CEO forgets to send job interview invite, calls it a 'hiring hack'. Internet claps back: 'Respect should go both ways'

In the corporate world, where hiring is often seen as a mix of skill assessment, gut instinct, and culture fit, a CEO’s recent LinkedIn post added an unexpected new twist: forgetfulness. What might sound like an ordinary slip-up was soon repackaged as a “hiring hack”—and not everyone was buying it.

The post, which later landed on Reddit’s popular forum r/LinkedInLunatics titled, " aka I need someone who will do my job for me" , shared the experience of a tech CEO who admitted to unintentionally forgetting to send a calendar invite to a prospective hire. But instead of apologizing, they presented the situation as a test of initiative.

In the LinkedIn post titled “Hiring Hack: Forget to Send the Meeting Invite,” the CEO wrote, “No really—this wasn’t intentional, but it can be a telling moment in your hiring process.” They went on to explain that after telling a candidate they’d meet at 9 a.m. on a particular day, they forgot to send the invite. Two reactions followed.

The first candidate messaged shortly before the meeting, asking if it was still on. The second one, however, sent over a calendar invite proactively and confirmed the meeting time. That gesture, according to the CEO, was “magic.”

“It shows initiative. It shows organization. Most importantly, it shows respect for my time and an instinct to support—not wait for direction,” the post read.

Intentions vs. Impact: A Leadership Lesson Misfires
While the CEO aimed to highlight traits like proactiveness and attention to detail, the internet quickly questioned the underlying message. If failing to do one’s own job—sending an invite—is being reframed as a leadership filter, what does that say about responsibility at the top?

Redditors didn’t hold back. One commenter wrote, “If she thinks this shows respect for her time, what does it say about the fact that she didn’t send it in the first place? Or does she expect respect to only go one way?” Another pointed out the impracticality: “You’d have to assume over 90% of a CEO’s time is already booked. Sending an invite without seeing their calendar seems... pointless.”

A third user, who works as a contractor, took a more nuanced view: “Clients forget all the time. I send the invite. But for a job interview? It depends. If the company or role is worth it, I might take the initiative. But if it’s vague, underpaid, or impersonal, no thanks.”

The Power Play Behind the ‘Test’
The real tension in the debate seemed to lie in the perceived imbalance of power. When a CEO forgets an invite, it’s reframed as a psychological hiring strategy. But when a candidate does the same—or hesitates to overstep—it’s considered a lack of initiative or drive.

One Reddit comment distilled the frustration: “I honestly, truly want to believe this is satire.” Another struck a deeper chord: “This is one way of hiring if you don’t trust your own ability to evaluate relevant skills.”

The criticism also touched on a broader trend in hiring, where vague behavioral ‘tests’ or hidden expectations are dressed up as culture fits, while potentially overlooking core competencies and mutual respect.

The Debate Around
This viral moment reflects a larger conversation in workplace culture: Is the corporate world increasingly prioritizing subtle social cues over transparent communication? Is initiative being confused with guessing games? And is there space for mutual respect when one side holds significantly more power?

The CEO’s post may have been well-intentioned, aiming to praise those who “own the details.” But in doing so, it inadvertently highlighted how corporate leadership can sometimes weaponize everyday lapses into tests—tests that many candidates never even knew they were taking.

As one netizen put it bluntly: “Sometimes it’s not a 4D chess mind game. People are actually just busy.”

Maybe hiring should be too important to leave to forgotten calendar invites and psychological traps. After all, initiative is valuable—but so is responsibility.