The Collected Works of jjmojojjmojo

I've recently been looking for work, and I've been getting hung up a lot on application forms. About 3/4 of the time, there's a litany of questions sitting between "apply for this job" and "submit your application".

Some are fun to answer, some are fairly routine, but the lack of any meaningful context makes them a stress point for me, and it may be hurting your chances of finding the kind of talent you need.

I think there might be a better way, but I'm not sure if you're going to like it.

One class of question, in particular, illustrates the issue.

It takes various forms:

• "Why do you want to work here?"
• "What interested you about this position?"
• "What makes you a good fit?"

The answer is always the same: Because my skills line up with the job listing.

That's it. That's the only answer.

I feel obligated to dig into the company culture, poke around any blogs or press materials and try to come up with something insightful. You made me open LinkedIn, you monster.

I can collect some insight and craft something unique, perfectly copping the tone and culture of the company and interpolating the essence of the post. I admit it's a bit uncomfortable, but I do have this skill.

The process generally takes way too long. But you know what? When I'm given a task, I want to do it to the fullest of my ability. So I always try, and sometimes I think I do pretty well. But even when I'm convinced I'm absolutely killing it (I'm not), it always feels hollow.

If I didn't care, I could pull something like:

Those variables are interchangeable for any post, any company. The ubiquity of these questions implies that this would be acceptable, right? Ok, sure, but what signal is that sending? I mean that in the sense of a signal to the person making hiring decisions, but also what is it saying to me, the applicant? I think you want me to be formulaic. But that doesn't reconcile with the explanations I've found (like these from Indeed, Harvard Business Review, MIT's CDO, and Ask A Manager) - it seems that this question is actually asking for something bespoke and creative (but of course, not too creative...right?).

That tension has to come through in responses, and especially in application forms. At scale, the tension must resonate into a cacophony of useless noise. We see hiring managers and recruiters complain about the bombardment of poor quality applicants, so this has to be the result. How are you supposed to filter that? And how am I supposed to stand out? There seems to be a huge gap in ROI here.

These complaints, and these questions, have existed as long as I've been in the industry (est. 1999 😎). Yet both persist today, so the questions aren't working, right? Recent reports of generative AI making the process so much more difficult for those hiring, and those looking for work, further make me wonder: what's the real issue here?

A cynic may posit that these questions are simply a test designed to demonstrate value by expressing a candidate's willingness to submit to authority. Establishing arbitrary checks for no other reason than to try to actively filter out bad actors doesn't really make any sense, does it? I mean, "we hire the best" doesn't wash with "dance, monkey", right? Combine this attitude with the purple prose used by company leadership and industry visionaries, and it's like: they say they want unicorns, but in a way that expresses that they prefer pack mules. In other words, the signal says compliance would be far more important than performance.

How is that supposed to filter for "high-caliber engineers", "the best minds", the "builders", the "innovators"?

Having seen hiring from the other side of the table, I know that a company needs talent more than the talent needs the company. I know how tedious it is to filter through resumes, to call people, to schedule interviews and do your damn job. But one thing I never did was put up arbitrary barriers. Yet, "top companies" (sorry bro, your pre-seed startup might be a great idea, but it's not a top anything yet) want a show of meaningless effort as a proof of value. And job seekers will comply because we need employment to access capital, or more specifically, food, shelter, health care and social mobility. It's pretty bleak.

But it gets worse. In case it wasn't clear, I'm looking for work in software. Software engineers invent technology, often out of whole cloth. We can, and will, automate away any barriers to achieving our goals. And at the end of the day, it's what we do. It's why this work is so lucrative.

With the advent of generative AI infiltrating the process, any attempts at placing hurdles to improve quality are instantly knocked down with even the most brain dead prompt engineering. This leads to an arms race of clever solutions and heavier reliance on chatbots and LLMs in general. While growing more and more sophisticated, this actively makes the process worse. And the irony here is that the very thing that's making it worse is a genuine mark of a better candidate! Judging by the positions I've been reviewing the past month, heavy agent use, implementing LLMs, and automating away every possible human process is precisely what "top talent" is.

Now, I'm not a cynic. While my overall worldview is deeply pragmatic, when it comes to the toil of labor, I'm uncharacteristically optimistic. 🌈

I believe very strongly that skilled people, aligned toward a goal, are capable of anything. Given the resources, they can fix any problem.

I believe, inherently, everyone is a unicorn. Someone just needs the right environment and encouragement to emerge. From there, they need to be given space to thrive. When talented people thrive, we all succeed.

In my view, the work of hiring is to find people who will flourish amongst the unique problems, structure, and culture of my specific organization.

This, ultimately, is the source of my incredulity when filling out these application forms: again, how does asking a question like, "Why do you want to work for us?" get us closer to the real goal? How does any gatekeeping screening question accomplish this, really? And for the love of all that is good in the world, why is there a character limit!?

The reality is that job boards and hiring platforms are rarely where companies find talent. It's an open secret in the industry that personal networks yield more candidates that get hired than any other source. This 2025 report from Ashby illustrates this.

Contrast that with the findings for "inbound" (essentially applications that came in through the Ashby platform):

It's clear that the conversion-to-offer rate obtained from the deluge of inbound applications is abysmal compared to referrals. Yet the overall quantity can end up higher. This raises the ROI question a second time: is it better to make the effort to whittle down 1000 applicants to maybe 2 (99.8% loss) who get offers, or get 6-13 people to that point out of 100 (87-94% loss... even agency candidates perform better at ~3%)?

I've had a fairly long career. I've seen some stuff. And I can tell you, way before generative AI, way before North Korea was using AI to infiltrate US tech companies, the complaints were exactly the same: there are too many applicants (except when there aren't), candidates are awful, they all lie, and as a hiring manager, I can't afford a bad hire.

What happens today is what always happened, hiring managers fall back on their network, referrals from coworkers, agencies and other "low-tech" solutions. It makes sense. As we've seen above, it works. People want to work with people they know, and maybe more so people who are most like them.

I think that's a natural aspect of how social animals, including human beings, are wired. We seek similarity in our social cohorts (it's the concept of homophily).

As a bonus, it's just generally easier. There's a level of trust that can be built out of a basic familiarity. The gate the applicant has to pass is simply knowing you. Three rounds of the interview process are condensed into "well so-and-so vouches for them". It's brilliant.

I can tell you firsthand, from the applicant side, when I've got an inside referral or have met the people responsible for the role before, the interview process is easier for me too. Maybe too easy.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are very serious issues with this. Right off the top, an arbitrary process can't, by definition, be fair. An arbitrary process can't be directed toward a quantifiable goal either. We're engineers; how are we putting up with this?

Less nuanced are the risks of monoculture and the need for regulatory compliance.

I won't get into the compliance issues here, as it seems to be a touchy subject within the industry. I mean, how can a company disrupt 10x max paradigm agentic revenue funnel if it's restricted by red tape! 💔 But seriously, it's a subject whose implications vary so much from one location or work context to another that, even if I were qualified to speak to it (I very much am not), I'd probably be saying the wrong thing.

But the danger of monoculture is a real threat to the ability of a company to create an environment where people thrive. Diverse people, from diverse backgrounds, make better technical decisions. I've witnessed this firsthand, and there is research to back this up (links of interest: Gender diversity leads to better science, and Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers).

What I see in the literature crystallizes what I said earlier: an environment where talented people are given the space to thrive enables them to excel. There's also research that points to the potential difficulties (one example), but in my view, the potential need for greater empathy and sensitivity, difficult conversations, adjusting our linguistic code (see code switching), and adjusting our tolerance for divergent perspectives is what creates that environment.

Taking a cynical perspective again, the complaints of hiring managers could be boiled down to confirmation bias and thus lose all credibility. Maybe, the reality is that a small number of bad experiences has colored the discussion around hiring. Or... I mean... maybe hiring managers don't want to hire fairly. The recent embrace of anti-DEI sentiment at major companies may just be a sign that the mask is slipping. Maybe hiring managers want a monoculture. I mean, diversity leads to awkwardness and conflict, right? I even basically admitted to that. So maybe managerial culture perpetuates the idea that candidates lie, and resumes can't be trusted, so gatekeeping becomes a necessity. Gatekeeping with the active intent that it will give them permission to do what they feel most comfortable doing: sourcing new hires from their friends and colleagues.

But again, I'm not a cynic, so even if that were true for some people, I find it hard to believe that it's true for everyone. My actual experience with managers, founders, and other leaders makes it nearly impossible, even for the most "cut-throat" of the bunch. The people I've worked with just aren't wired like that. That said, as much as I don't like it, pragmatism makes me think, actually, there may be another clue emerging from the cynical view. 🤔

Given that human beings are prone to homophily, hiring through referrals and your professional network yields better outcomes, and monoculture is bad (maybe illegal), the answer is simple: build a better real-life professional network and just work it, hard.

This means, as a manager, as an executive, as anyone responsible for hiring, you need to make networking a core competency of your "damn job". You have to get away from your desk, you have to talk to people, and you have to stick your neck out and make the effort to connect with people from diverse sources.

No more job platforms, no more screening questions. Go find user groups, college departments, and get to know other people who do what you do at other companies. Or people who don't, but may have something to contribute. Connect with local communities and organizations that represent marginalized groups in your area. Make the effort to get out in the world, bring your professional network offline, and diversify it.

Beyond the "meatspace" solutions, you need to maximize your resume collection ability, and streamline the process of getting to the bit where you're talking to people, not filtering out LLM-generated responses with LLM-driven tools, deferring to black box hiring platforms, hiding under your desk, and hoping it all works out.

Get proactive. This might terrorize certain managers (you know who), but here lies a great opportunity to write a little code. There are some offerings for resume databases (OpenCATS for example), but hey, you can do this. And if you can't, I know I just said you shouldn't be using an LLM to filter out LLM-generated responses, but a quick, temporary index and search system can be had with an afternoon of vibe coding, if you can't manage otherwise.

Regardless of how you acquired the resumes, once you've done your own screening, based on what's important to the position you're hiring for, you should use whatever means of communication available to connect. This has to be the focus of the journey, not a last-mile sprint. You can chat through DMs on social media when it's appropriate. Trade a few e-mails. Phone screens are good, real-life meetings are even better.

I can hear the thread on /r/recruitinghell already:

This is a straw man, of course, but it does reflect sentiments I've heard before in discussions about hiring. If this is you, or someone you work with, you (or your friend) need to face two harsh realities:

1. We can pretend it's not, but hiring is the job. It's especially relevant when your organization is growing. You can't outsource it, you can't ignore it. Ultimately it's your responsibility. You have to embrace it.
2. If you don't have the time to do the job, that means you have a resource allocation problem, you're having a skills issue, or you need to face the fact that this is not a good time for growth. It's your responsibility to figure it out and have these tough conversations with leadership.

The straw man responds...

First, I firmly believe that no connection with another human being is ever truly a waste of time, no matter how superficial or strained. This is doubly true for people in your own industry. These are people who can bring value to your organization (and your life). Even if a prospect doesn't work out, or you made a mistake in choosing who to spend your time with, you've still made a connection, grown your network, maybe even made a friend.

Secondly, the point here is, again, to grow your network and diversify it, so maybe that person isn't a good fit, but maybe they'll know someone who is. They'll look back fondly at the super nice and smart manager that treated them like a human being, a professional, a colleague, and tell people in their network "wow, what a great manager - you should work for them".

Doing the difficult work is what makes us great. Digging in, you may find the best hire of your career, or you might not. But through the process, you will learn along the way. Maybe you'll grow as a leader, become more diplomatic, reduce your biases... you know, emerge as your unique unicorn self 🦄.

Now, if I were truly, diabolically cynical, this is the point where I'd present the vibe-coded app I built over the weekend that will absolutely, positively, transform how you manage your real-life professional networks. I would call it Tussld.io or Meetspaced.dev or something way cooler like ProNetwerk.vip.

But again, I'm not a cynic.