When the Robot Hates Your Font

Where Good Candidates Go to Die: The ATS Inbox

Let’s kick things off with a fun stat: Harvard—yes, actual Harvard—estimates that 70–75% of qualified applicants get filtered out by ATS systems thanks to picky keywords, weird formatting, or rigid criteria. Not because they aren’t good, but because the robot didn’t like their font.

It’s not just inefficient—it’s exhausting. And sadly, it’s become the norm.

LET THAT SINK IN...

Welcome to the ATS Thunderdome

Let’s talk about the joy that is today’s applicant tracking systems—those clunky, over-engineered portals that promise to streamline hiring but mostly succeed in exhausting candidates.

Here’s how the process usually goes:

1. You upload your beautifully formatted, well-thought-out resume.

2. The system chews it up and spits out gibberish.

3. You’re asked to spend 30–45 minutes retyping everything into a series of tiny, redundant fields.

4. You click submit and whisper a hopeful prayer into the digital void.

Spoiler: You probably won’t hear anything back.

Let’s Pause and Admit This Is a Mess

Imagine this: a candidate spends hours fine-tuning their resume, crafting a thoughtful cover letter, researching your company, maybe even rehearsing behavioral interview questions just in case. They’re excited. Hopeful. Prepared.

Then they hit “Apply.”

That’s when the circus begins.

Your expensive ATS proceeds to shred their resume like confetti—stripping formatting, misplacing job titles, and flinging keywords into the wrong fields. Suddenly that clean, professional document looks like it was compiled by a malfunctioning robot. The candidate’s internal monologue at this point? “This has to be a prank… right?”

But it’s not. It gets worse.

Next, they’re forced to spend 30–45 minutes manually re-entering every job, date, and bullet point - into tiny, fussy boxes - because your system doesn’t trust its own parsing. And just when they think they’re done, the real fun starts: invasive pre-screening questions, irrelevant prompts, and legal disclaimers that feel more suited to a CIA background check than a job in your marketing department.

So the obvious question becomes: Why on Earth would a company intentionally build this kind of exhausting, demoralizing process?

A few theories:

• The ATS was configured by someone in IT who has never hired a person—and maybe doesn’t like people all that much.

• The default settings haven’t been changed since 2012. Because no one knows the admin password, and honestly, it's easier to just live with the chaos.

• They think complexity = sophistication. The longer and more painful the process, the more “rigor” they believe they’re applying. (Spoiler: it’s just noise.)

• The hiring manager insists on 17 custom questions - because they read one LinkedIn post about “hiring for grit.”

• Someone once got burned by a bad hire 8 years ago, and now every candidate pays the price. Trauma-driven checkbox overload.

• Legal made them do it. Or at least that’s what everyone says while shrugging and clicking “next.”

• The entire process was designed to filter out anyone who doesn’t really want it - as if job hunting isn’t already enough of a Hunger Games scenario.

• It’s an elaborate psychological test. If you make it through their application process without throwing your laptop, you must have the resilience they’re looking for.

• They assume the best candidates will “find a way.” As if solving your ATS puzzle is some kind of corporate escape room challenge worth bragging about.

• The ATS vendor promised “AI-powered hiring magic.” Instead, it delivered a black hole for resumes and a whole lot of frustration.

And somewhere along the way, your best candidates quietly bow out—because if your hiring process is this broken, what does that say about your culture?

In the end, it’s not just inefficient. It’s a signal to candidates that your company values process over people. And in a market where brand reputation matters? That’s a losing game.

Pro Tip: If your ATS asks for five references, three home addresses, and a retinal scan before a screening call… congrats, you’ve designed the hiring version of TSA.

The Vanishing Act: When Companies Ghost Candidates

Perhaps one of the most demoralizing experiences in today’s job market is being ghosted by a company - especially after multiple rounds of interviews, time-consuming assessments, and weeks of hopeful follow-up. You’ve done the work, shown up prepared, engaged with the team, and in some cases, rearranged your life for the opportunity. Then? Nothing. Not even a generic rejection email.

Ghosting is no longer limited to flaky dating app behavior - it's become an unfortunate norm in recruiting. And it’s not just an oversight; it’s a signal. It tells candidates that their time, energy, and emotional investment weren’t worth the courtesy of a simple “thanks, but we’ve decided to move forward with another candidate.”

What’s particularly baffling is that this behavior often comes from companies that tout their “people-first” culture and commitment to empathy in the workplace. Yet in the most human part of the employment relationship - the hiring process - they disappear without a trace. It erodes trust, damages employer brand, and sends a very public message: we don’t value the people we don’t hire.

Even worse? Many of these same organizations complain about being ghosted by candidates when the market swings. They forget that hiring is a two-way street, and that the best talent - especially in high-demand fields - remembers how they were treated. Silence may seem like the easy way out, but it leaves a long, echoing impression. 

Pro-Tip: If your “talent strategy” includes radio silence, crossed fingers, and an ATS from 2009, don’t expect top candidates to stick around.

When the Robots Say No

Behind the scenes of most modern job applications is an Applicant Tracking System (ATS) - software designed to streamline recruiting by scanning, parsing, and ranking resumes before a human ever gets involved. In theory, it’s efficient. In practice, it’s often the reason highly qualified candidates never make it past the first click.

ATS systems rely heavily on keyword matching and rigid criteria. If your resume doesn't match the exact phrasing in the job description - or if you have a nontraditional background, a gap in employment, or a creative layout that confuses the parser - you may be automatically rejected, regardless of how well you actually fit the role. It’s not uncommon for seasoned professionals to be filtered out over formatting quirks or missing buzzwords.

Studies have shown that millions of qualified workers are excluded from consideration due to algorithmic misfires. Harvard Business School even reported that 90% of employers using ATS admit the systems filter out viable candidates. That’s not a small glitch - that’s a systemic problem.

What’s more troubling is that many companies never manually review these filtered resumes. The system is treated as gospel, despite its obvious flaws. It’s a paradox: businesses cry out for top talent, yet their own technology is blocking the very people they claim to want. Without human oversight, ATS tools become gatekeepers of missed opportunity - undermining inclusion, innovation, and business growth in the process. 

And, if you are lucky enough to actually speak with a human whether an initial screening or interviews many are reporting NO FOLLOW-UP. No rejection. No feedback. Just digital tumbleweeds. Follow-up emails to the company are sent and the recruiter or hiring manager cannot even be bothered to response. This is a real person on the other end who is trying to navigate, what could be, a stressful time in their life. Remember that!

Pro Tip: If your ATS can’t read a PDF but you expect candidates to have 10 years of cross-functional expertise… you may be focused on the wrong things.

Blame the Bot, Get Sued Anyway

Still think letting your ATS handle all the screening is a low-risk move? Think again.

In June 2025, a high-profile lawsuit—Derek Mobley vs. Workday—hit the headlines. Mobley, a qualified candidate by all accounts, claimed he was systematically screened out of job opportunities because Workday’s ATS decided he didn’t make the cut. Why? Allegedly due to algorithmic filters tied to age, race, mental health history, or employment gaps. You know - those pesky real-life things humans have.

Here’s the kicker: this wasn’t some back-alley tech tool. It’s a major vendor used by enterprise-level companies. So now, everyone’s asking the awkward question: If your software quietly discriminates, and nobody checks the math, who’s on the hook? (Spoiler: it's you.)

This case is one of the first to put algorithmic hiring bias on legal trial - and it definitely won’t be the last. Civil rights and employment law don’t magically stop applying just because you let an algorithm do the dirty work. Discrimination, whether human or automated, is still discrimination. And if your tools are producing outcomes that disproportionately harm protected groups, your legal team better start practicing their courtroom poker face.

Because guess what? “The algorithm did it” isn’t a defense. It’s a headline - and not the good kind.

Pro Tip: If your system screens out people over 50, those with career gaps, or folks who didn’t go to a top 10 school… congratulations, you’ve built a discrimination engine.

The Internet Is Forever—So Is That Glassdoor Review

Legal exposure aside, the reputational damage from biased, impersonal hiring practices is already happening in real time. Candidates talk. They share screenshots, vent in forums like Blind and Reddit, leave detailed Glassdoor reviews, and call out bad experiences directly on LinkedIn. One botched hiring interaction can ripple through thousands of future applicants - especially if they feel ignored, excluded, or unfairly screened.

When companies ghost candidates or let flawed algorithms silently eliminate good people, they’re doing more than missing out on talent - they’re undermining their own employer brand. It sends a loud, clear message: “Our values don’t extend to people we don’t hire.”

Even worse, it reinforces the growing perception that terms like “people-first” and “inclusive hiring” are just empty buzzwords. And in today’s hyper-transparent job market, perception is everything.

Pro Tip: You Can’t Talk “Belonging” While Auto-Rejecting Humans

Hiring Isn’t That Hard - It's Not me. It's You. 

Fixing the candidate experience doesn’t require a six-figure tech stack or a 12-week strategy sprint. It requires basic human decency, a functioning inbox, and a little self-awareness. Here’s how to stop repelling great candidates:

• Close the loop. Ghosting isn’t a vibe. A one-line rejection email is still better than radio silence. If someone made it to the interview stage, take five seconds to let them know. That’s not “extra effort” - that’s adulthood.

• Automate with care. High volume is not a free pass for bad behavior. If you have the resources to send calendar invites and NDA forms, you can automate a respectful “no.” Use tools to communicate - not to disappear.

• Fix your ATS. If your application process makes people re-enter every line of their resume, they’re not thinking “wow, what a rigorous process” - they’re thinking “what else here is broken? And man, they got taken on their system..."

• Human-check your filters. That brilliant candidate who didn’t use your exact keywords? Yeah, they’re now working for your competitor. Don’t let algorithms babysit your entire pipeline. Someone with a brain should still be involved.

• Be human. People research your company, prep for interviews, rearrange their lives to show up. Acknowledge that effort. Ghosting isn’t neutral—it’s a red flag.

• Protect your brand. Every interaction with a candidate says something about who you really are. Don’t let your careers page scream “empathetic culture” while your actual process whispers “we forgot you exist.”

To the recruiters and companies out there: candidate experience isn’t just about efficiency—it’s about basic human decency. And newsflash: treating people with respect costs a grand total of zero dollars.

Because the market always shifts. And when it does, the candidates you ghosted today might be the ones deciding whether to call you back tomorrow.

Your future reputation is being shaped right now—one ignored candidate at a