A promising candidate applies. The interview goes well. Maybe they even accept the offer. Then—nothing. No call. No email. No explanation. Just silence.
For cleaning company owners, this scenario has become a routine frustration, and the numbers behind it are sobering.
According to Wells Ye, founder of EmployJoy.ai, ghosting affects 40% to 50% of applicants on average across the cleaning industry—and for some companies, that figure climbs as high as 80%. But Ye argues the problem is more nuanced than most employers realize, and solving it starts with understanding that not all ghosting is created equal.
Good ghosting vs. bad ghosting
Ye draws a sharp distinction between two kinds of candidate disappearing acts. Good ghosting, as he defines it, happens early in the application process—and he actually welcomes it. With today’s one-click “lazy apply” tools allowing job seekers to blast applications to hundreds or even thousands of positions in a single day, a large share of applicants was never serious to begin with. Losing them early costs nothing.
Bad ghosting is another matter entirely. “When we truly invest our time evaluating and we believe the other side have good qualification, when that ghosting is happening, we call that the bad ghosting,” Ye said. This is the candidate who clears the interview, completes onboarding, starts training—and then vanishes in the first one to four weeks. Ye said this pattern shows up consistently across subscriber data spanning three years, and it points directly to breakdowns in the recruiting process itself.
“We prefer to front load these ghosting,” he said. “It is literally saving time for both, and saving time and money for the cleaning companies.”
Two levers: communication and job design
Ye points to two root causes of bad ghosting: a flawed recruiting process and a weak job offering. Both have to be addressed.
On the communication side, he advocates for what he calls a 50/50 approach, equal parts advocacy and disclosure. Advocacy means making the case for the job in terms that matter to the specific candidate. For a student, lead with schedule flexibility. For an experienced cleaner, emphasize growth potential. The pitch has to be tailored.
But advocacy without honesty backfires. Ye said employers also need to disclose the real challenges—the parking situation, the night shifts, the physical demands—and pair every disclosure with a solution. “We want to assure the other side we are honest,” he said. “We also work hard to resolve, to support our cleaners.”
The second lever is the job itself. Ye is direct: A bad job will never produce good hiring outcomes. When a candidate can weigh a cleaning position against Amazon’s day-one benefits and US$20-plus hourly wage, the offer has to hold up. “How can we maximize our advantage of a cleaning job while minimizing the potential disadvantage?” Ye asked. That question, he argues, should drive job design decisions at every level: pay, schedule, benefits, and growth path.
Where AI fits in
Handled correctly, Ye said, AI can sharpen hiring decisions and surface patterns in candidate behavior that would otherwise go unnoticed. But it is not a shortcut around the fundamentals. “A bad job will never get good applicants, get good results,” he said. “We have to design our job attractively, and then data will help us make a better hire in that process.”
The message for cleaning company owners is straightforward: front-load the filtering, communicate honestly and specifically, and make the job worth taking. Do those three things, Ye said, and the bad ghosting largely takes care of itself.
Watch the interview and listen to the podcast:
