Wicked Games: The Ways Companies Play You

For the past six months, I have spent many hours reading on LinkedIn. Not just the polished posts announcing promotions (rare find these days), new jobs (extremely rare find these days), and professional milestones, but the conversations happening underneath them. I have read the stories buried in the comments under layoff announcements, recruiters explaining what happens behind the scenes during hiring, HR professionals talking candidly about the policies they are expected to administer, corporate leaders discussing decisions coming from above, and employees trying to understand how they went from a glowing performance review to a performance improvement plan three months later. Individually, these stories are anecdotes. Collectively, they start to look like patterns.

After reading countless posts and comments from corporate leaders, HR professionals, recruiters, hiring managers, employees, candidates, and recently laid-off workers, I have become increasingly convinced that the corporate rulebook most employees think they are playing by does not really exist. There are rules, certainly, but the rules governing a company's decisions are often very different from the ones communicated to employees.

That does not mean every company is malicious, every HR professional is conspiring against employees, or every job posting is fake. It means companies make decisions according to their own incentives, constraints, risk calculations, and financial priorities. Employees and candidates would be wise to start doing the same.

Here are some of the wicked games worth understanding.

Game #1: The Salary Range Is Not Necessarily the Salary Range

Salary transparency laws were supposed to make compensation more transparent. In theory, you see the range, determine whether it works for you, and decide whether to apply. In practice, a posted salary range can tell you much less than you might think.

A company might advertise a position at $70,000 to $110,000 while internally expecting to hire someone around $80,000. The top of the range may represent what an experienced employee could eventually earn in the position rather than what the organization is prepared to offer a new hire. A candidate who sees $110,000 and assumes that amount is realistically on the table may discover, several interviews later, that the actual hiring budget is nowhere near it.

Then there is the continued practice of asking candidates for salary expectations even when the company already has an approved compensation range. Think about the information imbalance here. The employer knows what it has budgeted for the position. You probably do not. If the organization has approval to pay $100,000 and you announce that you would be thrilled with $82,000, you have just handed over a valuable piece of negotiating information before receiving much in return.

Salary transparency does not eliminate salary negotiation, but it gives candidates another piece of data. Research market compensation independently, ask what portion of the posted range is realistic for a new hire, and consider asking about the approved hiring range before volunteering your own number (this is hard to do when the application requires a number). The salary range is information. Treat it as such, not as a promise.

Game #2: A Job Posting Does Not Mean a Job Is Available

Candidates tend to make a reasonable assumption when they see a job posting: there is a job, the company wants to fill it, and qualified applicants have a legitimate chance of being hired. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

Some postings may be used to collect resumes for anticipated future openings. Others remain online after priorities have changed. Some organizations may have an internal candidate in mind while still interviewing externally. Headcount can disappear midway through a search. A department can decide not to fill a vacancy at all. Then there are the positions that seem to be reposted endlessly, sometimes after accumulating hundreds of applicants, without any visible indication that someone was hired (usually fake jobs or resume farming).

From the candidate's perspective, these situations can all look remarkably similar. You find the position, tailor your resume, write a cover letter, complete the application, and wait. When nothing happens, you assume the problem was you. Maybe your resume wasn't strong enough, or your experience wasn't relevant enough. Maybe you should have used different keywords, or you completely misread your qualifications. Sometimes that may be true, but other times, there may never have been a realistic path to the position in the first place.

The lesson isn't to stop putting effort into applications; it's to become more selective about where that effort goes. Apply strategically, but detach quickly. Do not spend four hours perfecting an application unless the opportunity warrants four hours of your time (I can't think of any that do), and do not emotionally remove yourself from the job market because one company appears interested. Until you have a written offer, you have an opportunity, not a job.

Game #3: You May Be Interviewing for a Job Someone Else Already Has

One of the more frustrating possibilities in a job search, especially in this market, is that you can perform exceptionally well in an interview and still have very little chance of getting the job.

Sometimes an organization already has a strong internal candidate, a former employee they want back, a referral from leadership, or another preferred candidate in mind before external interviews begin. Yet the position is still posted, applications are collected, and outside candidates are invited to interview. Depending on the organization, there may be policies, contractual obligations, public-sector requirements, or risk-management considerations that favor or require a broader competitive process. A company may want to demonstrate that other candidates were considered even when one person entered the process with a substantial advantage.

That doesn't necessarily mean the interview is fake. A preferred candidate is not always a guaranteed candidate, and an exceptional external applicant can sometimes change the outcome. But it does mean candidates should understand that not every interview begins with everyone standing at the same starting line.

It's important to know that there can be clues. The position may have been posted for an unusually short period. The interviewers may seem to be going through the motions rather than trying to understand your experience. Questions may be highly scripted with few meaningful follow-ups. Nobody seems particularly interested in selling you on the company or learning what it would take for you to accept. The timeline may feel strangely predetermined. You might also notice that the job description is unusually specific, almost as if it were written around one person's background.

Internal candidates can create an especially complicated dynamic. Imagine you are interviewing for a manager position while someone on the existing team has effectively been doing the job for six months. They know the systems, the executives know them, their coworkers trust them, and leadership has already seen them perform many of the responsibilities. You may technically be competing for the same position, but you are not competing with the same information, relationships, or level of organizational trust.

This is another reason rejection should not automatically trigger a forensic examination of everything you said during the interview. Candidates often leave these situations thinking, "What did I do wrong?" The answer may be nothing. You may have been an excellent candidate in a process where another person had an advantage you could never see.

There is another side to this that candidates should understand: the interview process is also risk management. Candidates are often encouraged to "bring their authentic selves" to interviews, and there is value in that advice. Employers should get a realistic sense of who they are hiring, and candidates should not have to manufacture an entirely different personality to get through an interview. But authenticity should not be confused with unrestricted disclosure.

An interviewer may be warm, conversational, enthusiastic, and genuinely likable. You might laugh together, discover shared experiences, and leave feeling as though you just had coffee with someone who completely understands you. That person may sincerely like you, but they are also evaluating you.

When a recruiter asks why you left your previous employer, what frustrated you about your manager, how you handle conflict, or why you are desperate to leave your current job, your response is not being heard solely as a personal story. It is also information about how you may behave as an employee, how you respond to difficult situations, and what risks the company might be taking by hiring you.

Ask questions that help you understand the process. Is this a newly created position or a replacement? Are internal and external candidates being considered? What prompted the search? How long has the role been open? What would distinguish the person who gets the offer from the other qualified candidates? You may not receive a completely transparent answer, but the response itself can be informative.

If you sense that the interview is largely procedural, do not mentally check out. Give them a reason to reconsider. But do not invest your self-worth in the outcome either. Sometimes you are competing against qualifications, but sometimes you are competing against relationships, institutional knowledge, timing, internal politics, or a decision that was mostly made before your Zoom window ever opened.

Game #4: "Restructuring" Can Mean Almost Anything

Layoffs have developed an impressive corporate vocabulary: restructuring, realignment, rightsizing, streamlining, transformation, strategic reorganization, operational efficiency...

Sometimes those words accurately describe what is happening at the organizational level, but whatever terminology appears in the company-wide email, the employee experience is simply: yesterday you had a job, and today you do not.

One of the most striking themes I have repeatedly seen in conversations about layoffs is the shock among employees who believed their performance protected them. They exceeded expectations, had strong relationships with leadership, received positive performance reviews, had been with the company for a decade, or had recently been promoted. Then their position disappeared. The problem is that many employees assume layoffs function like performance management. If I am good enough, valuable enough, productive enough, or well-liked enough, I will be safe, but leadership can believe you are excellent at your job and still decide they no longer want, need, or can afford you.

That distinction is important because many of us build our sense of professional security around becoming indispensable. The uncomfortable reality is that very few employees truly are. Organizations change leadership, strategies, technologies, budgets, products, and priorities. A position that was critical last year can become expendable this year without the person occupying it doing anything wrong.

Professional security, therefore, cannot come exclusively from your employer. Keep your resume current, even when you are happy, and maintain relationships outside your company. Know what your skills are worth in the external market, and keep track of your accomplishments. Pay attention when leadership changes, budgets tighten, hiring freezes appear, teams consolidate, or executives suddenly start talking a lot about "efficiency." Do not wait for a calendar invitation from HR to start thinking about your next move.

Game #5: Ghosting Is No Longer Just a Candidate Problem

Candidates have complained about recruiter ghosting for years, and for good reason. You interview, receive positive feedback, and are told you will hear something by Friday. Friday passes. Then Monday. Then another week. Eventually, you discover the position was filled.

But ghosting has spread throughout the employment ecosystem. Candidates ghost recruiters, and recruiters ghost candidates. Companies disappear after multiple rounds of interviews. Employers complain about candidate professionalism while candidates complain about employer professionalism, and both sides seem increasingly convinced that the other is the problem.

It is tempting to treat this entirely as a conversation about declining professional etiquette, but I think there is something else happening. People behave differently when they believe the other party has little accountability to them. As hiring becomes increasingly transactional, people on both sides begin protecting their own interests first.

For candidates, that means you should never stop pursuing other opportunities simply because one company seems extremely interested. A recruiter telling you that you are their top candidate is encouraging, but it is not an offer. A verbal offer is encouraging, but it is not a signed agreement. Do not make major professional or financial decisions based on enthusiasm. Keep your options open until there is something concrete to rely on.

Game #6: "We're a Family" Until the Spreadsheet Says Otherwise

Perhaps the biggest corporate illusion is the idea that the employment relationship is something other than a business relationship. Companies talk about loyalty, culture, belonging, commitment, purpose, and going above and beyond. Some organizations genuinely create extraordinary cultures, some leaders actually kinda care about the people who work for them, some colleagues become lifelong friends (cue the trauma bond), and some workplaces become meaningful communities. None of that changes the fundamental arrangement. You provide labor, expertise, time, and value while your employer provides compensation, benefits, resources, and opportunity. Both parties continue that relationship for as long as it makes sense for them to do so.

The imbalance appears when employees are encouraged to treat the relationship emotionally while organizations retain the ability to treat it economically. An employee feels guilty interviewing elsewhere because a manager "took a chance" on them. Six months later, the company eliminates their position because labor costs need to decrease. Someone stays late every night because the team is counting on them, only to learn that promotions have been frozen. Another person declines an outside opportunity because they do not want to abandon their coworkers, then watches their department get reorganized the following quarter.

None of these decisions necessarily make the company evil. Businesses have to make business decisions, but that is precisely the point. Companies are allowed to make business decisions. So are you.

Leaving for better compensation is a business decision. Interviewing while you are employed is a business decision. Declining unpaid responsibilities that will not advance your career is a business decision. Negotiating your salary is a business decision. Keeping your options open is a business decision.

TL;DR

After six months of reading people's workplace experiences, I have not concluded that every employer is dishonest or that every employee should approach work with suspicion, but I have concluded that employees need to become much better at understanding incentives.

Your company can care about you and still lay you off. Your manager can genuinely like you and still put you on a PIP. A recruiter can think you are fantastic and still hire someone else. An organization can value transparency and still negotiate compensation in its own financial interest. HR departments can contain compassionate, ethical professionals while still operating within systems designed to protect and serve the organization. Two things can be true at the same time.

The mistake is assuming that because an organization treats you well today, your interests and its interests have permanently aligned. They have not. Sometimes they overlap, and when they do, employment can be mutually beneficial, fulfilling, and even enjoyable. But the organization will continue managing its workforce according to its needs, and you should manage your career according to yours.

Keep your network alive when you love your job, know your market value when you are well paid, keep your resume updated when you feel secure, read the policies you assume will protect you, and ask questions when expectations suddenly change. Document your accomplishments, build skills your current employer does not require, save money when things are going well, and pay attention to what leadership does, not just what leadership says.

You need to remember that your employer has an entire infrastructure devoted to protecting the interests of the organization. You should have a strategy devoted to protecting yours. Once you understand the game, you stop waiting for someone else to protect your career, and you start protecting it yourself.