6 minute read
Posted by Emily Hill on 26 February 2026
“Job catfishing” describes a specific hiring failure: when the lived reality of a role materially differs from what a candidate expected when they accepted the offer.
It’s not about ghosting.
It’s not about poor communication during interviews.
In fact, most candidates report that information during the hiring process is broadly consistent.
The shock comes later.
When they start.
When the work is different.
When the shift pattern isn’t what they assumed.
When the location moves.
When the environment feels nothing like the picture they built in their head.
That is the moment expectation collapses.
Our 2026 UK research (OnePoll, n=1000) indicates that a significant proportion of early attrition is not random – it is driven by a mismatch between expectation and operational reality.
This is not marginal dissatisfaction.
It suggests that a substantial share of early exits are not performance failures or cultural misfits, they are expectation failures.
If two-thirds leave earlier than intended because the job did not match what they believed they had accepted, that is structural attrition risk.
That is cost.
That is productivity drag.
That is preventable churn.
And critically, this does not appear to stem from recruiters contradicting themselves or chaotic interview processes. Most candidates report consistency throughout hiring stages.
The breakdown occurs at the transition from recruitment narrative to operational reality.
Everyone in the hiring process may be aligned.
They may simply be aligned around an incomplete or abstracted version of the role.
Our data shows women are more likely than men to say they needed more honest information about workload and pressure before accepting a role (51% vs 43%).
When workload intensity, shift variability, or operational unpredictability is underplayed during recruitment, the downstream impact often falls hardest on those managing tighter external constraints — including caregivers.
An unexpected shift rotation or underestimated workload is not simply an inconvenience. It can disrupt childcare, commuting patterns, and household economics.
In these cases, early exit is not impulsive.
It is structural.
The expectation gap becomes unsustainable.
If hiring feels more complex than ever, that’s because it is.
Pre-employment assessments are now mainstream across UK organisations. According to the research (n=200 HR decision-makers):
Pre-hire assessments are now embedded across the workforce.
And it’s increasingly “real.”
There’s a clear shift away from abstract, purely psychometric tools towards more job-linked evaluation.
Organisations are also spending meaningfully. Average annual spend on pre-employment assessments stands at £136,278, with nearly half investing £50,000 or more each year.
This is serious infrastructure.
Yet the candidate expectation gap remains stubbornly high.
When asked the primary purpose of assessments, the priorities are revealing:
Five percent.
Meanwhile, candidates are signalling something very different.
In other words, almost everyone wants more clarity.
Candidates aren’t asking for more filtering. They’re asking:
What will I actually be doing?
What will this feel like day to day?
Is this genuinely right for me?
There is a mismatch between what businesses optimise for and what candidates need.
When organisations describe what matters most in assessment strategy:
And when measuring success:
This sits alongside candidate data showing:
Organisations are investing six-figure sums to improve selection accuracy, while a significant proportion of early churn appears to be driven by expectation gaps rather than capability gaps.
There is a persistent fear in hiring: if we show the job too honestly, more candidates will walk away.
Early ThriveMap data suggests the opposite.
When job-realistic assessments are introduced:
Transparency does not scare off the candidates who are going to stay.
It filters misalignment earlier and strengthens commitment among those who choose to proceed.
In other words, candidates don’t drop out because the job is clearer.
They drop out later because it wasn’t.
UK employers are not underinvesting in hiring.
They are deploying assessments across every level of the workforce.
They are spending six figures annually.
They are prioritising quality of hire, fairness and consistency.
And yet, two-thirds of candidates say they have left a job because it wasn’t what they expected.
The data suggests the industry has become highly effective at answering one question:
Can this person do the job?
But it has underweighted the equally critical question:
Does this person truly understand the job?
When only 5% of organisations use assessments primarily to educate candidates about role reality — and just 29% track reduced early attrition as a KPI — it is not surprising that expectation gaps persist.
Meanwhile, candidates are clear.
82% want realistic previews.
Just 1% say no additional information would help.
They are not asking for softer screening.
They are asking for sharper clarity.
The organisations that close this gap will not be those that add more filtering layers. They will be those that treat hiring as a two-way calibration exercise — where realism is embedded early, and job analysis is translated into lived, operational previews.
Research and implementation data from ThriveMap indicates that when candidates see the role clearly — in practical, scenario-based detail — downstream metrics improve across the board: stronger conversion, higher offer acceptance, lower early attrition, and more stable retention.
Transparency does not weaken hiring.
It strengthens commitment.
“Job catfishing” may sound like a cultural buzzword. But underneath it is a structural truth: expectation gaps are expensive.
The next competitive advantage in hiring will not come from more sophisticated scoring.
It will come from clearer reality.
And the organisations that design for that now will not only hire better — they will retain better.
Subscribe for insights, debunks and what amounts to a free, up-to-date recruitment toolkit.
ThriveMap creates customised assessments for high volume roles, which take candidates through an online “day in the life” experience of work in your company. Our assessments have been proven to reduce staff turnover, reduce time to hire, and improve quality of hire.
Not sure what type of assessment is right for your business? Read our guide.
One of the biggest shifts in hiring over the past year hasn’t been a new tool, it’s been behaviour. Candidates are increasingly using AI to help them prepare, practise, and sometimes even complete pre-hire assessments. It’s understandable. The tools are accessible, the pressure to perform is high, and the line between “preparation” and “assistance” is […]
Continue reading
The modern candidate selection process is having an identity crisis. On one side, speed. Automation. One-click apply. AI screening. Funnels that look more like e-commerce checkout flows than human decisions. On the other, reality: real jobs, real people, and real consequences when a hire goes wrong. Hiring teams are under pressure to move faster than […]
Continue reading
Most hiring teams are under pressure to improve time-to-fill.That makes sense, open roles create real operational pain. But speed doesn’t tell you whether the person who accepted the role will still be there in three weeks. And when candidates aren’t a good fit, it shows through early attrition, retraining costs, frustrated managers, and leadership asking: […]
Continue reading