Rethinking ATS: Are We Losing Top Tech Talent in the Black Box?
- Colin Swindells
- Feb 20
- 3 min read
Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS), while intended to streamline hiring, are often failing us, especially in the competitive tech market. With a 75% rejection rate of qualified candidates by ATS, and the added challenge of accurately assessing nuanced tech skills in product, design, and engineering, we're likely missing out on top talent. This, coupled with the "black box" nature of most ATS, raises concerns about bias and a lack of transparency. It's time for a more human-centered approach to hiring, one that prioritizes direct engagement and recognizes the limitations of keyword-based systems, ensuring we build the best teams possible. #ATS, #TechHiring, #TalentAcquisition, #HiringChallenges, #ProductManagement, #Engineering, #Design, #Tech, #HumanCenteredHiring, #TalentSearch
As a product, design, or engineering leader in the competitive tech market, you're constantly seeking top talent. But are Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) helping or hindering your search? I've heard countless complaints from both hiring managers and candidates about ATS limitations, and the data backs it up. With over 98% of Fortune 500 companies using ATS [2], this isn't a niche problem—it's a systemic challenge.
While ATS can offer benefits like increased efficiency and transparency, the reality often falls short. ATS vendors themselves acknowledge that 75% of qualified candidates are typically rejected by these systems [1]. Think about that: three out of four people who could be a great fit for your team never even get a look.
This is particularly concerning for specialized tech roles like product management, engineering, and design. These roles often require nuanced skills that are difficult to capture with simple keywords, leading to mismatches and missed opportunities. It's like trying to describe the perfect user experience with a checklist – you miss the critical nuances.
The current "optimize your resume for the ATS" mentality [1] is fundamentally flawed. Shouldn't tools adapt to people, not the other way around? We, as product and design leaders, understand the importance of user-centric design. Why aren't we applying the same principles to our hiring tools?
Consider the sheer scale of the problem illustrated in Figure 1. An estimated 27 million Americans are "hidden workers"—those actively seeking employment or willing and able to work [2]. Applying the 75% ATS rejection rate, we're talking about over 20 million potentially qualified individuals, including many in tech, being filtered out. This represents a massive talent pool we're overlooking. Given the difficulty of precisely defining high-skilled tech roles within ATS, this loss is likely even more pronounced in our industry.
Adding to the complexity, most ATS operate as "black boxes." We don't know how they prioritize candidates, which can inadvertently introduce biases—ethical, efficiency, and potentially legal concerns. This lack of transparency undermines our efforts to build diverse and inclusive teams.
The good news? Many hiring managers and candidates are finding success through direct networking and personal connections. It's a testament to the power of human interaction and a way to circumvent the limitations of ATS. In fact, 80% of candidates prefer direct engagement over ATS [1].
As leaders in the tech scene, let's champion a more human-centered approach to hiring. Let's demand that our ATS tools become more responsive to the needs of both candidates and hiring managers. Let's move beyond keyword matching and embrace a more nuanced approach to talent acquisition. Let's bring the same design thinking we apply to our products to the process of building our teams.
Comments