How Hiring Practices Are Backfiring—and What Employers Can Do About It
Last month, this column focused ghost jobs and the damage they do to employer brand. This month, let’s talk about what happens next, because job seekers didn’t just notice. They adapted…in a way that isn’t helpful for anyone.
Instead of carefully targeting roles, many candidates have shifted to an “apply-to-everything” approach (sometimes referred to “spray and pray”): applying to anything that looks remotely plausible and hoping something sticks. Think less “strategic job search,” more “throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what doesn’t ghost you.”
According to recent data from Monster, 48% of job seekers now apply broadly instead of focusing on specific roles. They’ve learned. When candidates don’t hear back, they don’t refine. They multiply.
Why? Silence and Uncertainty
Job seekers aren’t applying to everything because they want to. They’re doing it because the process feels like shouting into the void. More than half say their biggest frustration is not hearing back from employers. And notably, 76% say they would apply more selectively if employers simply provided updates or feedback.
When the hiring process feels like a black hole, candidates assume one of three things: their application wasn’t seen, the job wasn’t real, or both. To compensate, they hedge their bets.
The Effect: Volume Overload for Employers
Now the problem swings back to employers. The average corporate job posting already attracts around 250 applications, and that number climbs quickly when applicants’ behavior changes to casting a wider net.
The result is predictable:
- Recruiters/hiring managers prioritize speed over quality
- Strong candidates get buried
- Hiring teams rely more on automation
- Everyone gets more frustrated
It’s a bit like opening a fire hose when you were hoping for a glass of water.
Layer that with a complication: ATS and Automation
Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) are doing what they were built to do, manage volume. But efficiency doesn’t always equal effectiveness.
When teams rely too heavily on filters and algorithms, strong candidates can be screened out simply because they don’t match exact keywords. Candidates, in turn, begin optimizing for the system instead of the job. At that point, hiring becomes less about alignment and more about who can best navigate the system.
The Bigger Risk: Erosion of Trust
This isn’t just a process issue, it’s a credibility issue.
A majority of job seekers report encountering ghost jobs or feeling ignored during the process. Trust is declining, and when trust drops, behavior changes. Candidates either disengage or they double down on volume. Neither outcome helps employers.
What Employers Can Do (That’s Actually Different)
If you want to break the “apply-to-everything” cycle, the answer isn’t more technology. It’s more clarity, more transparency, and a little more humanity. Start with a few simple shifts, like closing the loop early with a “you’re still under review” message to help reduce uncertainty. Audit your job postings regularly. Review and loosen overly rigid screening filters to allow for transferable skills. Make it easier for candidates to self-select out with clearer expectations included in the job description that is linked from the job ad. Finally, use automation as a tool, not a decision-maker.
And if you’re ready to take it further, there are some creative ways to stand out, found in our practical, easy-to-use checklist of ideas you can implement right away.
Final Thought
The high-volume applicant strategy isn’t the problem, it’s the signal. Candidates are responding to a hiring process that feels unclear and impersonal. Fix that, and the behavior fixes itself.
Because when people trust the process, they don’t apply everywhere. They apply where it actually makes sense.
