Is the Hiring Process Broken?
- Frank Manfre
- 4 days ago
- 4 min read
Candidate Perspectives
A lot of job candidates say the hiring process today feels “broken” because of a mix of inefficiencies, poor communication, and mismatched expectations. Here are the reasons they cite:
Too many hoops, not enough payoff
Lengthy online applications that ask for the same information already on a résumé.
Multiple interview rounds (sometimes 5 - 7!) for even mid-level roles.
Assessments and take-home projects like 30-60-90 day sales plans, that feel like unpaid work :(
Poor communication
Long stretches of silence or “ghosting” after interviews.
Vague job descriptions that don’t match the actual responsibilities.
Lack of feedback when rejected, making it hard to improve.
Overreliance on technology = depersonalization
Automated applicant tracking systems (ATS) filter out qualified candidates because of keyword mismatches.
Generic rejection emails sent instantly, leaving candidates feeling unseen.
Video interviews that feel impersonal or glitchy.
Candidates often feel like “numbers in a database,” not individuals.
Mismatched expectations
Jobs advertised as entry-level but requiring years of experience.
Lowball salary offers compared to market rates.
Companies expecting loyalty while offering little security.
Shifts in power dynamics
Candidates sense that many companies are slow-moving and rigid, while workers today expect transparency, flexibility, and speed.
Ghosting has gone both ways—candidates sometimes ghost employers, reflecting the lack of trust built into the process.
Hiring Manager Perspectives
A lot of hiring managers also express frustration with the modern hiring process, and many feel it’s “broken” for a host of reasons:
Over-reliance on technology and automation
Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) screen résumés in rigid ways, filtering out qualified candidates who don’t use the exact keywords.
Managers often never see strong applicants because of software “gatekeeping.”
Since anyone with an internet connection and iPhone can apply to jobs sitting in their pajamas employers are overwhelmed with a flood of applicants, many unqualified. So they rely on AI and ATS to sift through hundreds of résumés to find a handful of qualified candidates to actually talk to, and many of the resumes they get contain outright fabrications :(
Overwhelming volume of applicants & slow, bureaucratic processes
Online job boards make applying easy, which means hundreds (or thousands) of applicants per posting.
This creates noise - lots of unqualified résumés, making it harder to spot the right people.
Often, by the time a decision is made, top candidates may have accepted other offers.
Candidate experience vs. business needs mismatch
Hiring processes are often designed to protect the company legally and filter large numbers of applicants, but this comes at the cost of genuine human connection.
Candidates feel like numbers, while managers want to assess personality, fit, and initiative.
Skills mismatch and inflated requirements
Job descriptions often list unrealistic “wish lists” of skills, degrees, and years of experience.
Managers may feel pressure to hire a “perfect fit” rather than someone with potential who can grow into the role or get heat to fill a seat with a warm body.
Cultural mismatch and retention worries
Even when someone looks good on paper, they may not mesh with the team or stay long-term.
Managers feel that hiring has become more about checking compliance boxes than evaluating real fit.
Too much HR involvement, not enough manager influence
HR or recruiters often screen candidates before a manager even sees them.
Managers may feel they lose control over who even makes it to an interview, depriving them of a chance to interact with potentially great candidates.
Market dynamics
In some industries, there’s a talent shortage. In others, there’s an oversupply. Either way, managers feel like they can’t win - either competing fiercely for scarce talent or wading through endless unqualified applications.
Shared Views
Over-reliance on technology
Managers: Strong candidates get filtered out by rigid ATS keyword rules.
Candidates: They feel like they’re sending résumés into a black hole with no human eyes ever seeing them.
Shared Pain: Technology can enhance efficiency but it strips away nuance and human judgment.
Overwhelming volume of applicants
Managers: Too many unqualified applications clog the pipeline.
Candidates: They feel lost in a sea of competition, struggling to stand out.
Shared Pain: Quantity overwhelms quality, making it harder for good matches to connect.
Long, bureaucratic timelines
Managers: Decision-making gets slowed by HR steps, multiple interviewers, and process overload.
Candidates: They wait weeks or months, often ghosted or left hanging.
Shared Pain: Both sides lose momentum, and top talent gets lost to faster-moving competitors.
Unrealistic job descriptions
Managers: Pressured to write “wish list” requirements that don’t reflect reality.
Candidates: Feel excluded by inflated or contradictory requirements.
Shared Pain: The “perfect candidate” myth hurts both sides - leaving jobs unfilled and talent overlooked.
Poor communication
Managers: Complain HR or recruiters don’t ID and present the right candidates.
Candidates: Complain they don’t get timely updates or closure after interviews.
Shared Pain: Breakdowns in communication create frustration and distrust on both ends.
Cultural fit vs. skills mismatch
Managers: Know résumés don’t reveal team compatibility or long-term potential.
Candidates: Feel reduced to keywords and job titles, not seen as whole people.
Shared Pain: Both want a better way to assess real skills, growth potential, and personality.
Market dynamics - scarcity vs. oversupply
Managers: Feel trapped between desperate oversupply (too many résumés) or fierce competition (talent wars).
Candidates: Feel equally trapped by high rejection in oversupply or overwhelming pressure in scarcity.
Shared Pain: Mismatched supply-and-demand cycles create inefficiency for everyone.
Summary
Clearly many candidates feel hiring today is unnecessarily slow, impersonal, and focused more on employer convenience than mutual fit. At the same time many managers feel the system is too impersonal, too slow, too focused on process over people, and too dependent on tech filters that don’t reflect what the job really requires. So while managers complain about too many unqualified applicants, tech gatekeeping, and slow bureaucracy candidates complain about being ignored, over-tested, and treated impersonally.
That tension is what makes both sides feel like the hiring system is fundamentally broken.
To sum up, both sides actually agree the process is:
Too impersonal
Too slow
Too focused on checkboxes over people
Not transparent enough
Frank Manfre
Job Search Sherpa
Comments