Unlocking the Mystery Behind Applicant Tracking Systems: Separating the Myth from Reality

Over the years, I have encountered career advice from "career coaches" that often lacks a true understanding of how the hiring process works. One of the biggest fears they tend to stoke is that a company’s applicant tracking system (ATS) is the root of all evil, ruling out your profile despite your suitability for the position. Frankly, I'm not sure which applicant tracking system has this hyper-advanced AI they speak of, but I can assure you there are only two possible reasons for a rejection. One, a human reviewed your profile and deemed it a poor fit. Two, your application sat without being viewed, and you received a rejection when they closed the position. There is technically a third reason, but we'll get there later.

For context, I have been a recruiter for almost 15 years, and during that time, I have worked with nearly every applicant tracking system imaginable. Moreover, I started my career as an HRIS Analyst, serving as a functional owner of an in-house applicant tracking system. So, if there isn’t a bot scoring me, what is actually happening? Let’s pull back the curtain and give you a peek at what really usually happens with an applicant tracking system.

LinkedIn Applicant Counts

Before delving into the ATS, let’s first address a common perception. LinkedIn is one of the few places where job postings display the number of applicants. It’s crucial to remember that, on average, less than 10% of applicants meet the minimum qualifications for the position. Additionally, notice the button you press to apply for the position. The application count is accurate if the button says “Easy Apply,” and companies use this option to streamline the application process. If it says “Apply,” you are redirected to the company’s applicant tracking system. In this case, the number of applicants only reflects the people who clicked on the apply button, not the number of fully completed applications. According to SHRM, the application drop-off rate can be as high as 92%. So, even if you see 500 applicants, the number of completed applications could be as low as 40, and with only 10% or less being qualified, you might be competing against just 4 people.

So, What Could Be the Barrier?

Keywords

Everyone hears about keywords and how they are used to eliminate candidates. However, it is virtually impossible to do that right now because not all resumes are “readable” by applicant tracking systems. If you have an overly designed resume (I work with designers, and they usually design beautiful but not scannable resumes), it might as well show up blank in an ATS. The image will be viewable, but it won’t index any keywords.

AI

Many applicant tracking systems have some AI or machine learning component built in. It usually ties into the keywords mentioned earlier, but in my experience, it has been less than helpful. Typically, AI is used for one of two things within an ATS.

First, it can be used to rank candidates based on keyword prevalence so that “top” candidates show up first. This is intended to make a recruiter’s life easier, but it rarely is accurate enough to do so.

Second, it can be used for searching the database and similarly ranking “top” candidates. I have yet to find an AI whose ranking I agree with. Keywords only matter if the experience is there. I can put SQL in my resume all I want, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m a recruiter, not a data analyst. Those tools might put me higher on a list than I deserve to be. That’s why most recruiters ignore or turn those features off.

Instant Rejection

While there could be other factors at play here, there are generally only two contributing to a fast or instant rejection.

The first factor could be knockout questions on the application. These are deal breaker questions like, “Do you have five years of software engineering experience?” Sometimes, these contribute to a candidate’s ranking and can be weighted, but other times, they are considered deal breakers and can potentially lead to an automatic rejection. If it was so important to become a knockout question, then chances are, you will not be considered for the role regardless and are wasting your time.

The second factor, seemingly unlikely but possible, is that the recruiter rejected you soon after your application. When I was internal, I would try to keep up with my postings as quickly as possible, but typically, you would focus on one posting, going through all the applications until it read zero, just like how some people are with email. The challenge here is there are usually many unqualified applicants. So, when people say a recruiter spends an average of 6 seconds looking at your resume, that’s likely true. They are looking to quickly glean key things about your candidacy so that they can make a fast determination to look deeper or reject. Is there a chance that the occasional false negative comes through? Yes, but not necessarily.

Race/Veteran/Disability Questions

Candidates often ask me if they should answer these questions or if it will hurt their application. What they don’t understand is that these fields are not used in making a hiring decision. These fields are used to report to the government that a good faith effort was made to identify and select a representative sample of our population. Answering these questions is more helpful for companies to evaluate how their recruiting efforts can be more inclusive and provide insight into how to broaden their pool of talent to reflect the communities they employ within. If you are worried about confidentiality, the results of these forms are required by law to be stored in a secure record, and only very specific users (usually not a part of the hiring process) are allowed to access that information.

Incompetent Recruiters/Sourcers

I often see a statement thrown out there: “Recruiters are incompetent.” I'm not here to make excuses for poor recruitment practice or bad recruiters. Everyone has had a bad recruiting experience they can speak to. That doesn’t mean that an entire industry of professionals is terrible. I would wager that if you conducted a study, you would find a standard normal curve, much like with any other profession. The emotion tied to the job search and the hiring process often makes this one seem overblown.

A recruiter, whether internal or external, is paid by a company. They are paid to act in the company’s best interest in hiring and to find them the candidate who can solve their unique need. While a job description tells you the basic requirements, recruiters are often given additional criteria that a company is looking for. For example, “I want someone who has experience working within a consumer-facing mobile startup.” That requirement might not show up in the job description but ends up being a screening requirement. This information should be prevalent on a job description, but data suggests people don’t necessarily self-select out. For example, if I decided I was done with agency recruitment, I would struggle to be hired for an internal position within a startup because most startups would want someone with more recent and relevant internal recruitment experience. This becomes especially apparent when there is a lot of talent in the market. In a candidate-driven market, it would most certainly be easier.

So, What Do I Do?

Here are a few key takeaways that I think can help when taking all of the above into context:

• Make sure key information is in your resume and ensure it is in a format that an ATS can process.
• Network; if you are waiting until you are looking for a job, then it’s too late.
• Apply to roles where you closely match the hiring criteria; you don’t always need 100%, unless it seems like a make-or-break skill for the position.
• Try to avoid taking things personally; I know it’s hard, but rarely is a rejection a reflection of you.
• Keep up the good fight; don’t let the process discourage you.

I hope this was helpful insight and removed some of the opacity covered the good old black box that is the hiring and recruitment process.