When both sides are right
On the logic that breaks recruitment.
Recruiters and hiring managers bemoan candidates who are not putting in the effort. Candidates complain that their applications are not given the time they deserve. Worse, that applications are now primarily reviewed by AI and applicant tracking systems. It's clear the system has problems and they seem to be getting worse.
In this system, indiscriminate volume applications become a rational response for candidates. So too do the many shortcuts that the tools provide to recruiters to reduce noise. Still, if we continue to rank convenience as our highest goal and rationalise our behaviour from that position, we will all continue to suffer.
If you’re currently active in the job market, you’ve probably felt this pain. If you’re sending volume applications, there is a very good chance your applications are never read. That’s not because the recruiter is lazy or using AI. It’s a simple function of numbers. Faced with large volumes of applications, which are often near-identical, a recruiter or hiring manager cannot possibly read and review every single application in its entirety. There’s just not enough time.
As a response to large volume, recruiters need to find ways to reduce the size of the candidate pool. There are many ways to quickly cut numbers. Some common methods are to exclude candidates who have made spelling and grammatical errors, have generic CVs, left questions unanswered, given thoughtless or brief answers, or those who are clearly not technically suitable for the role in experience or qualifications.
The candidates who remain after this initial review are the candidates whose applications are then reviewed in more detail. This group is often referred to as the shortlist. If you want to be invited to more interviews, you need to focus on making it into this group. This requires an attention to detail, a willingness to self-reflect, and the ability to share yourself with people. This is the first task. The second is to make sure that you can compete once you are in.
In the shortlist, you are measured against other strong candidates who have done the small things well but then gone well beyond that minimum standard by crafting applications which offer a compelling vision of their capabilities and suitability for the role and company. There are many capable candidates who miss out on interviews because they have not put in enough effort or thought to break into the shortlist or be competitive in it if they do.
Rather than just apply more, your best chance is to go back to what really matters. Your why. Why are you looking? Why are you in your field? Why are you interested in certain roles and companies? If you can identify and describe your why with certainty and enthusiasm, you are much more likely to produce an application with the depth and character that it takes to stand out in the candidate pool and then more importantly in the shortlist and thereby give yourself the best chance of securing an interview.
This is ultimately a question of intention and selectivity. As a candidate, good practice looks like mapping your market, developing your positioning narrative, understanding the trajectory of your career, and seeking out opportunities which align. With this information in hand, you can prioritise your efforts towards what you really want and increase your chances of establishing a meaningful connection with a company and its talent team.
In recruitment, two rational perspectives appear to be operating against each other to create an unsatisfactory outcome. Both sides are right, but that’s little consolation. Recruiters blame poor candidate behaviour, and candidates blame poor recruiter behaviour. The technology that is now commonplace in our industry was designed to help address this gap. For this to be true, though, the tools would need to be used in good faith.
For candidates, good faith actions would mean producing thoughtful cover letters and CVs addressed to companies that you have researched in depth and feel culturally and technically aligned with. In short, being willing and able to articulate why you are interested and how you can contribute.
For recruiters and hiring managers, good faith actions would look like creating clear and detailed job descriptions and forming a deep understanding of the hiring criteria and how to measure the candidate against that. Then applying this framework consistently, fairly, and with transparency. In the end, this means spending the time required to really understand the objective of the hire and whether or not a candidate can contribute towards that objective.
There are plenty of examples of teams implementing excellent hiring practices and candidates who create compelling and thoughtful applications, but for the most part, the tools are being used on both sides of the hire to cut workflow corners. The result is that our mutual experiences grow increasingly unsatisfying and alienating.
The practicalities of life suggest that both talent teams and candidates will continue to behave in ways that are justifiable given the circumstances, making decisions which, though rational in our separate echo chambers, operate together to our mutual detriment. We can do better, though. We can choose intention and reflection. Our actions have the potential to create either signal or noise.
Which will you choose?
