Most candidates are not reading. They are spraying and praying.
We have a hiring gap that needs to close fast, and in the process of working through candidate pipelines, I noticed something that feels systemic.
Most of the irrelevant applications are not from candidates who read the job description and thought they were a fit. They are from candidates who did not read the job description at all.
I know this because the role has three explicit deal breakers that are written clearly in the description. It is easy to spot: candidates who actually read them tend to disqualify themselves early. Candidates who did not read them apply anyway, and then look confused when we point out that they do not meet the requirements.
The volume is astounding. Out of every ten applications, maybe two candidates have actually read past the job title and salary band.
This is not new behavior, but it has gotten worse. I think it is a direct consequence of how recruiting has changed. When applying to a job required a cover letter and some deliberation, candidates were more selective. They had to make a choice. Now, applying takes four clicks. There is no friction. So the rational strategy has shifted.
Instead of applying to five roles you are well-suited for, you apply to fifty roles you might be suited for, and you let the probability game work in your favor. Someone will call you back. If they do, you read the details. If they do not, you move on to the next batch.
This is “spraying and praying,” and it is the dominant strategy in candidate behavior right now.
The consequence is that job descriptions are no longer instructions. They are merely theater. Candidates glance at the title, scan for keywords like “remote” or salary range, and click apply. The actual details—the deal breakers, the specific requirements, the context for why this role matters—that is all noise to them.
I find this fascinating because it reveals something about information design and attention. We write job descriptions as if candidates will read them carefully. We put deal breakers in the body of the description. We explain context. We set expectations. But we are writing to an audience that is not reading. They are not even looking. They are applying based on signal-to-noise ratio and hope.
The last-minute hiring gap has forced us to think differently. What if we designed job descriptions for an audience that is not reading? That means putting the deal breakers not in the body, but at the top, in the most visible, hardest-to-miss format. It means being explicit and redundant. It means assuming that if something is important, the candidate did not see it.
It also means changing the screening process. Instead of waiting for candidates to self-select based on the job description, we have to design screening questions that surface whether someone has actually read it. Ask them to point out the deal breakers. Ask them to explain why they think they are suited for the specific challenges mentioned. Ask them something that only someone who read the description would know.
If they cannot answer, they were spray-and-praying. And you just saved time filtering them out.
The real insight is that candidates are behaving rationally given the market incentives. It is not that they are lazy or careless. It is that applying to every role is a better strategy than applying to only the ones they are qualified for. That strategy works if you have low standards for fit or timeline. It does not work if you need someone specific.
The company that solves this will be the company that understands that the deal breakers have to be unmissable. Not because candidates are bad. But because the market has trained them not to read.