In today’s job market, the hiring process often feels like a broken system—unfair, unrealistic, and designed to frustrate more than facilitate. What should be a meaningful process of matching people to opportunities has become a maze of contradictions, inconsistencies, and unnecessary hurdles.
Unrealistic Job Requirements
Let’s start with job postings. Employers advertise roles with a long list of “requirements” that seem more like wish lists than realistic expectations. A vacancy might ask for 5+ years of experience for an entry-level role, which makes no sense—how are people supposed to gain experience if no one is willing to give them a chance?
On the flip side, if you do have plenty of experience but lack formal qualifications, you’re disqualified. If you have both experience and qualifications—yet happen to hold a master’s degree when the job asks for a bachelor’s—you’re suddenly “overqualified.” It’s a never-ending loop that locks people out of opportunities.
Application Fatigue
Why should someone spend nearly an hour crafting a resume and cover letter, only to be forced to enter the exact same information again into a long, tedious application form? Many application systems are poorly designed, repetitive, and frustrating. Before candidates even reach the interview stage, they’re already burned out by an inefficient process.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to streamline this? If you’re already reviewing a resume, do you really need candidates to duplicate their work? More efficient systems exist—many institutions just haven’t caught up.
The Problem with Interviews
Interviews, in theory, are a chance for employers and candidates to get to know each other. But in practice, they often boil down to selecting the best speaker, not necessarily the best fit. The truth is, anyone can prepare for an interview—there are thousands of resources online with common questions and “ideal” answers. A good speaker can sell themselves into almost any role, but that doesn’t mean they’re the most suitable candidate.
And what’s with the massive interview panels—five or more people staring down one candidate? That feels less like a conversation and more like an interrogation. Worse, candidates are often rushed through the process, with no time to ask their own questions. When discussions are one-sided, we lose the opportunity to make informed, mutual decisions.
Oh, and the biggest hypocrisy? Employers are quick to ask, “What’s your salary expectation?”—yet they refuse to share their offer. How is that fair?
Assessments: Pressure Over Purpose
Let’s talk about assessments. Sure, some of them make sense—especially when they directly relate to the job. But asking someone to identify the next shape in a pattern within one minute? That’s just absurd. Real-world jobs rarely require you to perform abstract tasks under extreme pressure. What are these tests really measuring?
The most intelligent or test-savvy candidates may score high, but that doesn’t automatically make them the best person for the role. Intelligence doesn’t always translate to commitment, teamwork, or resilience. We need hiring practices that assess people holistically, not just academically.
Lack of Communication
One of the most frustrating aspects of the hiring process is the lack of basic courtesy. Most companies don’t even acknowledge receiving your application. You go to an interview and never hear back. A simple “thank you for applying” or “we’ve decided to move forward with other candidates” would go a long way. It’s called professionalism.
And when you do follow up, you’re made to feel like a burden—as if asking for clarity is begging. Meanwhile, weeks and even months pass with no response, or you discover through the grapevine that the position was filled long ago.
The Inside Track
Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: nepotism and favoritism. Sometimes you’re told there are “no current vacancies,” but suddenly the role is filled—often not by internal promotions, but by friends or acquaintances of insiders. Why should some candidates have to follow a tedious, structured process while others skip the line? Systems are supposed to be fair, transparent, and unbiased—but too often, they’re not.
Rethinking the Hiring Process
Here’s the reality: the people who breeze through interviews and assessments often don’t stay long. They either resign or underperform because the hiring process prioritized performance over potential.
Institutions need to do better.
- Start by genuinely getting to know candidates.
- Don’t dismiss someone just because they’re “overqualified” — you can always negotiate.
- Don’t ignore someone because they don’t have the years of experience — they may have the right attitude and the capacity to learn.
- Don’t disqualify someone who might have failed the assessments — pressure tests don’t always reflect real-world competence.
Most jobs are teachable. Many roles are repetitive, structured, and skill-based—meaning that with some training, the right person can thrive. We need to start hiring based on potential, not perfection.
Final Thought: Be Human
It’s sad that many of the people who now run hiring processes were once frustrated by the same system. Yet they’ve done little to change it. The process remains cold, impersonal, and needlessly complex.
Here’s the truth: the best interviewee isn’t always the best employee. The smartest test-taker isn’t always the hardest worker. Institutions should look beyond polished resumes and scripted answers and focus on potential, willingness to learn, and genuine interest.
Institutions: Do better. Be more human. Be more balanced. See beyond the resume, the test score, and the polished interview answer. Hire the person, not the paper. Fairness, empathy, and opportunity should be at the heart of recruitment—not bureaucracy.