The Lack of Truth in Hiring

Performative Promises and Bait-and-Switch Tactics

This post originally appeared on Medium. Minor edits have been made for clarity.

I send out a monthly newsletter that highlights remote job listings. Companies can pay to be included via the Employers page on Join Me Abroad, but more often, I feature roles I’ve personally vetted—jobs that look legitimate and worth applying to. I don’t include anything I think would waste people’s time.

Because let’s be honest—hiring used to be frustrating. Now it’s just dishonest.

As an expat—or especially as a digital nomad—you know the hustle. Freelancing is feast or famine, and the hunt for steady, honest work never really stops. You're always chasing new gigs, clients, and contracts, and in doing so, you become intimately familiar with the growing gap between what companies say they're offering and what actually happens when you apply.

And it’s not just freelancers—traditional employees are facing the same difficulties.

It’s not just a matter of recruiter ghosting or never hearing back. It’s deeper: performative inclusivity, misleading job titles, and roles that evaporate the moment you pass the interviews.

Let’s look at two examples from this past week alone.

Non-Writing Backgrounds Are Encouraged”… Sure They Are.

I came across a job listing recently for a content writer position at Grow & Convert. It looked promising at first glance: fully remote, decent pay, and most notably, a clear statement that "non-writing backgrounds are encouraged."  They even went out of their way to describe how team members came from all kinds of roles—banking, biochemistry, nonprofits, sales, even waiting tables.

Screenshot by Author

Sounds refreshingly open, right? That is, until you click "Apply."

You're greeted with a Google Form—a red flag in itself. Real companies use hiring software, not free generic form builders. There's also no field to upload or link a resume, which is... sus, to say the least.

And the very first required question is this:

"Please share 3 links to articles that you've written that are most similar to what we ask for in the application."

Screenshot by Author

Excuse me?

If you're genuinely encouraging non-writing backgrounds, why is the very first question demanding a pre-existing portfolio of polished writing samples?

Then you scroll further down. At the bottom of the form, there's a writing prompt. A spec piece. It's optional. You can opt out by typing "N/A."

Screenshot by Author

Here’s the thing: if you actually wanted to welcome non-writers, the portfolio section would be optional, and the spec writing prompt, the thing that tests potential, would be mandatory. Instead, this is just another way to favor people with traditional portfolios while giving yourself cover with a feel-good headline about inclusion.

This is what performative hiring looks like: claiming one thing, requiring another, and hoping no one reads between the lines.

The Bait-and-Switch That Wastes Everyone's Time

A friend of mine recently applied for a senior tech role. They aced the first interview. They passed the technical screen. Things were moving fast.

And then came the switch.

The company told them they weren't qualified for the senior role after all, despite having cleared every hurdle they'd put in front of them. Instead, they offered a different position. Same technical responsibilities, lower title, and tens of thousands less in pay.

Why?

Because if they had advertised the role at what it actually pays, no one would have applied.

This is not a misunderstanding. This is deception baked into the hiring pipeline. Baiting candidates with a high-level title and salary, then swapping it out at the end for something cheaper. This isn't just unethical. It's costly. It wastes the applicant's time, burns trust, and exposes the company as dishonest.

The Pattern Is the Point

These aren’t isolated incidents. They're two sides of the same coin: make the job look accessible or lucrative, then quietly shift the goalposts. Whether it's setting up a barrier to entry disguised as inclusion or disguising underpaid roles with inflated titles, the result is the same: candidates are misled.

If companies want to build trust, the fix isn’t hard:

• Say what you mean.

• Mean what you say.

• And stop wasting everyone's damn time.
  

We go into this dynamic in another Medium article, "AI in Hiring: Rules for Thee But Not for Me" where I write:

The Performance of Professional Desperation People need work to survive. To eat. To pay rent. But heaven forbid you look like you need the job. The hiring world demands a twisted performance: show enthusiasm, but not need. Be confident, but not overbearing. Be available, but not too available. Follow up once, not twice. Show effort, but not too much — or you’ll come off as “desperate. ”Not enough? “Not a culture fit.” It’s not about qualifications — it’s about optics. Say the right things, smile at the right moments, follow the unwritten rules. But never need the job too much.

This isn’t an interview anymore. It’s a jester performance.

Hiring has become theater. And at this point, a lot of us are done playing the part.

A Case for Paying People What They're Worth

A friend recently brought this up (paraphrased), and they’re absolutely right:

After seeing job postings in IT offering laughably low wages—like $23/hour for network engineering roles—it’s clear some companies have completely lost touch with economic reality. Here's the problem: if someone needs to work two or three jobs just to afford rent and food, they won't have the time or energy to keep learning, upskilling, or innovating. That stifles growth—for them and for you. You might think you're saving money in the short term. But underpaying talent creates instability. Workers jump ship the second they find something better—and they should. If you paid people in line with their skills and responsibilities, you'd foster loyalty, performance, and long-term value. Recognize what people bring to the table, and they’ll actually stick around to build something with you.

Companies want loyalty. They want to be your only job. They expect open availability, 10+ years of experience, full commitment—and yet they’re not willing to pay a wage that reflects any of that.

You can’t demand career-level dedication while offering starter pay—or worse, wages that don’t even cover basic survival, forcing people to take on multiple jobs just to get by.

---

I send out a monthly newsletter with hand-picked remote jobs — vetted, so hopefully they don't waste your time. Ideal for freelancers, expats, and digital nomads.

Subscribe anytime, free: joinmeabroad.com/subscribe