The Recruiting Illusion

Why does it feel like no one is really doing their job anymore?

I keep seeing the same kinds of posts.

Recruiters sharing how they improved hiring for a company. How they helped a candidate land their dream job. How they understand both sides. How they know how to listen, how to match, how to care. A flood of big words, with almost no substance behind them.

Of course, not all recruiters are like this. I’ve personally worked with some very good ones. They understood both the company’s needs and the candidate’s strengths. They didn’t just filter, they shaped. They knew that recruitment isn’t just about ticking boxes, it’s about setting people up to succeed. And they did it.

But many others?

They feel like old-school salesmen who just learned the new buzzwords.

They don’t know the field they’re recruiting for. They can’t interpret what a candidate says. They reduce complex careers into simplified lists of keywords. They make unqualified assumptions about who fits and who doesn’t. They carry authority they haven’t earned, in a process they don’t fully understand.

And that’s where it gets dangerous.

Because behind those assumptions, real opportunities are lost. Real talent is filtered out. Not because it wasn’t good, but because someone with a shallow checklist didn’t know how to read depth.

Someone told me a story recently. A recruiter asked, "How many SAP migration projects have you done?" Now, if you’ve worked in large transformation environments, you know how absurd that question is. These are multi-year efforts, involving dozens of systems and millions in budgets. They’re not counted like startup sprints. One continuous transformation can be the equivalent of hundreds of smaller projects. But the recruiter wasn’t interested in that nuance. The only thing that landed in their notes was the number. And because it didn’t sound impressive enough on paper, the conversation stopped there.

You could argue, then just say a bigger number. But that’s not how real professionals think. We explain things as they are, not how they’re marketed. And when someone takes that honesty and reduces it to a bullet point, it starts to feel like the process is broken from the start.

I’ve had similar moments myself.

A recruiter contacted me about a role that looked interesting. I shared my background: deep experience in AI, analytics, real-world cases across industries. The recruiter pushed back. "The client wants very specific experience in this one area," they said. Then they gave me an example, a very narrow use case another candidate had implemented. I explained that I had done that too, and more. That the example they gave was actually a subset of the work I’ve done repeatedly. That I understood not just the use case, but the mechanics, the logic behind it. That I could build it, extend it, translate it across domains.

None of it mattered.

They had already decided I didn’t match the brief. Or maybe they didn’t understand what I was saying. Or maybe they didn’t care.

I’ve been on both sides of this process: As a candidate. As someone hiring for my team. As someone trying to help students, interns, professionals. I’ve collaborated with recruiters to fill roles. I’ve trusted them to represent my work. I’ve also seen how little some of them actually push for the truth in either direction.

It’s not just a candidate problem. Employers often create the mess too. They give recruiters vague descriptions, unrealistic expectations, or checklists pulled from someone else’s job post. And instead of acting as trusted advisors, most recruiters just pass that confusion forward. They don’t challenge the client. They don’t push back. They don’t ask what success actually looks like in that role. They just move fast, collect resumes, and send what they can.

That’s how everyone ends up disappointed.

The company doesn’t find what they’re really looking for. The recruiter doesn’t build trust. And the candidate doesn’t even get a chance.

Sometimes the match goes through anyway. But instead of a great fit, it’s just an average one. That spark of the right person never makes it to the conversation.

And yet, the posts keep coming.

We optimize hiring. We find the perfect match. We support both sides. We transform the process.

Really? How?

What does “optimize” mean? You found 10 or 100 profiles for a role? Anyone can do that. You post a job on LinkedIn, and people apply. You use filters. You write messages. You copy-paste. You get responses.

Where is the transformation in that?

What metrics are recruiters using to prove they’re doing anything more than basic sourcing? What are the actual improvements? And who’s measuring them?

Clients often don’t question it. Some don’t have time. Others don’t know better. And on the candidate side, it’s even worse.

When the market favors candidates, you get calls, messages, interest. When it flips, you’re invisible.

I know a lot of people who’ve experienced this. Highly qualified professionals. Smart, capable, experienced. They write to recruiters. Silence. They apply. Silence. They reach out directly. Maybe a short reply, or a vague promise, and then they’re gone.

The most absurd part? It’s not even just about people applying through job portals. I’m talking about reaching out directly. You take the time to message a recruiter on LinkedIn, personally, politely, with context. And most of them don’t even bother to reply. Not even a “thanks but no.” Nothing. Sometimes I wonder, is the market so flooded with Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates-level talent all suddenly looking for work, that the rest of us just don’t make the cut anymore? Is that why we’re not even worth a basic reply?

No follow-up. No closure. No feedback.

Some people will say, well, that’s just how the market works. But it shouldn’t be.

These are real people. People with families. Rent. Self-doubt. Mental health struggles. And at the very least, they deserve basic decency. Even if it’s just an automated rejection. Even if it’s a message saying, “We’re not moving forward.” Anything is better than pretending they don’t exist.

And to be clear, I’m not talking about junior candidates or poorly written CVs. I’m talking about seriously capable professionals with real achievements. I’m talking about people who have worked in top companies, who have led teams, who have delivered impact. People who, on paper and in practice, should at least be worth a reply.

So what are we saying when we ignore them?

That their experience doesn’t matter? That their value is conditional? That if the market changes, we’ll pretend they were never here?

It’s not just bad practice. It’s disrespectful. And if recruiters want to be taken seriously as professionals, not just middle agents, then the bare minimum should be to treat people like people.

This is a people business.

You don’t work only for the employer. You work for both sides. No candidates, no placements. No placements, no paycheck.

Yes, not everyone is right for every role. Yes, you can't respond to thousands of messages. But THAT'S YOUR JOB. That’s what you signed up for. And that’s what the tools are for.

If you’re not improving the tools, not improving the match, not improving the experience, then what exactly are you doing?

Because if someone like me, or others even much better than me, are considered not even worth a reply, especially when personally reaching out, what happens to the ones just starting out?

The ones without the titles, or the networks, or the confidence?

The ones who haven't worked at Google (because that's also how we have to sell ourselves these days, ex-Google, ex-Facebook, ex-Microsoft, ex-BCG, ex-McKinsey, etc., like that's our whole identity. But that's a topic for another day)?

And what does that say about us?