Dependency is the new flex in job interviews
Self-sufficiency used to be a hiring gold star. Now it’s a red flag. In many organizations, the candidate who promises to “take initiative and figure it out” is met with side-eye, while the one who signals their willingness to rely on teams, processes, and managerial guidance gets the nod. Dependency, oddly enough, has become the safer bet.
This inversion isn’t about collaboration suddenly becoming fashionable. It’s about managerial insecurity, shifting corporate incentives, and the quiet panic leaders feel when faced with someone who might not need them.
Why self-sufficiency became radioactive
Corporate America built its talent mythology around the “self-starter.” The ideal worker was someone who could be dropped into chaos, invent a process, and get results without handholding. Startups in particular fetishized this trait, wrapping it in slogans like “move fast” and “wear many hats.”
But in the past five years, that narrative has soured. In bureaucratic enterprises, a “self-sufficient” hire sounds like someone who will ignore process, ruffle feathers, and make their manager look irrelevant. In startups bloated with VC cash, “self-starters” remind executives of an era of unsupervised heroics they now want to bury under layers of structure.
What changed? Part of it is insecurity at the middle-management level. A candidate who brags about needing little oversight is implicitly saying: I won’t make you look good by depending on you. For managers whose sense of worth comes from orchestrating dependency, that’s threatening.
Dependency as a performance signal
Today, job seekers have started to catch on. In interviews, they flex not by describing how they’ll run independently, but by narrating how well they integrate into teams, adapt to feedback loops, and lean on collective resources. They promise to depend conspicuously on the scaffolding already in place.
Hiring managers lap it up. Dependency signals safety: this person will follow the playbook, respect the hierarchy, and affirm the manager’s role. It’s the career equivalent of laughing at your boss’s jokes — low-cost, high-yield insurance.
And because many companies now measure success in terms of compliance with process rather than outcomes, dependency has become quantifiable. A self-sufficient worker might hit the target in a way that makes leadership uncomfortable. A dependent one hits the target through the approved path, which is easier to reward and justify.
The false promise of collaboration
Of course, this shift gets wrapped in the language of collaboration. Job postings trumpet “cross-functional teamwork” and “culture of support,” as if the dependency trend is about creating healthier, less siloed environments.
The reality is messier. Collaboration requires equal footing and mutual respect. Dependency, in the hiring sense, is hierarchical: the candidate agrees to lean on the system, not to challenge it. It’s not about better teamwork; it’s about visible submission.
The irony is that organizations celebrating “dependency” often end up with brittle teams. When everyone optimizes for fitting in and leaning on each other, no one builds the muscle to operate under pressure or innovate outside the script. The system looks harmonious — until it’s tested.
An anecdote from the field
I’ve lived this shift personally. I built much of my writing career on self-sufficiency — the ability to take a vague brief, research it end to end, and deliver clean copy without leaning on anyone. For years, that independence was the selling point. Clients wanted a writer who didn’t need handholding.
But when I recently pitched myself in that same way — “I can own the story end to end” in a job interview, the reaction was immediate. A nervous pause, followed by a gentle rebuke: “We really value people who stay aligned with the editorial process and know when to loop others in.”
So I shifted gears. Instead of emphasizing autonomy, I stressed how I depend on editors for calibration, on subject-matter experts for depth, and on marketing teams for framing. Suddenly, the tension eased. I wasn’t the rogue writer anymore; I was the dependable collaborator. I got a rejection email a day later. They didn’t want independence; they wanted dependency packaged as team orientation.
Why managers cling to dependent hires
Managers rarely admit they fear self-sufficient employees. But the incentives line up:
- Control optics: A dependent employee makes the manager look necessary. A self-sufficient one risks exposing managerial redundancy.
- Process validation: Dependency proves the process works. Self-sufficiency often implies the process is broken.
- Career insurance: Dependent hires are easier to mold and retain. Self-sufficient ones are more likely to outgrow the role — or the manager.
These dynamics create a perverse filter: organizations unintentionally select for candidates who flex dependency, and penalize those who would genuinely drive change.
The long-term risk
The problem is obvious: organizations that prize dependency over self-sufficiency calcify. They end up with workforces optimized for process compliance, not resilience. When disruption hits — whether it’s a market shock, a new competitor, or a sudden tech pivot — dependent teams crumble.
By contrast, companies that can tolerate true self-sufficiency tend to weather storms better. They have employees capable of improvisation and managers secure enough to let them.
But tolerance requires secure leadership. And insecure managers are everywhere.
A framework for rebalancing
For candidates:
- Read the room: If a hiring manager flinches at “self-sufficient,” pivot to language of integration. Don’t waste capital trying to prove autonomy to someone who fears it.
- Flex selective dependency: Frame independence as knowing when to escalate and when to push through. Sell it as discernment, not rebellion.
- Test for insecurity: Ask about decision-making autonomy. If the answer is vague or defensive, the role will likely punish initiative.
For organizations:
- Audit incentives: Are you rewarding process adherence over outcomes? That’s dependency bias at work.
- Train managers for security: Teach them to see self-sufficient employees not as threats, but as multipliers.
- Diversify hires: Build a mix — some process-reliant, some self-sufficient. Over-indexing on dependency leaves you fragile.
The takeaway
Dependency might get you hired today, but it won’t save your company tomorrow.
Will Kelly is a writer, content strategist, and keen observer of the IT industry. Medium is home to his personal writing projects. His professional interests include generative AI, cloud computing, DevOps, and collaboration tools. He has written for startups, Fortune 1000 firms, and leading industry publications, including CIO and TechTarget. Follow him on X: @willkelly. You can also follow him on BlueSky: willkelly.bsky.social.
