I’m not a recruiter. I’ve never worked in HR. I’ve never seen an ATS system from the inside of a large company. I was a candidate. Just like many of you on the other side of the screen. I observed. I don’t claim to hold the only truth. What you’re about to read are simply my conclusions — drawn from what I’ve seen every day on LinkedIn, from reading comments, and from having been, until recently, in the middle of the recruitment process myself.
What exactly is an ATS?
To me, an ATS is a recruitment management system that collects applications, “reads” CVs, extracts keywords and context, and compares them to the job posting. It doesn’t assess potential. It doesn’t see commitment. It doesn’t sense ambition. It works like a filter.
The problem is that a filter doesn’t always let the best people through. It often lets through the best-matched words instead…
Surrounded by people working in HR and juniors, mostly from the data analysis field, I observe a quiet but constant struggle. A struggle over the fairness and legitimacy of using ATS. It isn’t directed at specific individuals. It lingers somewhere in comment sections and discussions, as if it were an attempt to rebalance an emotional system after a difficult day.
Recruiters criticize CVs designed as graphics, with creative layouts, unconventional fonts, and other “embellishments.” They say such documents are difficult for the system to read. That an ATS cannot see content hidden inside decorative blocks. And what they need is a document that can be quickly analyzed and compared to the job requirements. Their frustration doesn’t come from a dislike of creativity, but from tool limitations and time pressure.
Candidates, on the other hand, have entirely different frustrations. They feel they’re being judged by an algorithm. That one missing keyword can outweigh years of experience. That the system doesn’t understand nuances, career transitions, side projects, or soft skills. Many of them believe that the lack of response isn’t due to misfit, but to being “filtered out” incorrectly.
There’s also a longing for the days when someone truly read a CV and gave candidates a chance even if the match wasn’t perfect — reading between the lines to spot real skills.
Which side am I on? Neither.
Not because I don’t have an opinion. But because on both sides there are people trying to navigate a reality that has accelerated. For my Generation Y and older, it often means learning new rules while the game is already in progress. This isn’t the world we grew up in. These weren’t the rules when we first entered the job market.
Recruiters’ jobs have become more difficult, likely as a result of the pandemic. Before COVID, many people searched for work locally. Today, we can work from under a blanket in our own bed for a company on the other side of the world. As a result, hundreds of applications can pour in for a single position. Hundreds.
utrzymanie rodziny. I właśnie dlatego to takie trudne. Imagine that in a single day you receive a thick binder filled with demanding publications to read. Each one written by a different person trying to prove that their story deserves attention. And you’re not reading for pleasure. You’re reading to make a decision. That requires focus, analysis, comparison. And that analysis determines someone’s income, sometimes someone’s decision to relocate, sometimes a family’s stability. That’s why it’s so difficult.
No one questions that behind every CV there is a human being. But when you’re faced with hundreds of such stories, how do you stay attentive without a tool to organize them? A filtering system wasn’t created out of indifference, but out of the need to handle the volume.
Without that kind of support, recruitment at its current scale would simply be unmanageable. And even if someone tried to review everything manually, another question arises: after reading 150 applications, does a recruiter look at the hundred-and-fiftieth with the same level of attention as the first? Is it truly possible to do it fairly, without fatigue and without taking shortcuts…?
On the other side are candidates facing something relatively new. In the past, you could send one CV and hope the recruiter would read your competencies between the lines. Today, many people feel they are being evaluated by an algorithm before anyone even sees their name.
Frustration and a sense of unfairness begin to surface. And with them, workarounds: copying keywords from the job posting, adding technologies the candidate has barely touched, or hasn’t worked with at all. Adapting to the system instead of presenting real competencies.
But that only sets another spiral in motion. The candidate passes the first filter and makes it to the interview. And then it turns out that the declared experience doesn’t match reality. They are rejected. This time not by the ATS, but by a human. And the frustration returns, just in a different form.
The hardest part of all is that you can be an excellent candidate… and still remain invisible. Not because you lack the skills, but because your CV wasn’t properly “interpreted.”
It hurts.
At the same time, it’s hard to expect that with hundreds of applications, someone could analyze every CV without technological support. I don’t see bad intentions here. I see a system trying to cope with scale, and people on both sides doing their best to adapt to it.
Maybe the problem isn’t that ATS exists. Maybe the problem is that no one teaches candidates how to stay visible within that system without losing their authenticity.
The world will not return to the days of manually reviewing every CV.
But we can learn to navigate the one we have, while showing one another understanding.
Perhaps soon I’ll share how I began making it through the ATS filter without losing myself along the way. Not as a universal formula, but as a process I personally went through. It’s a topic that easily stirs emotions. Everyone has their own experiences and their own beliefs.
Perhaps I’ll also share ATS-friendly CV templates. The kind that made it through my own trials and errors.
Perhaps I’m ready to build a bridge between candidates and HR and stand right in the middle of it…
Perhaps…
Based on real life
A cookie with your coffee?