The Resume Is Dead. We Just Haven’t Admitted It Yet.

 

Over the past few months, I’ve spoken with more people than I can count who are looking for work. Some were laid off. Some are trying to escape toxic situations. Some are simply looking for the next challenge. They come from different industries, different backgrounds, and different stages of their careers, but their stories all sound remarkably similar.

They apply for dozens of jobs. Then hundreds of jobs. And then…nothing.

No response. No feedback. No human interaction. Just silence.

As I listen to these stories, I find myself wondering whether we’ve finally reached the point where the resume no longer serves any meaningful purpose.

That may sound strange coming from someone who has hired people, built teams, and spent much of his career helping organizations navigate technology-driven change. But the more I look at the modern hiring process, the harder it becomes to defend it.

Today’s hiring ecosystem is largely built around platforms like LinkedIn, Indeed, and a growing collection of applicant tracking systems that were designed to create efficiency at scale. In theory, that sounds reasonable. Companies need a way to manage large numbers of applicants. Candidates need a way to find opportunities. Technology should help connect the two.

Instead, we’ve created a system where AI writes resumes, AI writes cover letters, AI writes job descriptions, AI screens applications, AI ranks candidates, and AI rejects applicants before a human being ever becomes involved.

At every step in the process, we’re automating the very thing that was supposed to matter most: understanding whether a person can actually do the job, and, more importantly, whether they are a cultural fit.

The irony is almost impossible to ignore. Candidates are now using ChatGPT, Copilot, Claude, and countless other AI tools to optimize resumes for applicant tracking systems. Meanwhile, employers are using AI-powered tools to identify which of those AI-generated resumes are worthy of consideration. The result is a strange technological arms race where both sides are trying to outsmart algorithms rather than communicate with each other.

We’ve somehow convinced ourselves that this is progress.

What really caught my attention was a recent story about Elon Musk’s hiring process for members of his AI chip team. Rather than asking candidates for resumes or cover letters, he reportedly requested three bullet points describing the toughest technical problems they had solved.

Now, before anyone accuses me of suddenly becoming an Elon Musk disciple, that’s not the point.

The point is that even one of the most technology-focused organizations in the world appears to recognize that resumes have become increasingly disconnected from actual capability. When a candidate can generate a polished, professionally formatted resume in thirty seconds, what exactly are we measuring anymore?

The deeper problem, however, isn’t the resume.

It’s that we’ve forgotten what hiring is supposed to accomplish.

Far too many job descriptions today read like they were assembled from a collection of outdated templates, corporate buzzwords, and AI-generated filler text. They describe imaginary candidates with impossible combinations of skills and experience. They list requirements that bear little resemblance to the actual work being performed. They are often so generic that they tell prospective employees almost nothing about the role, the team, or the organization’s expectations.

And then we wonder why the hiring process feels broken.

The truth is that I don’t think technology caused this problem. Technology simply exposed it.

When I joined a startup in San Carlos, California back in 2001, the post-phone screen interview cycle was a day-long affair, beginning with a meeting with HR, an interview with a potential peer, a lunch with other candidates and multiple employees (an incredibly smart way to get people to let down their guard and see how they interact), a panel interview with 2-3 employees, an interview with the hiring manager, and then end-of-day drinks with all employees. It sounds like a lot, but this mix of interview types was amazingly good at weeding out lackluster candidates…and giving opportunities to some who did not look as strong on paper, but who turned out to be stellar employees.

That was 25 years ago. I fear that many of those best practices have been lost in this era of AI.

Hiring has always been difficult. Evaluating people is difficult. Understanding potential is difficult. But instead of investing more time in those activities, we’ve spent years trying to automate them away.

Perhaps the answer is not another generation of AI-powered recruiting tools. Perhaps the answer is writing better job descriptions. Talking to candidates earlier. Asking better questions. Conducting interviews that explore real experience instead of keyword matches. Spending less time filtering resumes and more time understanding people.

I realize that sounds almost old-fashioned. Maybe it is.

But if we’ve reached the point where algorithms are writing resumes for candidates and other algorithms are rejecting them on behalf of employers, then perhaps it’s time to admit that we’ve optimized the hiring process for everything except hiring.

And maybe that’s why so many talented people are sitting on the sidelines wondering why nobody is calling them back.