoming annual meeting and simultaneously published in the journal Blood. What happened next deepened Markey's belief that AI systems, rather than humans, were responsible for his diminishing chances at getting into a residency program.

Markey already had 10 publications in medical journals on his résumé, but he began emailing his top-ranked residency programs to share the update about this latest accomplishment. The shift in his fortunes was immediate, he said. Within an hour and 15 minutes of his first email to a residency program coordinator at one of the top psychiatry programs in the country, Markey received an exuberant response from the coordinator's boss.

An interview offer followed less than an hour later, and they began to come in from Markey's other top choices too. To Markey, it appeared to be "the first time they were seeing an application that hadn't even come across their desk. " As he saw it at the time, "I was getting rejections because they had already filled up the top hundred slots based on the top hundred candidates that appear on the dashboard.

" Thalamus later told WIRED that the company received no additional reports of inaccuracies out of more than 12,000 inquiries. But at the time, a lack of clarity around how Cortex employed AI sparked forum posts and journal articles.

Steven Pletcher, a head and neck surgeon who oversees the otolaryngology residency program at the University of California San Francisco Hospital, told WIRED he heard from a colleague at another institution that some of the grades Cortex was displaying were "wildly inaccurate. " Pletcher, who also conducts research into residency selection processes, wanted to investigate the platform himself.

"As a program director, when you hear, 'Hey we have this AI system for reviewing applications,' you think, can I just get it to give me a list of applicants that I should interview? " Pletcher told WIRED.

"I had some concerns, I think as anyone would, if there's a new system for reviewing applications and it's presenting information inaccurately. " At a national meeting of the Society of University Otolaryngologists in November, Pletcher sat down with a colleague and reviewed applications in Cortex. One of the system's primary functions is the AI grade-normalization tool. From what Pletcher was seeing, the grades displayed for a given applicant on those charts could change from minute to minute.

Pletcher and four of his colleagues conducted a structured test and documented the errors they found. In January of this year, they published their results in the journal The Laryngoscope, describing "persistent errors in the Thalamus Cortex system with potential to negatively impact residency applicants and programs.

" Jason Reminick, the CEO of Thalamus, told WIRED that many of the fears about Cortex expressed by students and medical schools in the 2025-2026 cycle were the result of misunderstandings about how the tool works.

" A lot of the community suddenly had access to this and were playing with the tool without really going through the buying process," he said. "And I don't just mean the physical paying of money, I mean the exploratory process of understanding what the tool does. " Reminick told WIRED that besides an email from Pletcher, Thalamus received no other complaints about the grades displayed for students changing from minute to minute.

He said the error was caused by the user moving too quickly between grade distribution graphs, resulting in the display briefly getting stuck.

"This would not have affected any applicant's overall outcome" in the residency selection process, Reminick said. Thalamus requested that The Laryngoscope retract the article. The journal, which did not respond to WIRED's request for comment, has not done so. In a later statement to WIRED, Thalamus offered a clarification about Cortex's use of AI.

"We understand that there is a large segment of our community understandably nervous about how quickly AI products are being rolled out and incorporated into every facet of society -- including sensitive use cases like medical students applying to residency programs," the statement said. The company said its approach has been transparent and cautious, but that "putting more emphasis on the limited AI tools would have been helpful to prevent misunderstandings about how AI was being used.

" According to Thalamus, "Not only is Cortex not a decision-making tool, it does not use AI to sort, filter, exclude, score, or rank applicants. " Of course, Markey hadn't heard any of that from Thalamus. As Match Day approached, all he had to go on was the February email he'd received, which he interpreted as indicating that "scoring" was at work. He still sensed AI bias -- and wanted to ferret it out.

Even for professional auditors with direct access to screening algorithms, it can be impossible to understand why an algorithm reached a particular conclusion, said Shea Brown, CEO of the auditing firm Babl AI. When a system runs on an LLM, it naturally has "a very opaque reasoning core at the center, and any kind of explainability about where it made a decision is hidden," he told WIRED.

The only way to test for discrimination is in aggregate: Does the tool, for example, give measurably lower scores to equally qualified candidates with disabilities?

"It can't be done causally based on a single person's application," Brown said. The best a person can do in a situation like Markey's, where he suspected an AI system was picking up on specific language in his MSPE, is to test how an application performs with and without that language. That's where Markey started.

First, he ran three versions of his MSPE with slightly different language through a suite of AI fairness- and bias-testing tools that the AAMC recommends. The results indicated that a natural language processing algorithm might assess a sentence describing a leave of absence for "personal reasons" differently than a sentence that specified the leave was for a "medical condition," but Markey didn't like that the sample size was small and the test lacked context.

Next, he ran two versions of MSPE leave-of-absence language through VADER, an open-source natural language processing model that assigns emotional sentiment values to words and phrases, and found that a medically accurate description of his leaves of absence received a more positive sentiment score than the "personal reasons" language in his MSPE. He then used Python to create a synthetic dataset of 6,000 residency applicants.

Each one was assigned test scores, grades, a count of how many publications they had on their résumé, and numeric rankings for how strong their letters of recommendation were and how well-suited they were for academic research. Markey then divided them into two cohorts -- one with sentiment analysis scores reflecting the leave-of-absence language in his MSPE and the other with scores reflecting medically accurate language. The two groups were equally qualified, in terms of grades, test scores, and other characteristics.

But when Markey ran the synthetic applicants through a logistic regression model trained to select the top 12 percent of applicants, those from the cohort with medically accurate MSPE language were 66 percent more likely to make the cut. Still, like his first test, this only shed light on how a generic algorithm might assess his application. Markey wanted to understand Thalamus' tools. He tracked down the patent for an AI residency application screener built by the company Medicratic.

Thalamus acquired Medicratic in 2025. Patents describe what a system may do, not necessarily what it does do, but it was the clearest explanation Markey could find of what might be happening inside the black box. With the help of GitHub Copilot and eventually Anthropic's newly released Claude Code tool, Markey began to reverse engineer the system described in the Medicratic patent, mirroring the data pipeline and using the same open-source modules when he could.

When necessary, he substituted Claude Code's advice and his own research. For example, before the system described in the patent can score applications, a residency program must indicate which characteristics -- such as academic performance, professionalism, or leadership -- it values most. Markey reviewed published research on residency selection and surveys of residency directors to determine how to weight those features. Markey finished his system a few weeks before Match Day, March 20.

He thought its outline and general features approximated how a tool like the one described in the Medicratic patent might process the same inputs. After more than four months dissecting various algorithms, it was the best he could do. Once again, when he ran different versions of his MSPE language through the system, there were starkly different results: Changing the wording about his leave of absence from "personal reasons" to a medically accurate description resulted in a significantly higher score.

That month, Markey sent Thalamus a data access request, under the New Hampshire Privacy Act, asking for all the personal data the company held about him. That included a comprehensive accounting of every document and data point that was input into Thalamus' systems about him; every preference parameter, weight, and scoring configuration applied to his application by residency programs; every score, attribute rating, and sentiment analysis calculated by Thalamus based on that data; and explanations of whether and how his data was processed to mitigate bias.

Under the New Hampshire Privacy Act, the company had 45 days to respond. Jeremy Walter, director of media relations at Temple Health, said one of the hospital's 59 residency programs used Cortex primarily to view applications during "manual screening," and "overall, we did not find the AI information very reliable. " He declined to elaborate. According to Thalamus, multiple programs at Temple used Cortex during the recent selection cycle.

"As with any new functionality, especially when introduced at scale, experiences can vary based on how features are used and interpreted," the company said. Kari Roberts, who oversees graduate medical examination at Tufts Medical Center, told WIRED in an email that many of the school's residency programs tried Cortex for the first time last fall, using it to screen out any applications that were incomplete or failed to meet minimum requirements.

"There were some significant errors in the algorithm that incorporated data from the MSPE, leading to wrong grade assignments," Roberts wrote. "This was not exclusive to our organization and was raised to the Thalamus team in real time by our dean's team.

" Thalamus told WIRED that "a very small number of identified discrepancies" were "investigated and corrected promptly" and that "in some of these cases, what was initially perceived as an inaccuracy was confirmed to be consistent with the source materials. " Three days after he got matched, Markey received a response from Thalamus to his data access request.

The company's chief of staff, Michele Li, wrote that none of the programs he had applied to had used the Medicratic tool that Markey had been attempting to reverse engineer. Cortex itself didn't use the sentiment-scoring methodology described in the patent. Reminick, Thalamus' CEO, confirmed to WIRED that during the 2025-2026 cycle, Cortex did not algorithmically score or rank applicants.

The tool primarily uses AI for grade normalization and to display a badge indicating whether an applicant is interested in academic research, he said. However, Thalamus plans to pilot an AI screener that will allow residency programs to create candidate profiles and then assess how well applicants match those profiles, Reminick said. During the pilot, applicants will have to opt in to the screening.

Even after matching at Columbia and receiving the letter from Thalamus denying his suspicions about his own applications, Markey said he doesn't regret the months he devoted to unpacking screening tools.

" I'm very grateful for where I've gotten, so when things threaten that, I want to make sure I'm responding correctly," he said. In fact, he has continued his investigation of how large language models pick up on semantic signals in job application material and embed them down the pipeline into decisions or recommendations.

There is proof, even in the world of AI hiring tools, that some form of due process, however imperfect, can be built and regulated into these systems. One of the most popular applications of AI in human resources is to conduct background checks. Companies like Checkr automate the process for millions of applications monthly, comparing candidate names against public records for any evidence of disqualifying criminal activity. A lot of the time, these systems make mistakes that cost people jobs.

But background-check companies, whether they use humans or AI, are subject to provisions in the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act that require them to share the results of a background check with the job candidate upon request, conduct an investigation if the accuracy of the background check is disputed, and send the job candidate the written results of that investigation. Job candidates can win or settle individual and class action lawsuits against background-check companies that provide inaccurate reports.

It's a system with many of its own problems, but it at least offers individual job seekers an option other than screaming helplessly into the void. Not everyone should need to be an Ivy League medical student with a background in informatics and coding and a massive axe to grind. Let us know what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor at mail@wired.com.

AI Medical Residency Application Process Algorithms Bias

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Three suspects at large after man stabbed at West Side bus stopThree suspects are at large after they attacked a man at a West Side bus stop, stabbed him multiple times, and fled.

Read more "

Police seek suspects in shooting in Amarillo, Texas, that killed 2 teens, injured 10 othersPolice are asking for the public's help in identifying suspects in a shooting at a party in Amarillo, Texas, that killed two teenagers and wounded 10 other people. Authorities say they are looking for two people who opened fire at an apartment complex at about 2 a.m. Saturday. The motive was unclear.

Read more "

Search continues for suspects in 2024 mass shooting in Strawberry MansionNearly two and a half years after a mass shooting in Strawberry Mansion left two people dead, police are still searching for the gunman responsible.

Read more "

West Hills family's truck stolen by suspects caught on surveillance videoA string of burglaries and break-ins has put San Fernando Valley residents on edge, including a West Hills family whose truck was stolen by four suspects caught on home surveillance video.

Read more "

Three 18-year-old Yuma murder suspects apprehended in Avondale on SaturdayThree 18-year-olds are facing first-degree murder charges in connection with a deadly shooting in Yuma last month.

Read more "

Police search for suspects in Oklahoma shooting that sent at least 13 people to hospitalsA shooting at a party at a lake near Oklahoma City sent at least 13 people to hospitals, according to police and hospital officials.

Read more " more

Career development

20h

How To Get A Job In 10 Ways

Kate Hudson teaches us as Andie Anderson, that dating is all about playing your cards right. The same might be true for job hunting, except I know more about the interview process than I do about men.

With summer coming up, the daunting task of getting a job might be fresh on your mind. But, don't stress, we've all been there! In fact, my house of six college girls have been scouring the job... market these past few months, and I am happy to announce that we all have found the "one!" So don't play hard to get... Start putting yourself out there! Here's how to get a job in 10 ways:

before the interview...

The cold, hard truth of job hunting is that it's 100% easier to become employed if you know someone who knows someone. Networking is the #1 way to at least guarantee an interview. Don't be shy to inquire with your friends or mutual friends about if their work is hiring. People want to help you more than you think! I landed my dream internship by reaching out to a mom I babysat for!

The age-old method that your parents always tell you about actually does work! Employers are more likely to give an interview to someone who makes the time to show up. It also eliminates the competition between online applicants. Note that if this is not possible, try to find your desired employer's email and express your personalized interest there!

Although it's common to have your heart set on a dream job or company, always keep an open mind. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, and branch out! This will make certain rejections easier (try not to take it personally).

Once you land your interview...

Although it may seem obvious, it's always a good idea to come prepared. Do your research. Make sure you know a little about the company and what your strong suits are. Think ahead about the questions your interviewer might ask.

Common ones include, "Tell me about yourself," "What are you looking for in a workplace?" "What is your biggest weakness?" and "How do you work in a team?" And don't forget that it goes both ways! Always come prepared with a few thoughtful questions to ask them at the end.

I know it may be deemed common knowledge, but make sure you have a go-to professional outfit in your wardrobe. It's better to come overdressed to your interview. It's also helpful to match the vibe or wherever you're applying (i.e., ballet flats for an office, boots for a bar/restaurant). My favorite interview outfit consists of a black work dress and tan Frye boots (works like a charm).

First impressions are important! Employers want someone who shows up to work with a positive attitude. Between you and me, it's okay to fake it until you make it. Think of an interview as a time to talk about your success, an opportunity you don't often have! Always act like the most enthusiastic person in the room in order to ensure that you are a positive, trustworthy employee. Who doesn't want to hire someone who has their best interests?

You can talk about your resume for as long as you would like, but what really differentiates you is your ability to show what you have learned from your past experiences. Although it is obviously important to keep it professional, don't be afraid to be candid with your interviewer.

For example, I often discuss the work environment that I didn't particularly enjoy, comparing it to an environment I did, and add what I have noticed about what leadership or attitude made it run differently. It can also be as simple as saying you have learned the correct language for customer experience.

Whatever pertains to your experience, and how it has made you grow for the better! This will make your interviewer pinpoint you as an insightful problem-solver.

In every single job interview, I have always been asked the same question: How do you work in a team environment? It's very important to emphasize that you want to show up and be a good coworker for others. It's essential to reference certain situations where working in teams guarantees group success. Make sure you have a certain story on hand.

Availability is everything, especially for part-time jobs. Tell your employer you can start as soon as possible, and you want to work as much as possible given your schedule. No boss wants to hire someone who can work one day a week.

Honestly, it's okay to stretch the truth in this situation and say you're a bit more available than you really are, especially during the interview stage. Make sure to block out your class times, but you can always change your availability later!

Last but certainly not least, always follow up after your interview. Don't be afraid to shoot an email expressing your gratitude and enthusiasm. A quick thank-you email keeps you fresh in their mind and shows professionalism.

Now that you've read these tips and tricks, I hope you feel confident in putting yourself on the market! Andie Anderson would certainly approve. Best of luck finding the job of your dreams! more

2

Melanchtone Anzala
7h
Quite informative

Career development

10h

Careerfishing: The résumé inflation game nobody wins

It rarely begins as a lie. A project is made to sound slightly larger. A role, slightly broader. A gap, quietly smoothed over. Nothing dramatic. Nothing unverifiable. And more often than not, it works.

This is careerfishing, the quiet reconstruction of professional identity to match job descriptions that increasingly read like fiction. People have always polished their résumés.

What has changed... is the scale, the sophistication, and the uncomfortable reality that, in India's hyper-competitive job market, exaggeration is no longer opportunistic. It feels necessary.

The more uncomfortable question is not whether candidates are embellishing. It is whether a hiring system built on inflated expectations can reasonably expect accuracy in return.

The scale of strategic embellishment

The pattern, when examined closely, is hard to dismiss. A large share of jobseekers admit to enhancing their résumés in some form. Skills are stretched to mirror job descriptions. Project impact is amplified to signal relevance. Interview narratives are shaped not only by what candidates have done, but by what they believe employers expect to hear. Employment gaps are adjusted to appear more coherent.

They are calculated responses to a filtering system that rewards precise alignment over authentic capability. Job descriptions frequently demand combinations of experience that are difficult, if not impossible, to find in a single individual. Candidates encounter requirements such as five years of experience in emerging technologies, cross functional leadership, deep technical expertise, and independent delivery, all within roles that are operationally narrower in practice.

Faced with this, candidates draw a logical conclusion. Literal honesty may reduce their chances of being shortlisted. Whether that conclusion is entirely accurate is less important than the fact that it is widely believed.

Praveer Priyadarshi, a senior HR leader, acknowledges this ambiguity. Candidates may legitimately position their experience to align with a role. The distinction lies in whether those claims can be substantiated. "The moment that backing disappears, it becomes a breach of trust," he notes.

The boundary between positioning and misrepresentation is therefore not always obvious at the point of application. It becomes clear only when tested.

The fiction on the other side

The analysis becomes more uncomfortable when the lens turns to employers. While candidates are criticised for exaggeration, job descriptions themselves often reflect aspirational fiction.

The typical posting seeks a combination of depth and breadth that rarely exists. It asks for specialist expertise and generalist agility, leadership capability and execution focus, often at the same time. In trying to capture the ideal, organisations frequently describe a candidate who is difficult to find and, in some cases, unnecessary for the role as it actually exists.

Candidates recognise this gap. They understand that job descriptions are not always literal representations of the work. As a result, they treat the hiring process less as a test of accuracy and more as a negotiation of fit.

The outcome is a matching process built on mutual inflation. Employers present idealised requirements. Candidates present idealised profiles. Both sides are aware of the distortion, yet the system continues to function on the assumption that perfect alignment is both expected and achievable.

This creates a difficult equilibrium. Candidates who present themselves honestly risk being filtered out. Those who stretch their profiles compete more effectively. Over time, the rational strategy becomes clear, and authenticity begins to carry a disadvantage.

When the performance fails

The immediate cost of careerfishing becomes most visible when candidates secure roles that exceed their actual capability.

The pressure to perform becomes acute. Skills that were implied must now be demonstrated. Gaps that were obscured must be bridged quickly. Some candidates manage this transition through rapid learning. Others struggle, particularly when the gap between representation and reality is significant.

The consequences are rarely limited to individual discomfort. Team efficiency can suffer when colleagues compensate for missing expertise. Project timelines extend. In client facing roles, credibility may be affected when expected capabilities do not materialise.

Verification processes are also evolving. Priyadarshi points out that scrutiny has intensified, with inconsistencies increasingly likely to surface during background checks. Digital records, employment histories, and professional profiles are now easier to cross reference than before.

When discrepancies emerge, the fallout can extend beyond a single role. Reputational damage travels across professional networks, making recovery more difficult.

Yet the behaviour persists. This suggests that many candidates still perceive the risk of being overlooked as greater than the risk of eventual exposure.

The organisational cost nobody calculates

For organisations, the cost of misrepresentation extends beyond a poor hiring decision. It affects team dynamics, operational efficiency, and, in some cases, client relationships.

Manish Majumdar, head of HR at Centum Electronics, draws a useful distinction between positioning and fabrication. Candidates may frame their experience to emphasise relevance, but when that framing cannot withstand scrutiny, it becomes misrepresentation. "The problem is not exaggeration per se, but the absence of verifiability," he observes.

This distinction matters in practice. A candidate who has stretched their experience within reasonable limits may be able to close the gap through learning and support. A candidate who has fabricated core capabilities creates a deficit that is far harder to address.

At the same time, organisations contribute to the conditions that encourage careerfishing. When job descriptions demand unrealistic combinations of skills, when screening systems rely heavily on keyword matching, and when hiring processes prioritise alignment over potential, candidates are incentivised to optimise for appearance rather than substance.

In that sense, the problem is not one sided. It is embedded in how the system evaluates talent.

Where the system breaks down

Rahul Pinjarkar, former CHRO at Tata Chemicals, reframes the debate sharply. Careerfishing, in his view, is less a widespread behavioural flaw and more a reflection of systemic gaps.

Candidates will always position themselves strongly - that is expected. The real breach begins only when positioning crosses into misrepresentation. But the more critical question,

Pinjarkar argues, is not why candidates stretch the truth, but why organisations struggle to detect it early.

This shifts the lens. Instead of asking why candidates exaggerate, the question becomes: why are hiring systems so easily navigated, or manipulated?

Strong hiring managers - those clear on role expectations and skilled at probing depth, authenticity, and thinking - rarely get misled, Pinjarkar notes. When they do, the truth surfaces quickly in performance. Careerfishing does not thrive in robust systems. It finds space where systems are weak.

The fault lines emerge in predictable places: high-volume, speed-driven hiring environments, or roles where expectations are disconnected from reality. In such contexts, candidates feel compelled to stretch their narratives simply to remain competitive.

Pinjarkar offers a pragmatic observation: even if someone slips through initial screening, performance exposes reality. The system may not catch exaggeration at entry, but work itself is less forgiving.

When skills don't match expectations, consequences unfold gradually but inevitably. Teams compensate. Delivery slows. Confidence erodes. In some cases, exits follow - often with reputational damage that outlasts the role.

For candidates, this creates a paradox of short-term gain and long-term instability. For organisations, it exposes a deeper issue - not just mis-hiring, but mis-evaluation.

At its core, careerfishing reflects a mismatch between how work is actually done and how talent is formally evaluated. Work is messy, collaborative, and evolving. Hiring systems reduce it to static checklists and keyword matches. Candidates reshape their experiences to fit those checklists. Authenticity gets diluted in the process.

Pinjarkar's framing clarifies the essential point: the issue is not that candidates are gaming the system. It is that the system, in significant parts, is gameable.

The verification paradox

A paradox sits at the centre of this issue. Many candidates believe that résumé claims are not rigorously verified. At the same time, verification mechanisms are becoming more sophisticated.

Both perceptions contain elements of truth. Verification practices vary significantly across organisations. Large corporations and regulated industries tend to conduct detailed checks. Smaller firms and high velocity hiring environments may rely on lighter processes.

This variation creates uncertainty. Candidates do not always know the level of scrutiny they will face, which encourages calculated risk taking.

However, the direction of change is clear. Advances in background verification and data cross referencing are making inconsistencies easier to detect. The window within which exaggerated claims can remain undiscovered is narrowing.

The equilibrium has not fully shifted, but the balance is changing.

The platform problem nobody discusses

Another factor shaping behaviour is the role of professional platforms, particularly LinkedIn and job portals such as Naukri, Monster, and Indeed. LinkedIn's search algorithm rewards keyword density and profile completeness.

Candidates who mention "Python" fifteen times rank higher than those who mention it three times, regardless of actual depth of expertise. Job portals operate on similar logic. Applicant tracking systems filter résumés based on keyword matches before human recruiters ever see them, creating incentives to mirror job description language precisely.

This creates pressure to optimise profiles for discovery rather than accuracy. Candidates respond by saturating their profiles with search-optimised keywords - emphasising, repeating, and sometimes overstating skills to improve their chances of appearing in results.

Neither LinkedIn nor job portals are designed to verify claims. Their primary objective is to facilitate connections and increase engagement. This design inherently reinforces the incentives that drive profile inflation. The more keywords a profile contains, the more discoverable it becomes. The platforms profit from matches and activity, not from accuracy.

The infrastructure, therefore, is not neutral. It actively shapes how candidates present themselves and how employers search for talent.

An equilibrium that satisfies nobody

Taken together, these dynamics point to a broader coordination problem. Employers seek accurate information about candidates. Candidates seek fair evaluation of their capabilities.

Yet the system produces outcomes that undermine both objectives.

Employers receive applications that are difficult to interpret with confidence. Candidates experience pressure to maintain representations that may not fully reflect their abilities. Trust erodes gradually on both sides.

The efficient outcome, where information is exchanged accurately and evaluated fairly, proves difficult to sustain. Exaggeration offers short term advantage, while accuracy carries perceived risk. As long as that imbalance exists, behaviour is unlikely to change.

What would actually change the game

Addressing careerfishing requires more than stricter verification. It requires rethinking the incentives that shape behaviour.

For employers, this begins with more grounded job design. Role requirements need to reflect actual business needs rather than idealised combinations of skills. Hiring processes need to assess capability in a more direct and substantive manner, rather than relying heavily on keyword alignment. Verification efforts should focus on critical aspects of a role, applied consistently enough to build credibility into the system.

For candidates, the challenge is to balance short term positioning with long term credibility. While modest framing of experience is often part of professional presentation, significant exaggeration introduces risk that compounds over time. As verification improves and professional networks become more transparent, inconsistencies are more likely to surface.

At a system level, the issue resembles a coordination failure. Employers and candidates both recognise the distortions, yet neither has a strong incentive to correct them unilaterally. This sustains a cycle in which expectations and representations continue to drift apart.

The uncomfortable stalemate

Careerfishing persists because it is, in many cases, a rational response to a system that implicitly rewards it. Candidates exaggerate because they believe accuracy reduces their chances. Employers inflate because they believe it improves candidate quality. Each reinforces the other.

The result is a hiring market where information is routinely overstated and trust is correspondingly weakened.

Framing the issue purely as an ethical lapse misses the underlying dynamics. When the system rewards embellishment and penalises accuracy, appeals to individual honesty have limited effect.

The more relevant question is whether the hiring ecosystem can evolve towards a point where accurate representation becomes the rational strategy for both sides.

Until that happens, careerfishing is unlikely to disappear. It will continue, not simply as deception, but as adaptation to a system that quietly demands it whilst publicly disapproving of it.

An uncomfortable equilibrium, but for now, a stable one. more

Career development

10h

Stories That Travel": An Interview with Screenwriter Tova Bracha Swartz

Los Angeles-based screenwriter Tova Bracha Swartz has steadily built a résumé that travels across continents and formats. Her co-written short film "Mother's Instinct" has screened at LA Shorts International Film Festival, one of the best-known Oscar-qualifying short film events, and at several festivals focused on representation and identity. She has served as script consultant and script... supervisor on "Dwindled Ties," a short recognised at the West Bengal Short Film Festival in India and awarded the Grand Golden Moksha Award at Mokkho International Film Festival. Her scripts have also earned recognition in international competitions, with "Burning Questions" winning the Write LA Shorts competition and other works advancing in Filmmatic's genre contests. Alongside this, she co-creates a digital comic on Webtoon, contributes to branded content for Netflix Games, screens films for New York's Big Apple Film Festival, and teaches film and television history at Los Angeles City College.

What follows is a lightly edited conversation that focuses on how these achievements shape her outlook on global storytelling and the Indian market.

Q: Your co-written short "Mother's Instinct" has screened at LA Shorts, an Oscar-qualifying festival, and at several international events. How has that cluster of festival selections influenced your career and the way industry professionals perceive your work?

A: Festival selections mainly help by putting the work in front of people who might not have encountered it otherwise. They create a context where programmers, producers and other writers can see what you are trying to do on screen. Beyond that, the most useful part is often the informal conversations that happen around the screenings rather than the laurels themselves.

Q: "Mother's Instinct" has also appeared at festivals that focus on representation and identity. How intentional are you about positioning your projects within those curatorial spaces, and what does that exposure mean for you as a writer?

A: I am always interested in festivals that take their curatorial positions seriously, whether that is around representation, form, or subject matter. When a festival programmes with clear intent, it often attracts audiences and professionals who are equally engaged. Being part of those conversations is valuable because it shows you how different communities respond to similar themes.

Q: You worked as script consultant and script supervisor on "Dwindled Ties," which screened at the West Bengal Short Film Festival and then went on to win the Grand Golden Moksha Award at Mokkho International Film Festival. What did you learn from guiding a project that has such a specific Indian and regional context?

A: It was a reminder that story problems are both very local and very universal. You have to respect the nuances of the specific culture and setting, but you also have to pay attention to structure, character and rhythm, which are concerns audiences share everywhere. My role was to ask questions that would help the team clarify what they wanted the film to feel like, not to impose an external template.

Q: "Dwindled Ties" has travelled from India to recognition in other territories, including Africa. How do you assess the potential for short films like this to serve as bridges between markets, particularly between India and other regions?

A: Shorts can be effective calling cards because they are more manageable to programme and watch, especially in festival contexts. When a short performs well across regions, it suggests there might be room for deeper collaboration between the teams involved. I tend to see these projects as test cases: they show what kinds of stories and partnerships might scale up into features, series or other formats.

Q: Your script "Burning Questions" won the Write LA Shorts competition, and other scripts such as "Clean Break" and "Trapped" have advanced in Filmmatic's contests. How do you view these script competition results in relation to long-term career strategy?

A: Competitions are one element in a larger ecosystem. They can be helpful because they provide feedback, visibility and sometimes introductions, but they are not a substitute for ongoing writing and relationship-building. I treat them as checkpoints that tell me whether certain ideas are resonating with readers outside my immediate circle.

Q: Many Indian producers and platforms are scanning international contests and labs to discover writers. What would you say to Indian companies who are looking at your competition track record as a factor in whether to collaborate?

A: I would say those results are a useful starting point rather than a final verdict. They indicate that readers and judges have responded positively to certain scripts, which is meaningful. But any potential collaboration still comes down to shared goals, communication and a good fit between the material and the market that a company is serving.

Q: You co-created and write "The Misadventures of Tina and Daisy" for Webtoon, a platform known for feeding content into animation and live-action adaptations. How has working in that digital comic format changed the way you approach screenwriting?

A: Writing for a digital comic forces you to think very clearly about pacing and visual reveals. Because readers move through panels in a specific way, you become more conscious of how each beat lands. That awareness translates back into screenwriting, where timing, framing and the rhythm of information are also crucial.

Q: You also wrote for a Netflix Games social media spot for the word puzzle Bonza, collaborating with an animator via an agency. What did that experience teach you about branded content and short-form storytelling for global platforms?

A: The main lesson is that clarity matters even more when the running time is very short. You have to communicate tone, brand identity and a basic narrative in a compressed format. Working with an animator in that context is collaborative in a very immediate way, because each visual choice has to support the central idea without unnecessary detail.

Q: India's content market is highly convergent, with films, series, digital shorts and games often sharing the same IP. How do your cross-format experiences prepare you for collaborations with Indian producers and OTT platforms?

A: Moving between formats has made me comfortable thinking about stories as ecosystems rather than single products. When you work in film, comics and branded content, you start to see how characters and worlds can be adapted for different audiences and lengths. That mindset is useful in any convergent market, including India, where the same core idea might need to live across multiple platforms.

Q: You screen films for New York's Big Apple Film Festival. How does that gatekeeping experience inform the way you develop your own projects?

A: Watching submissions in volume teaches you how quickly audiences make decisions about whether to stay with a film. You become more aware of openings, tonal shifts and moments where attention drifts. That experience pushes me to be more disciplined with my own scripts, especially in the early pages.

Q: You also teach film and television history at Los Angeles City College. Does teaching influence your writing and your perspective on new markets like India?

A: Teaching keeps you in dialogue with younger viewers who consume media differently from previous generations. Their questions and viewing habits are a useful reality check on assumptions about what works. It also encourages you to place contemporary projects in a longer historical context, which is helpful when thinking about how stories travel between markets.

Q: Finally, many Indian readers will be encountering your name for the first time. How would you describe the kind of collaborations you are most interested in pursuing with Indian partners?

A: I am interested in collaborations where there is genuine curiosity on both sides about how to tell stories that feel grounded in place but accessible globally. That can mean co-writing, consulting or working in a writers' room, depending on the project. The key elements for me are clear communication, respect for different working cultures and a shared commitment to developing material that can travel. more

Anonymous member

Career development

2d

I wanted to move to another department because there was a great opening there. But they turned me down pretty bluntly, saying my soft skills weren’t good enough. I thought I got along fine with other coworkers. Now I don’t know how to keep working if they don’t see me as a “team player”. Are people just being fake to my face, even when they smile?

Sandra Dupre
19h
When you're around people like that you never show them that you want something better for yourself never you always have to just keep a smile and... show them that you fake I'm not fake but I can show you fake but I'm really not that and like you just wait until your turn and they'll come on ask you do you want that position you know what I'm saying you got to do it that way to where you're not paying them attention only when they need the attention. more
john ladislaus mwumvaneza
1d
Hi you cannot escape people who are jerous so keep trying you will succeed
2

Anonymous member

Career development

4d

i really want to work in a friendly place...
recently working somewhere filled with lots of toxic people
what can i do to ignore their behaivour

2

R R
19h
Join my independent yet team work from home industry!!! Its NEVER toxic
Dana Fripp
21h
If the toxic behavior is directly related to policy and practices, then it's potentially a form insubordination and harassment. For example, if a... coworker is constantly coming to you and badmouthing your supervisor(s)' decisions, or coworkers' performance, that's creating a toxic environment. You should a.) document and timestamp it, and b.) politely but firmly suggest that they take their grievances directly to HR/management. If it's the higher-ups giving you a problem, that's more difficult. However, still document it, and stay as far out of the office gossip mill as you can. Folks are notorious for throwing you under the bus when their job and reputation is on the line. Gripe to the wrong person, and even if you're right, suddenly you're the problem.

Keep yourself fully in business mode when on the job site, and afterwards. You don't have to party with them, or be social media friends, or swap recipes, and useless gossip with them at lunch. Be courteous, but stay on task, and within policy. Let the toxic ones think you're distant and unfriendly if they want. That's not your concern. Staying employed with integrity is your concern. Building your skills set for the next great opportunity is your concern.

Oh...and keep that resume fresh and ready at all times.

Take good care of yourself! more