Hiring is broken because the system is optimized for volume instead of decision making. Most hiring tools reward how many applications come in, not how clearly a company can identify who is actually qualified. The result is noise, delays, and missed talent on both sides.
The hiring system optimizes the wrong thing
Modern hiring is built around proxies.
- Resumes stand in for experience
- Keywords stand in for capability
- Applications stand in for interest
None of those reliably answer the real question a company has to make a hire.
Can this person solve the problem we are hiring for?
When a system cannot answer that question directly, it compensates by collecting more data. More resumes. More filters. More steps. That creates activity, not clarity.
Volume makes hiring feel productive, not effective
High application volume looks good on dashboards. It does not lead to better decisions.
- Recruiters skim instead of evaluate
- Hiring managers rely on shortcuts
- Qualified candidates get filtered out because they do not look loud enough on paper
This is why companies can see hundreds of applicants and still say, “No one is qualified.”
The system is doing exactly what it was designed to do.
Resumes are a weak signal for modern roles
Resumes summarize history.
Jobs require problem solving.
Most roles today are defined by outcomes, not tasks. What matters is whether someone has already solved similar problems, in similar conditions, with similar constraints.
Traditional hiring tools do not evaluate that. They look for patterns in titles, tenure, and keywords. That creates false positives and false negatives at scale.
Candidates are not the failure point
When qualified people are consistently rejected, the instinct is to blame the candidate.
- Fix your resume
- Apply to more jobs
- Learn to game the system
That advice exists because the system cannot reliably surface real signal. Asking candidates to adapt is cheaper than fixing the underlying model.
The result is burnout, wasted time, and a hiring process no one trusts.
What a functioning hiring system would do instead
A functional hiring system would start with the problem, not the resume.
It would ask:
- What is the company trying to solve?
- What outcomes define success?
- Who has already delivered similar results?
Hiring becomes simpler when eligibility is clear. You do not need hundreds of applicants. You need a small number of credible options.
The takeaway
Hiring is broken because it measures the wrong things.
Until systems are built to evaluate outcomes instead of volume, companies will keep missing qualified candidates and candidates will keep blaming themselves for a system failure.
The problem is not effort.
The problem is signal.
FAQ
Why do companies get so many applicants but still struggle to hire?
Because application volume is not a measure of candidate quality. Most hiring systems surface resumes that match keywords, not people who have solved the problems the role requires. High volume creates noise, not clarity.
Are resumes still useful in hiring?
Resumes provide background, but they are a weak predictor of job performance. They summarize past roles and titles, not whether someone can deliver outcomes in a new role. Used alone, resumes create false positives and false negatives.
What actually improves hiring decisions?
Hiring improves when companies evaluate candidates based on problem-to-outcome alignment. When systems surface eligibility signals instead of raw applications, decision making becomes faster, clearer, and more accurate.