The truth about the ATS (redux)

Greg Wyatt • July 9, 2024

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.

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

By Greg Wyatt August 18, 2026
The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.
By Greg Wyatt August 11, 2026
What follows is Chapter 49 in A Career Breakdown Kit (Summer 2026) . It's like many other chapters in that I've tried to make it stand alone, yet it's deeply connected to the rest of the book. For example, if you accept your job search is equivalent to launching a product to market - where you are the product and your next employer the buyer - then a sensible strategy is also equivalent. You execute an appropriate multichannel sales and marketing plan, where you focus on the steps in your control, with considered action and follow up. An interview process is an ongoing negotiation, with each interview equivalent to a consultative sales meeting. And like any good sales professional, you know that the steps preceding, the steps in-between, and the steps after all have a part to play. In my last three offers these have all been contributing factors: The relationship nurtured by the hiring manager led to their new employee hitting the ground running The private information withheld by the candidate that led to an offer rescinded because she could never have fulfilled the role in the first place The enthusiasm shown by a candidate in post interview communications tipped a decision in their favour Recruitment is risk, filled with bias - that doesn't mean you can't make that work for you. 49 - After the interview In a tough job search, getting to an interview can feel a real achievement. If you’ve been accountable in your applications, only going for roles where you are a strong fit, these are tangible opportunities to secure employment. The interview itself isn’t the be-all and end-all. It’s better to see them as the start of a conversation, one that’s only complete when you either have an acceptable employment contract in your hand, or if it’s an unequivocal no. Continuing this conversation in the right way, and in ways other candidates may not think to, can bring hoped for and unexpected gains. A few weeks back I filled a vacancy which had a strong shortlist. The final three were all employable, and the company would have taken all three had they been able to. The second choice candidate was disappointed and took it well, responding professionally. I worked hard to give all three a good experience with regular updates and constructive feedback. I too was genuinely disappointed for the ‘unsuccessful’ candidates. Two weeks after accepting the offer and returning the signed contract, the first-choice candidate withdrew. She’d received a significantly improved offer having been headhunted. Within two hours of passing the news on to the hiring team, the 2nd choice candidate was offered the role and accepted. How she had responded to her initial disappointment was a key element in this offer being put forward. The same was true of her experience with us in her decision to accept the offer. In many ways an interview is like a sales meeting. One party pitches their offering which might be customised against the questions asked. The other party makes a decision on whether and how to proceed. In an interview both the candidate and employer act as both seller and buyer. As a job seeker you get the final say on whether you say yes, no or something in between. Your decision is influenced by factors you may not divulge to the employer, such as an unexpected intervention (illness, accident, family), personal circumstances or other offers that may come up. It’s the same for the employer. They may have a hierarchy of decision-making, changes in the business and changes outside of the business - many things that can influence an interview decision or time frame, different from what was initially agreed. In sales we know that a deal isn’t agreed upon until the invoice is paid. Even if there is an initial ‘yes’ in a meeting we follow up suitably. Follow-up email to confirm details of the conversation and next steps. Thank you for your time Follow up at the appropriate time to check progress If it’s ‘no right now’, follow up over time to build a relationship until they are ready to buy If it’s ‘no answer’, find appropriate reasons to follow up, ending in a breakup email What this actually looks relates to what their sales (hiring) process is, playing to their rules and breaking those same rules in an appropriate way. In the UK, 61% of private sector employers are SMEs, whereas the vast majority of money is in the corporate space. The differentiator in recruitment is that the more corporate you get, the more transactional and matrix-led recruitment often becomes. Some of the rules of the game will be different. This illustrates how and why things are different depending on the context. Public sector, charities, geography, bias, habit, strategy - these all affect the rules of what appear similar processes from the outside. It’s important not to be cynical or come across as coercive. Respect the process and any rules you learn about. Thank you notes Most of the employers I partner with are interested in candidate feedback and interest post-interview - to help them reach their decision for the right reason. Were you applying directly, their interest in your view would be the same. A naturally written thank you note sent appropriately should not work against you. It might work for you and it’s a situation where someone’s bias can be a benefit. ‘Dear Greg, I wanted to thank you for your time today and the opportunity to interview at ABC Corp. It was a pleasure to meet you and Gary and helpful to understand more about your role and environment. I remain keen and would be delighted to return for the next stage. You mentioned you’ll make a decision by the end of next week and I look forward to hearing from you. Do let me know if I can help with anything - my number is …. Kind regards,’ It’s an opportunity to build on or mitigate inconclusive points in an interview if there’s an example you neglected to share or if you didn’t convey information in the right way. Maybe they let slip they’d be concerned if the role would keep your interest in the long term - why not own this? ‘During the interview you asked if I could see myself in this role long-term. It’s a role I’d enjoy - taking on a hands-on role I can get stuck into is an exciting challenge, while my experience in xxx would be beneficial for yyy.’ Keep it more succinct than my email though. Write it in your own words in a similar tone to how you came across in the interview. Will it make a difference? Only marginally, in some situations. Is it worth doing as a natural way to continue the conversation? I think so. Don’t be disheartened if you don’t get a reply - they may have a policy to follow. And to that coercive point above don’t say ‘I’m the best candidate. You’d be a fool to miss out,’ or something more subtle that might suggest the same. Additional interviews In an ideal world you’d get a full view of the interview process before the interview. Unfortunately some employers enjoy playing a game of interview chicken, revealing more and more interview stages as you go through them. Most are somewhere in between. Try to establish the full process as early as possible in case there is anything that is non-negotiable for you. For example, I know some people categorically do not want to do technical tests or ‘business plan’ style presentations, having had their fingers burnt in the past. It’s your choice what might be a non-negotiable - for any reasonable employer these are typically used as a means for fair assessment. Treat any interview in the same way as the first interview: prepare as fully as possible and assume nothing. Unless you know their hierarchy of decision-making, that new person you meet at fourth stage for an informal chat might well be the person with the final say. Even a social get-together after an offer is put forward might be seen as an assessment. Appropriate follow-ups It’s a careful balance. You want to show you are interested, not desperate. You need an answer, not to be inappropriately intrusive - even if that’s not your intent perception holds weight. Following up in the right way is a good tactic. If you can gain an understanding of their time frames or process work to that. Anything and everything can happen behind the scenes, including unexpected absences. Things can slip in a way employers may not see as notable. A few work days after you were expecting to hear, drop them a polite line. ‘Hi Greg, I wondered if you had any news on how you want to proceed with this role. Is there any update you can share? Kind regards,’ You can play a bit of keeping up with the Joneses if it’s true - ‘I remain interested - I do have two interviews this week with other employers. Would you like me to keep you updated?’ Sometimes no news is no news and you might need to be patient. Eventually you may come to a point where you need a decision from them - such as if your 2nd choice company gives you a job offer. A breakup email can be a good thing. Even if this doesn’t prompt an update or decision from them, you give yourself agency to walk away with no ‘what ifs?’ And if they do come back later, you can make a separate decision on whether to revisit them. One such email might be: ‘Hi Greg, I enjoyed our interview on May 21st. You mentioned you’d reach a decision the following week. Can I assume you have moved forward with another candidate? I’ll draw a line through my application for now and will be happy to pick up our conversations at a later date, if appropriate. Kind regards,’ Written appropriately, there are three outcomes: You get a reply confirming they have appointed You get no reply and can move on You get a reply with more information That last point may be ‘no news’ or something actionable. Sometimes it might even prompt good news. Whatever the outcome, you can move forward. Keeping in touch long-term Sometimes a no might be a ‘no for now’, especially when you are later on in the process, such as being pipped to the post at final interview. If yours is a business as usual role where there are a number of employees fulfilling similar duties in the same company, you may well be suitable for other roles that come up in future. How can you keep in touch appropriately so that you help their decision making when another vacancy comes up? Find reasons to occasionally keep in touch (maybe once every couple of months). If they are active on LinkedIn you could follow their content and add constructive comments. It may come to nothing but it may give you early sight of a new vacancy. If you see another vacancy advertised check it out. Drop them a line directly rather than just apply given you are continuing a conversation rather than coming in cold. And if they reply to say ‘don’t bother’, at least you know.