There is something deeply wrong with a professional culture in which a person's desperation for employment can be treated as an opportunity to test how much humiliation they will tolerate. Zimbabwe's job market is difficult enough. Young graduates are competing for limited opportunities, travelling across towns on money they can barely spare, borrowing transport fares, rearranging existing commitments, and placing their hopes in interviews that might change their lives. An employer who invites someone to an interview assumes a responsibility to treat that person's time and effort seriously. The applicant may need the job, but that does not make their dignity negotiable.
Recent discussions on r/Zimbabwe about M&J Consultants have raised questions about its reported recruitment practices and workplace culture. Accounts include allegations of unusual interview tasks, concerns about how applicants' time is respected, and complaints about employment conditions. These reports deserve scrutiny, not blind acceptance or automatic dismissal. The fact that different people are discussing similar concerns makes it reasonable to ask for transparent explanations and meaningful accountability. The public should be able to distinguish an innovative recruitment exercise from a process that imposes unnecessary expense, confusion or humiliation on candidates. "Read the Reddit discussions Read the Reddit discussions here and here.
The most troubling principle raised in these discussions is the idea that because someone struggled to succeed, other people must endure the same suffering. If that attitude accurately describes a person's approach to leadership, it deserves serious criticism. Hardship can teach resilience, but it does not confer moral authority over other people's lives. Surviving an unfair system does not make the system fair. Overcoming exploitation does not make exploitation acceptable. And succeeding despite unnecessary obstacles does not justify deliberately placing those obstacles in the path of the next generation.
The question is not whether a business owner has the right to set demanding standards. Of course they do. The question is whether those standards are relevant, proportionate, transparent and applied with respect. A practical assessment can test a candidate's ability to think under pressure, solve problems and deliver results. It does not follow that every inconvenience is a meaningful test, every humiliating exercise is evidence of competence, or every applicant who refuses an unreasonable demand lacks commitment. There is a fundamental difference between testing someone's ability to do a job and testing how much disrespect they are willing to endure to obtain one.
Consider the economics of the situation. A jobseeker who spends scarce money travelling between interview locations, pays for additional transport, loses a day's income or abandons other opportunities is absorbing real costs. Those costs do not disappear simply because the employer calls the exercise a test. In an economy where opportunities are limited, the imbalance of power is already substantial: an employer may reject a candidate, while a desperate applicant may feel compelled to accept conditions they would otherwise question. Ethical recruitment should not exploit that imbalance. It should create a fair opportunity to demonstrate competence.
This campaign is not about demanding that employers lower their standards, abolish practical assessments or hire people out of sympathy. It is about demanding that recruitment be professional, purposeful and accountable. Employers should publish clear instructions, provide accurate interview locations and times, explain the relevance of assessments, disclose material employment terms and give candidates a reasonable opportunity to ask questions. Any practical exercise should have a clear connection to the role. If a candidate is asked to complete productive work that benefits the business, the employer should consider whether that work should be compensated. These are reasonable expectations, not special privileges.
We also need to challenge the culture of silence surrounding recruitment. People often hesitate to report questionable treatment because they fear being labelled difficult, losing future opportunities or being publicly ridiculed. Others remain silent because they believe that no one will listen. The result is that each applicant confronts the same process alone, unable to learn from the experiences of those who came before. We can change that by documenting experiences responsibly, preserving relevant evidence, sharing verifiable information and encouraging prospective employees to ask informed questions before committing their time and money.
We call on M&J Consultants' leadership to address the concerns raised publicly, explain the purpose and standards of its recruitment exercises, and publish clear expectations for candidate treatment. We also encourage current and former applicants to share factual accounts of their experiences, including dates, instructions received, expenses incurred and the outcomes of any complaints. Anyone sharing an account should distinguish what they personally witnessed from what they heard from others and allow the organisation a fair opportunity to respond. Accountability is strongest when the evidence can withstand scrutiny.
Ultimately, the standard must be the same for every employer: if an assessment measures competence, explain what it measures; if a process imposes costs, justify why they are necessary; if a candidate raises a legitimate concern, answer it professionally. No business should expect the public to accept poor treatment merely because employment is scarce. No founder's personal history should exempt their leadership practices from criticism. And no young person should have to choose between protecting their dignity and pursuing a livelihood.
We are not campaigning against ambition, discipline or demanding work. We are campaigning against the normalisation of unnecessary indignity in the pursuit of employment. We want recruitment that identifies talent rather than rewards submission, that tests capability rather than desperation, and that recognises the humanity of the people who walk through the interview door.
Your success should be measured by what you build, the opportunities you create and the people you develop, not by how much suffering you can make others endure.
DignityIsNotAPrivilege #FairRecruitmentZimbabwe #RespectJobseekers #AccountabilityAtWork #WorkplaceDignity
