The truth about the ATS (redux)
I find myself in a busy patch at work, which has taken time away from writing these articles.
As I have around 5x as many subscribers as when this was written, I hope you don’t mind me resharing this article on the ATS.
As you may be aware Applicant Tracking Systems get bad press, particularly from career coaches and CV writers who sell to hope. So this attempts to lend a more objective view.
I should point out things are changing, and AI will make things like automated applicant sifting more viable - but that is only starting to happen now, and will be more effective than what has been alluded to.
And the point of this article still holds - write effectively for a human reader, and you will be ATS compliant implicitly. This article may help.
‘Enjoy’:
Aah, the much-maligned ATS, the systematic terminator of applications.
The impenetrable barrier to your much-deserved job, which only a select few know how to navigate.
Or is it?
Today’s article gives a run-down on how ATSs work, how recruiters and hiring processes use them, and how that may inform your approach to your applications.
This is a long one, and still doesn’t get into the detail - if you have any questions do comment online or by email.
There’s no question how frustrating they can be to apply through, but are they a barrier to entry or simply an administrative requirement?
If you’ve ever used any ERP or corporate software, you’ll see they all have much the same purpose, built from the same foundations for users with equivalent skill sets.
And as a job seeker, I’m sure you have many common experiences of ATS, with the many applications you have made.
They all have common features, built to varying levels of quality and ease of use.
When ATSs first came out they replaced filing cabinets the same way email replaced letters. And as they’ve developed over time they’ve taken on more features, in service of the employer and hiring process.
Today some of the most useful features of ATSs are those of a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) for automated comms and workflows.
Indeed they are probably better described as a Vacancy Management System which applications go through, rather than the other way around.
They ease the administration of internal recruitment functions.
They can be integrated into job boards to make it easier to administrate both adverts and applications, with features that make it easier to communicate, coordinate and arrange.
The common factor is administration, speed and efficiency.
Speak to many Talent Acquisition people about an ATS, and they’ll often say it's an electronic filing cabinet.
Have a read of this Jobscan article which goes through the features you can expect from an ATS.
The article is also symptomatic of how many CV coaches talk about the ATS, in that it makes it a thing of intent, and as such you should take it with a pinch of salt.
I find it strange that ATSs are given a persona - they're just bits of software that are supposed to help employers.
ATSs have no intent, they facilitate the intent of their Employer-users from how they are configured. Not every feature an ATS offers is implemented or even adopted.
Do you use all the features of MS Office, even if they might make your life easier?
What about when Word goes mad formatting your CV (resumes too of course) - automation that works against you.
You’ll see from the article that an ATS can parse documentation, which means to strip the data from an application and standardise it for use in the process.
Parse is a word you may recognise from Bard/Gemini/ChatGPT, whereby AI parses information based on your intent. Have you ever noticed the results are often quite wonky?
In the same way, recruiters can use parsing and other automation to rank and file applications - but we know the results are often patchy and can work against our goal.
When automation consistently works against us, why would we use it?
Many of the automation features on offer simply aren’t great, especially in older platforms.
Of course, it’s true that automation is often used poorly. Another example of bad you’ll likely recognise - is when someone sends you a Toilet Cleaner job and you’re only interested in Solutions Architecture.
Nonetheless, it’s a human choice to use this kind of automation, not a baked-in requirement.
Yes, it is possible for an ATS to score your application so low you don’t get a look in, if it’s configured that way, but unless volume is impossible to manage, that’s not a feature that is necessarily helpful for us.
It’s more likely however that we’ll run keyword searches through such a high level of applications, to form our long list of people to contact.
It would be reasonable to expect a recruiter to at least look at every CV if say there were only 100 applications.
How about 400? 2,000? More?
At scale, many employers move from recruitment by selection to recruitment by elimination. Something automation can help with, if a human decides.
An ATS is there to help recruiters administer applications at scale, and it is only as good as how it is configured and used.
While often it’s worse than that because it is designed for the employer and not the applicant.
[Actually, that’s the whole problem with recruitment right there. Candidates should be the priority throughout recruitment, in service of the recruitment process.
I call this outside in recruitment, compared to the transactional nature of inside out (company first).]
And because ATSs work for the employer, the experience of applicants is often not a consideration. ‘You do the work, and then maybe we’ll consider you.’
It's institutional arrogance.
Workday often gets bad stick. It’s terrible for job seekers.
I saw an advocate for HR systemic best practice say that people just don’t understand its benefits, as a component of a wider system.
He said that the requirement for multiple Workday accounts is down to data privacy and siloed data that doesn’t cross employers.
These may be true points, but they don’t reflect the experience of people those companies may wish to employ.
Were candidates the priority, there are simple solutions - we use Facebook to log into many websites. Why couldn’t you have a centralised Workday account that can be used for multiple employers?
It just isn’t a priority for many hiring processes, who have the money.
Nonetheless, while their design may cause no end of frustration for applicants, their purpose isn’t to eliminate you from the process.
1/ What about automated instant rejections?
2/ What about duplicated data entry?
3/ What about tailored compliant CVs?
4/ What about keyword matching?
5/ Rejected on Sunday at 3am!
(Answers in the next section)
Common complaints and advice around the ATS.
I’d suggest that these are misleading notions because they make an ATS a barrier to pass and not the tool it is.
It’s better to write CVs for the end user, in a way that shows how you meet the requirements of the process; because all of these questions relate to human decisions.
1/ In a volume process, it’s not uncommon to reject every application after the first hundred, when good candidates are already in view.
Alternatively, you may fail a killer question, such as “Do you have a work permit” or “Do you have a degree in HR” or “Do you have 5 years experience in this software that has existed for 3 years”. These are all questions set by the hiring process.
Other reasons too - mainly human-driven.
2/ On an ATS, parsing is often weak and redistributes content in a gobbledygook way. Data entry allows more consistent processing of data.
3/ Tailored compliant CVs are straightforward - don’t use images, columns or tables. Plain text, and simple formatting. Show how you meet the criteria.
4/ What about keyword matching? Any vacancy has keywords associated with it. An application should show how you truthfully meet their essential criteria, using their terminology. While also showing your strengths in the skills, tech and achievements you have.
5/ Likely configured to close the vacancy at a set time and send out auto-rejections.
Most recruiters know that people don’t know how to write effective CVs.
Why should you?
So we will find other ways to determine your candidacy.
For example, you may use “HR Manager” in your CV as the perfect candidate for a “Head of People”, so we will include your terminology in our searches.
For every skill, there are synonyms and applicable skills.
Sourcing is a detailed specialism, because candidate data is hard to unravel.
Of course, many recruiters assume the CV is the candidate, so your challenge is to help everyone see you as a candidate of choice.
What key words could we be searching on and assessing CVs against?
Instead of worrying about beating the ATS, consider how you can help hiring processes see you as a good candidate.
The same principles that increase ATS performance also work for humans, and it’s humans who you want to decide on you. Not just at the initial stage, but at the decision stage too.
Keyword cramming and other tactics designed to boost ATS performance have a resemblance to cheating. These can work against you, with good reason, if integrity is a principle.
Help human readers make a positive decision with a good enough CV and appropriate action that supports your application.
Something I’ll write about another time.
I should point out, that this isn’t a defence of the ATS.
Many are crummy and leave a sour taste.
It’s just that if you are arbitrarily eliminated from a hiring process, it will most of the time stem from a human decision.
Which in my book makes it worse.
Indeed automation should be a force for good.
For example, there is no reason, other than a lack of intent, for employers not to respond to every application when it is a basic feature of an ATS.
I should also point out that things are going to change.
AI has the potential to bring a significant step change in recruitment automation, and that will be another conversation entirely.
Automated interview arrangements, chatbot style pre-application conversations, contract management and so on - all of which should improve candidate experience.
In the meanwhile, next time someone advises you it’s the ATS that’s holding you back, ask
“Where is the money?”
Yes ATSs can be shoddily designed. Yes they can poorly used. And yes the system is stacked against the majority of job seekers.
But it's people who are accountable, not a bit of software.
Thanks for reading,
Greg
