Zomato CEO Deepinder Goyal recently made waves when he posted an unusual job listing for the position of Chief of Staff, which required applicants to pay a hefty ₹20 lakh for the opportunity. The listing, which sparked considerable debate online, raised questions about the ethics and implications of charging applicants for a job. The post quickly garnered attention from more than 18,000 applicants, but Goyal has since clarified his intentions, hoping that the idea of “paying for a job” does not become a widespread trend in the industry.
In his social media post on X (formerly Twitter), Goyal acknowledged the confusion surrounding the job listing and aimed to set the record straight. He revealed that the ₹20 lakh fee was not a genuine requirement for employment, but rather a screening mechanism. According to Goyal, the fee served as a “filter” designed to identify candidates who were able to understand the magnitude of the opportunity being offered and were not easily deterred by obstacles or constraints. The payment was never meant to be seen as a cost to obtain the job, but rather as a signal of the candidate’s ability to recognize and embrace a fast-paced, high-responsibility career path.
The controversial job listing, which initially appeared to be asking applicants to pay for a position, triggered widespread discussions about fairness, access, and corporate culture. Critics raised concerns that such a practice could reinforce existing inequalities and prevent talented individuals from lower-income backgrounds from pursuing such high-level positions. Others questioned whether it was ethical for companies to ask for any form of payment in exchange for employment opportunities, regardless of the context.
In his clarification, Goyal emphasized that the ₹20 lakh payment was never intended as a fee for employment but as a measure to gauge how applicants perceived the nature of the opportunity. He further expressed his hope that this unique screening method would not set a precedent for other companies or industries. Goyal stressed that Zomato had no intention of making “pay-to-get-a-job” a norm and reiterated that the company’s hiring practices would always prioritize talent, merit, and the ability to perform.
The listing, despite its unconventional nature, sparked an important conversation about job recruitment practices, especially in tech and fast-growing industries where the demand for skilled talent is fierce. For Zomato, this was a rare instance of experimentation with new hiring practices. In the past, many companies have relied on traditional methods like interviews and tests to screen candidates, but Goyal’s approach seemed to push the boundaries of how far companies could go in testing potential hires.
While the job listing itself may have been an outlier, it sheds light on the growing pressure on firms like Zomato to find innovative ways to attract the best and brightest candidates in a competitive job market. As tech companies continue to expand and evolve, hiring practices are bound to become more creative and complex. However, it is crucial that companies remain mindful of the ethical implications of such decisions, particularly when they involve significant financial or personal stakes.
The closure of applications for the position has not stopped the conversation around Goyal’s controversial move. Public reactions were mixed, with some appreciating the innovative approach to recruitment while others expressed concerns about the potential for exploitation. In his follow-up post, Goyal acknowledged the feedback and assured the public that his intent was always to challenge traditional hiring norms and bring fresh thinking to recruitment, not to introduce a harmful precedent.
The debate over Goyal’s decision to introduce a ₹20 lakh “filter” for the Chief of Staff role also highlights the increasing pressure that companies, particularly those in the fast-growing tech and startup sectors, face when it comes to attracting top-tier talent. With competition for skilled professionals reaching unprecedented levels, companies are continuously seeking new ways to stand out in the crowded talent pool. In this context, Zomato’s experiment with such an unconventional hiring practice is indicative of the lengths to which firms might go to find the right fit for high-level positions.
However, the backlash also underscores the delicate nature of employer-employee relationships, particularly in a job market where workers increasingly value transparency, fairness, and inclusivity. Many applicants expressed concerns that the ₹20 lakh “screening fee” created unnecessary barriers, potentially excluding deserving candidates who may have the skills but not the financial means to pay such an amount. Critics argue that companies must ensure that their recruitment processes are accessible to a wide range of candidates, regardless of their financial background.
The incident also serves as a reminder of the broader conversation surrounding diversity and equity in the workplace. As more companies push for inclusive hiring practices, the idea that a large sum of money could be a criterion for selection feels counterintuitive to the principles of equal opportunity. Recruitment methods like Goyal’s could inadvertently perpetuate the notion that only those from privileged backgrounds can access high-profile job opportunities, thereby hindering the diversity of thought and experience that organizations like Zomato likely want to foster.
Despite these concerns, some industry experts argue that Goyal’s approach was not necessarily an attempt to discriminate but rather a provocative, albeit risky, method of finding candidates who understood the demands and scope of the job. In the fast-paced and high-stakes world of startups, hiring the right leader for critical roles such as Chief of Staff can make or break a company. Thus, it can be argued that Goyal’s approach, while unconventional, was an attempt to find someone who could manage both the challenges of the job and the strategic decisions that come with it.
As Zomato moves forward with its recruitment practices, the CEO’s clarification likely sets the stage for future hiring experiments. While this particular instance may have been a learning experience for the company, it may also lead to more creative, but ethically sound, ways of assessing candidates for leadership roles. Going forward, it is crucial for companies to ensure that their hiring processes are transparent, fair, and aligned with best practices that promote diversity and equal opportunity.
In a broader sense, the controversy surrounding Goyal’s job listing serves as an important lesson for startups and established companies alike. As organizations continue to innovate in every aspect of their operations, including hiring practices, they must remain conscious of how their decisions can impact public perception and the values they want to uphold. The delicate balance between creativity in recruitment and fairness in opportunity is one that requires careful consideration, particularly when such practices can influence the career trajectories of countless professionals.