THE TALENT JOURNAL

Home / The Talent Journal

The Hidden Flaws of ATS: How Standardized Hiring Is Killing the Human Element

‍In today’s tech-driven hiring landscape, Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) are everywhere. They promise efficiency, automation, and scalable candidate screening. But as these systems become the default gatekeepers of talent, a serious issue is emerging—one that could be costing organizations their best potential hires.

The problem? ATS tools often reduce human candidates to keyword matches, scorecards, and check boxes. In trying to create a more efficient funnel, we’ve forgotten the very thing that makes hiring great talent possible: human connection.

1. Standardized Questioning Ignores Context

ATS platforms typically rely on templated forms and standard interview questions, such as:

"Describe a time you solved a technical problem."
"What are your greatest strengths and weaknesses?"

While these questions are fine in moderation, they become problematic when they replace tailored, nuanced conversations. People don’t fit neatly into templates. A Senior Network Engineer who spent years solving complex cloud security problems might not shine in a cookie-cutter form if the system isn’t tuned to detect nuance. Context matters, and standardized questioning often strips it away.

2. Keyword Dependence Penalizes Diverse Experiences

‍If your resume doesn’t include the exact keywords an ATS is configured to look for—say, “SD-WAN,” “Zero Trust,” or “Terraform”—you may never get a call back, even if you’ve done the work under different terminology or with adjacent technologies.

ATS systems rarely account for transferable skills, adjacent experience, or domain knowledge that doesn’t fit into predefined fields. That’s a huge loss, especially for candidates from diverse industries or non-traditional backgrounds who bring fresh perspectives to tech and sales engineering roles.

‍3. The Illusion of Objectivity

‍One of the selling points of ATS software is that it removes bias. But let’s be honest: the bias just shifts. Instead of being influenced by a hiring manager’s gut, candidates are now judged by algorithmic filters configured by humans. If those filters were built with narrow assumptions, unconscious bias can become even more deeply embedded—and less visible.

For example, a system might prioritize candidates from specific schools or employers, unintentionally filtering out high-potential individuals from smaller firms or self-taught backgrounds. 

‍When Algorithms Replace Intuition, Bias Goes Underground

One of the most common arguments in favor of Applicant Tracking Systems is that they remove human bias from the hiring process. After all, algorithms don’t discriminate—right?

Not exactly.

What often goes over looked is this: ATS systems are only as objective as the data and rules they’re built on.  And that data—along with the logic behind keyword weighting, scoring models, and filtering criteria—is created by humans. Which means it carries all the assumptions, preferences, and blind spots of its designers.

Here’s how this illusion of fairness can go wrong:

Biased Inputs = Biased Outputs
‍If an organization train sits ATS system on past hiring data to prioritize “successful” candidate profiles, it may unknowingly encode the biases of historical hiring decisions. For example: If previous hires skewed toward candidates from a handful of elite universities, the ATS may rank those schools higher. If most prior engineers were men, the system may learn to favor male-associated names or language patterns. If top performers historically came from a specific company or geographic area, those criteria could be overweighted.

That’s not objective—it’s just codified subjectivity.

Overemphasis on “Cultural Fit” Filters Out Diverse Perspectives
Some systems include scoring based on “culture fit” or personality assessments. On paper, this sounds good—it suggests harmony and alignment. But in practice, these filters often reward sameness and punish difference.

A candidate who thinks differently, speaks differently, or comes from a non-traditional background may get flagged as “not a fit,” not because they can’t do the job, but because they don’t mirror the existing team. That’s not meritocracy—it’s monoculture in disguise.

Language and Resume Style Bias
Many ATS tools parse resumes using Natural Language Processing (NLP). However, NLP models often struggle with nuances:
‍
*A veteran who describes leadership experience in military terms might be ranked lower than someone using corporate buzzwords.
*A non-native English speaker might construct sentences differently, affecting readability scores or keyword match rates.
*Women and minority candidates may use more modest or collaborative language, which can be penalized in systems optimized for assertiveness and self-promotion.

The result? Great candidates are filtered out not because of lack of ability, but because their communication style doesn’t align with a pre-programmed norm.

False Transparency = Reduced Accountability
Unlike a human interviewer, an ATS doesn’t have to explain itself. Candidates rarely know why they were rejected. There’s no feedback loop, no rationale to question. And because decisions are made “by the system,” companies can deflect responsibility when bias occurs.

This veneer of neutrality actually makes it harder to challenge unfair practices, because it gives a false sense of confidence in the process.

Bringing True Objectivity Back
If we want truly fair hiring, we can’t rely on the algorithm alone. We need to:

Audit ATS configurations regularly for unintended bias.
Incorporate human judgment alongside automation—not in place of it.
Redefine “qualified” to include potential, adaptability, and unique perspectives—not just past titles and keyword matches.
Create alternative paths for candidates who may not shine in the ATS but deserve a second look.

True objectivity comes not from removing humans, but from making hiring more thoughtful, more inclusive, and more self-aware. 

4. Speed Over Substance

ATS platforms are built to help recruiters handle hundreds or thousands of applicants. But in optimizing for speed, we often sacrifice quality. Strong candidates with complex,multifaceted backgrounds can get overlooked because their value can’t be quantified by a simple resume scan.

Great hiring isn’t about velocity—it’s about precision and insight. An overreliance on ATS turns a strategic process into a conveyor belt.

5. Losing the Human Connection

Perhaps the most profound issue with ATS software is the erosion of the human connection in hiring.Candidates are increasingly ghosted by systems that never acknowledge them.There’s no feedback, no warmth, no rapport—just a black hole of automated rejections or silence.

That experience matters.Candidates remember how they were treated. Top-tier talent doesn’t just want a job—they want to feel seen, heard, and valued. That doesn’t happen through check boxes.

So What’s the Solution?

ATS isn’t inherently bad.It’s a tool—and like all tools, its value depends on how it’s used. The challenge is to balance automation with humanity.

Here’s how to do that:
Use ATS as a filter, not a gate. Let it help with logistics and compliance, but don’t let it make hiring decisions.
Tailor your outreach and interviews. Customize your questions to the role and person.
Train hiring teams to look beyond the resume. Focus on skills, impact, adaptability—not just job titles.
‍Bring the human element back. Reach out personally. Follow up. Have real conversations.

Hiring is a human endeavor. And the best hiring decisions still come from thoughtful, empathetic people who understand that talent can’t always be measured by an algorithm.

Want help reintroducing the human element to your tech hiring strategy? Let’s talk.