Why Hiring Feels Broken: The Great Disconnect

Ever submit an application you felt genuinely qualified for, only to hear nothing back?

Not a rejection. Not a follow-up. Just silence.

It’s a frustrating, often disorienting experience. And for many job seekers, it’s happening more frequently than ever. The instinct is to internalize it: Am I not good enough? Did I miss something?

Meanwhile, employers are buried under vast amounts of applications and resumes, struggling to figure out how to identify the best talent for the position.

While it’s simple to call the current environment a tough job market, it’s actually a structural shift in how organizations identify, evaluate, and select talent. And that shift is creating friction for both employers and applicants. Read on as we explore the current employment landscape, what to avoid and how to stand apart from the crowd, whether you’re the applicant or the employer.

A Hiring System Under Strain

For job applicants, job searches can feel arbitrary and opaque. Meanwhile, for employers, filling vacancies often feels overwhelming and inefficient.

What applicants can’t see from the outside is that employers are navigating hundreds, if not thousands, of applications per role. Meanwhile, they feel increasing pressure to hire faster and smarter using new technologies that are reshaping the very basis of decision-making. And all of this is happening alongside rapidly changing skill requirements for many positions.

At the same time, from the inside, employers don’t see that candidates are facing automated screening systems, lengthy and inconsistent hiring processes, and limited visibility into decision criteria. This distance creates a growing sense of disconnection from employers and can make job seekers feel like robots performing the same mindless tasks over and over.

The result? A hiring system that is evolving in a way that feels less human and more overwhelming for everyone involved.

Ghosting, Delays, and the “Black Box” Experience

One of the most visible symptoms of this strained system is the rise of ghosting.

Candidates invest hours—sometimes days—into applications and interviews, only to be ghosted, receiving no response. Meanwhile, employers report candidates dropping out mid-process or accepting other offers without notice.

While some may consider it a breakdown in professionalism, much of it is actually a byproduct of scale and misalignment.

When hiring processes are overloaded with volume, extend across multiple rounds, and lack clear communication checkpoints, they begin to feel less conversational and more transactional. For candidates, this creates a “black box” experience: you don’t know where you stand, you don’t know what mattered, and you don’t know what to do differently next time. The natural progression, then, is that employers see talent drop off and brand erosion, which eventually leads to delayed hiring decisions.

Essentially, as employers try to make hiring more operationally efficient, it’s had the effect of becoming relationally inefficient.

What Employers Could Rethink

As hiring continues to evolve, organizations have an opportunity and, more importantly, the responsibility, to design better experiences.

That starts with eliminating practices that no longer serve their intended purpose. For example, many employers overly rely on outdated filters. Capable candidates are often excluded by arbitrary metrics, such as unnecessary educational degree requirements and arbitrary experience thresholds, often without improving outcomes.

Another area to review is the number of steps a candidate must go through to complete the entire hiring process. Excessively complex hiring processes, such as multiple rounds, lengthy assessments, and unclear timelines, can drive away strong talent.

The Shift to Skills-Based Hiring

One of the most significant changes underway is the move away from traditional credentials and toward demonstrable skills.

For years, resumes served as shorthand, proxies for capability. Degrees, job titles, and years of experience were used to infer potential. However, in an evolving economy, particularly when it comes to more specialized training and technological changes, those signals are no longer sufficient.

Organizations are increasingly asking: Can this person actually do the work?

To answer this question, employers have begun to lean on other means of evaluating candidates, including work sample tests, case-based interviews, technical and role-specific assessments, and structured evaluation criteria. From a hiring perspective, this shift makes sense. Skills-based hiring has numerous benefits. For example, by expanding access to non-traditional talent, organizations can improve the quality of their applicants and reduce their reliance on subjective signals.

Nevertheless, from a candidate perspective, it introduces new challenges. Applicants can waste hours on time-intensive assessments, yet they have no guarantee of feedback to know where to improve the next time. They may also face multi-step processes that feel disproportionate to the role they seek simply to prove their skills align with the role. This means that upfront they are required to expend increased effort, often across multiple applications, with little payoff for their work.

While the intention is better alignment, the experience can feel heavier for the applicant.

What to Avoid Altogether

Some tools and practices don’t just need refinement; they shouldn’t be used in hiring decisions at all. Read below for some of the most common mistakes that employers can easily avoid in the hiring process:

• Algorithmic “black box” decision-making without oversight
  Automatically rejecting candidates via screening tools without human review or transparency may disqualify otherwise qualified candidates for non-job-relevant reasons, and it can reinforce historical biases embedded in AI training data. Technology can support decision-making. Still, delegating the entirety of the work to AI creates more risk than reward. Technology should inform decisions, not replace judgment.
• Unpaid, excessive take-home work disguised as assessment
  Some employers rely on lengthy projects that require hours (or days) of unpaid labor, in many cases without feedback. This can exploit a candidate’s time and effort, and it can signal a lack of respect for the candidate’s experience. Moreover, this approach disproportionately disadvantages those with limited availability. If the work resembles real output, it should be scoped tightly—or, better yet, compensated.
• “Culture fit” as a vague or subjective filter
  Using undefined notions of “fit” often becomes a proxy for sameness. Beyond reinforcing homogeneity and excluding diverse perspectives, it can also mask bias under the guise of team alignment. Psychometric assessments, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, are not designed to predict job performance. Using them as hiring filters can unnecessarily introduce bias while introducing significant legal and ethical risk. A more effective alternative is assessing values alignment and ability, not similarity.
• Ghosting as a default communication practice
  Silence is not neutral. It shapes how candidates perceive your organization and communicates disregard. Failing to follow up with candidates damages employer brand, discourages future applicants, and overall undermines trust in the process. Even automated, timely updates are better than no communication.
• Inflated or unrealistic job requirements
  Job descriptions that list excessive or non-essential qualifications may deter strong candidates from applying while skewing applicant pools toward over-credentialed profiles. Beyond that, it can lead to misaligned expectations once the role begins. Ensure job descriptions reflect the actual work, not an idealized wish list.

What This Means for Job Seekers

While much of this change is systemic, candidates still have agency in how they respond.

There are some practical shifts that a job seeker can work on before, and while, they apply for jobs. First, focus on skills visibility. Make all relevant capabilities explicitly mentioned—don’t assume they will be inferred by job experience or education. Next, build proof of work. Tangible outputs, such as portfolios or projects, are increasingly valuable. Lastly, understand how hiring systems work. Awareness of Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) and AI screening protocols can help an applicant position themself more effectively.

And most importantly: Don’t internalize what is often a structural issue.

“You’re Not Broken” — A Necessary Reframe

It’s easy to interpret rejection, or silence, as a personal failure.

Here’s the reality: You’re not broken. The hiring system is. Or more accurately, it’s being rewritten in real time.

Today’s hiring outcomes are influenced by factors that often have little to do with individual capability: algorithmic filtering, timing and applicant volume, internal changes in role scope, and shifting business priorities.

Candidates can be highly qualified and still not move forward. It’s not because they lack ability; it’s because they didn’t align perfectly with how the system evaluated them in that moment. Of course, that doesn’t make the experience less frustrating. However, it does make it more understandable.

The goal, then, is not just to “be better.” It’s to better understand and navigate the system itself.

The Future of Hiring: A Balance to Be Found

The hiring process is no longer a simple exchange between employer and applicant. It’s an evolving system shaped by technology, scale, and shifting expectations on both sides.

Looking ahead, hiring will continue to evolve along three key dimensions: more skills-based, more data-driven, and more globally competitive.

But there’s a counterforce emerging as well.

As systems become more automated, the need for human-centered design becomes more critical, not less. The organizations that succeed will be those that balance efficiency with empathy, technology with transparency, and scale with meaningful connection.

Because ultimately, hiring isn’t just about filling roles. It’s about recognizing potential and creating processes that see people, not just profiles.

What is the most unique thing you have experienced as a job applicant? Where have you as an organization seen an evolution in your hiring practices?

Leave a comment below, send me an email, or find me on Twitter.