The recruiting system is broken, but apparently those with the power to repair it are in denial.
Bullets, bullets, bullets everywhere
Not too long ago, a recruiter published an article on LinkedIn asking candidates not to submit resumes containing “eighty-plus technologies crammed into the skills section.” I’m not going to repeat everything he said, and whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant. I’ll just say that, in his opinion, it’s better to have 10 skills you can defend than to list 80 skills you can spell.
Early in my career as a software engineer, I learned Fortran in school. It was my very first programming language. I had no idea how computers worked, even less how to program them. Later on, I learned 8080 assembly language programming in school because it was a completely different paradigm. In both cases, I needed a very solid foundation so I could understand how computers work and how I could make better use of them. From then on, everything I learned in computer science, from firmware to operating systems and from device drivers to applications, compilers with linkers and loaders, dozens upon dozens of languages, APIs, object models, and frameworks, and so many technologies and architectures available, all of which I can explain in detail, I learned by myself. I had mentors and coaches, books, cheatsheets, online references, and tutorials, but especially got burned while learning. Learning is not memorizing the syntax or a diagram, but building something practical to solidify the concepts you have acquired.
Project management is what I do now. I couldn’t learn it in books, courses, or home lab. Project management is an art and a science: the science is the science; the art…
But I digress.
When you apply for a given position at a regular company, you’ll encounter your worst enemy: the ATS. Applicant tracking systems are an important component of the candidate selection and hiring process, but some of them have a stupid module that scans the resume (or application form), matches keywords with the job requirements, and rates the candidate based on the percentage of matches. Depending on the threshold defined by whoever calls the shots, a number of candidates are automatically excluded. That’s how a job application you submitted on a Saturday morning gets rejected on the same day before lunch.
Why does that stupid module even exist? Because there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people applying for the very same position. Furthermore, there are companies that want to hire a new individual with a given profile. They can’t find a suitable candidate internally, so they call their contract houses to bring in candidates, which in turn will call their own subcontractors. If the company can’t find the right fit, they’ll call their class B tiers. And then class C. That’s how I have a multitude of recruiters (sometimes from the same company) offering me the very same position (but the lower the tier, the lower the pay).
Not too long ago, I was hiring 3 scrum masters. We received hundreds of applications. I summarily ignored the rating given by that pesky module. Instead, I wanted to give all candidates the dignity of having their resumes evaluated by a real human being. It took me considerable time to read every single one. At the end, it paid off! Not only I was able to hire 3 extremely talented professionals, but I also got to meet a lot of very exciting people.
How can you, as a candidate, circumvent this unfair practice? Easy: throw in bullets and more bullets. If a given company is looking for a new change management manager, but you have change and release management listed on your skill section, then you’ll need to split it in two, otherwise the ATS will send you packing.
Requirements are ludicrous
These are just a few examples. I’m not going to dignify these companies by mentioning their names.
July 2026. A technology giant is looking for a Senior Software Developer with 10+ years of experience with Claude Code. Considering that Claude Code was released in February 2025, then either they want to hire one of the original engineers, or this requisition is at least 9 years ahead of its time.
July 2026. A consulting giant is looking for a Data & AI Partner Solution Lead with 8+ years of direct experience with OpenAI APIs, Azure OpenAI Service, or similar large language model platforms required. They also want a Transformation Partner Solution Lead with 8+ years with organization implications of AI. OpenAI was founded in 2015, but ChatGPT was released in 2022. Assuming that’s what they meant, then the only individuals who qualify would be the company founders (Sam Altman et al), who I doubt are looking for another job, even less settling for only a mere 6-digit salary.
It doesn’t bother me seeing fly-by-night organizations posting ridiculous job requisitions, but when reputable corporations such as the above do it, it means they have lost their minds. What does this tell you about the work that’s expecting you after you’re accepted? Or the company culture? Or lack thereof?
Recruiters are overwhelmed
Of course they are! If it was not enough for companies to post unrealistic requirements, while others still believe that AI can replace their workers, the number of unemployed candidates desperate for a job is absurd. It is not uncommon to see hundreds of applications submitted within hours after a new vacancy is posted.
I’m not a recruiter. Throughout the course of my career I’ve worked with hundreds of recruiters, so I know what they do, but I don’t know how they do it, and most of them deserve my full respect. On average, they are human beings, though some job seekers tend to disagree with me.
Let’s open a parentheses. I remember, so many years ago, watching on TV a report about flight controllers. A given controller showed all the flights on his screen. There were planes circling the airport. Others were getting ready to land, and quite a few were waiting to take off. At a given point, the reporter asked how many people were there aboard each plane, and the controller said he can’t think of the human beings involved because it would bring unnecessary pressure to his job. Is this dehumanizing? I’ll leave it at your discretion.
Fast forward a number of years, I was doing payroll systems for a large corporation. If I did anything wrong, someone could miss a paycheck, or be paid the wrong amount. That someone could even be me. Likewise, I shouldn’t think of the individuals involved, instead considering them my consumers, who deserved my best performance for them. Close parentheses.
I would assume that, whenever a recruiter is looking at your job application, for them you’re just a resume and an application form. At that very moment, you don’t have a life, a spouse, kids, a home, bills to pay, needs, nor expectations. You are a resume and an application form. Nothing else. That’s exactly how I did it when I was choosing the scrum masters for my team. That’s because, when evaluating your candidacy, I was just trying to get a glimpse of how well you would fit inside my team.
But recruiters, for the most part, are not dehumanizing you. They have objective procedures for evaluating your application and a firm commitment to the organization they serve.
Above all, recruiters are messengers. They don’t decide who is chosen and who gets sent home. Hiring leaders do. When a hiring leader decides to interview a candidate, the recruiter facilitates the conversation, and when the hiring leader wants to extend an offer to the candidate, the recruiter once again facilitates it.
But when the hiring leader stays silent, the recruiter also stays silent. That’s what messengers do.
You can argue that, after a candidate is hired, all others should be notified. I fully agree with you. When I was selecting scrum masters for my team, HR assured me that all other candidates would receive a thank-you note, otherwise I would have sent them myself.
Once again, and for the most part, recruiters are actual human beings and consider you the same. Remember that it’s not cool to insult a recruiter who’s only doing their job.
Let’s humanize the process!
I like the bouncer paradigm. The bouncer’s responsibility is to check IDs, see whether each individual is of legal drinking age, control rude behavior, and allow entry up until the capacity limit of the establishment. Bouncers also welcome VIPs, allowing them to bypass the line. Once it’s all done and the establishment is closing, they send everyone away.
Here’s my suggestion for a humane ATS.
- ATS receives all applications and sorts them in descending order by score1. ATS also sends an acknowledgment to each candidate.
- Recruiter reads the resume on the top. Good resumes go to the
yeslist, bad resumes get the thank-you note, and other resumes go to themaybelist. Aviplist is also maintained. - When the
yeslist reaches its full capacity, ATS stops sending resumes to the recruiter. ATS continues receiving and sorting applications, though, while at the same time sending ackowledgments. The capacity is determined by the involved entities. - At regular intervals, ATS sends all outstanding candidates a note letting them know they’re still on the queue.
- Hiring leaders read from the
vip,yes, andmaybelists at their convenience. Whenever a candidate is rejected, they get a thank-you note, and when a candidate is being actively considered, ATS sends the next top resume to the recruiter. Interviews are held as needed. - Once a candidate accepts an offer, or if the position is closed for whatever reason, all remaining applicants receive a thank-you note.
- Resumes are kept on file, if authorized by the candidate, for a given period of time in case a similar (or same) position opens.
This way, everyone is kept well informed, no one is ghosted, and the burden on the recruiter is minimized. It would be so easy and affordable to implement a process like this!
The only gap here is when the hiring manager2 decides to keep quiet. Why the silence? Aren’t they ashamed? Don’t they have any respect? I, for one, would take that as a sign of a toxic work environment.
As for the candidates…
Meanwhile, and for as long as the process remains robotized, what can candidates do? These are just a few examples:
- Choose wisely! Don’t apply to just any position because you’re desperate, but instead save your time and energy for those positions where you could be a serious contender.
- Enter the
viplist. It’s not uncommon for companies to create a new position for someone they want to bring in. - Shove in as many bullets as you can, possibly removing the irrelevant ones.
- Have AI rewrite your resume for each job application.
- Make sure it's accurate and truthfully represents you. I’ve heard tales of candidates who submitted resumes without knowing the contents and were caught red handed during the interview. The interviewer merely asked about the candidate’s experience, as highlighted on the resume, when in effect there was none.
- I’ve heard tales of companies who prefer AI-written resumes because it shows them the candidate is smart.
- Most companies will use AI for reading resumes. You can’t win against their AI, but perhaps your AI can?
Revision history
- 2026-07-24: Original posting date.
- 2026-08-08: Corrections; ridiculousness.
- 2026-08-10: Humanizing the process.