Something has fundamentally changed in hiring. If you've posted a job in the last year, you've probably felt it: the sheer volume of applications has become overwhelming, and yet somehow the quality of your shortlist hasn't improved. In many cases, it's gotten worse.
This isn't your imagination. The numbers tell a stark story.
The average role now receives nearly three times as many applications as it did just a few years ago. But hiring managers aren't finding three times as many qualified candidates.
What happened?
Two forces collided to create the perfect storm. First, job platforms introduced "Easy Apply" and one-click application features. What once required tailoring a cover letter and carefully reviewing a job description now takes seconds. The friction that once filtered out casual browsers disappeared.
Second, AI tools became ubiquitous. ChatGPT launched in late 2022, and by 2024, candidates had discovered they could generate polished cover letters and CV bullet points in moments. The barrier to creating a "good enough" application dropped to nearly zero.
When AI is part of so many applications, polished wording gives you less to go on. The signals that once differentiated candidates have been smoothed away.
The hidden cost
The immediate problem is obvious: more applications means more time screening. But the deeper issue is that the traditional signals we relied on no longer work.
A well-crafted cover letter used to indicate genuine interest and communication skills. Now it might just mean someone spent 30 seconds prompting an AI. A polished CV with perfect bullet points used to suggest attention to detail. Now it might be the same template every other applicant is using.
We used to spend 30 minutes reading cover letters to find the candidates who genuinely cared about our mission. Now every letter sounds identical, crafted to hit the same keywords. We've lost the ability to see who's authentic.
Recruiters and hiring managers are drowning. They're spending hours sifting through applications that all look and sound the same, hoping to find the genuine candidates hidden in the noise. Often, those candidates get buried under the volume before anyone even sees their application.
HirePro's research puts screening a pool of 250 CVs at almost three working days.
The candidates suffer too
It's easy to blame candidates for spray-and-pray application strategies, but the system has pushed them there. When applying is effortless and response rates have plummeted, the rational response is to apply to more jobs. And when everyone's using AI, not using it feels like bringing a knife to a gunfight.
The result is a race to the bottom. Candidates who would thrive in a role can't get noticed because their thoughtful applications are buried under hundreds of AI-generated ones. The candidates who genuinely want your specific job have no way to signal that anymore.
For every 200 applications a candidate sends, they might receive one offer. This encourages even more volume-based applying, worsening the cycle for everyone.
What's the way forward?
The old approach of reading CVs and cover letters first was designed for a world where creating those documents required genuine effort. That world is gone.
Some companies have responded by adding more screening steps, longer forms, or unpaid test projects. But this creates its own problems: it filters out candidates who have other options and don't have time for multi-hour processes upfront.
The better approach is to flip the process entirely. Instead of evaluating credentials first and skills second, what if you could see what candidates can actually do before you see their background?
This is the idea behind skills-first hiring. Candidates answer a short question relevant to the role before you see their CV. You get a piece of work to review, alongside signals about how it was written.
More importantly, this approach rewards the candidates who actually care about your role. Someone who takes 15 minutes to thoughtfully complete an assessment is sending a very different signal than someone who copy-pastes a response in 90 seconds.
What the answer alone can't tell you
Of course, assessments can be gamed too. Candidates can use AI to generate responses, copy from other sources, or have someone else complete their work.
This is where behavioral signals become crucial. How long did someone spend on their response? Was the answer typed into the page or pasted in? Did they revise and edit, or submit their first draft? Did they stay focused, or switch tabs constantly?
These patterns give you context. Fourteen minutes of writing and revision looks different from a paragraph pasted in 45 seconds. A paste might come from an earlier draft or an assistive tool. You weigh the signals alongside the answer, without an automatic rejection.
Keep the task short and relevant to the job. Give employers work to review and candidates a chance to explain their approach. The hiring decision stays with a person.
Ready to see candidates differently?
FirstLook lets you see candidate work before the CV, with effort signals alongside it.
Start for free