Fatigue on Both Sides: Why Applicants and Employers Are Burned Out by the Same Broken Process

A system that drains everyone

Hiring should be one of the most human parts of running an organisation. It is the moment when two parties meet with the hope of building something together. For the employer, it is about finding someone who will contribute to growth, culture, and execution. For the applicant, it is about finding a place where skills, ambition, and stability can align. At its best, hiring is not transactional; it is transformative.

And yet, the reality for most people today is very different. What should be a bridge has become a treadmill. Applicants spend months applying for roles, often sending out hundreds of CVs only to hear nothing back. Employers spend weeks sifting through stacks of irrelevant applications, feeling pressure from leadership to fill roles quickly while dreading the risk of a mis-hire.

Both sides are tired. Not just annoyed, not just inconvenienced, but deeply fatigued by the process itself.

This fatigue is not incidental. It is the inevitable outcome of a hiring system that prioritises volume over clarity, automation over communication, and speed over trust.

The applicant’s fatigue: running a marathon without a finish line

For applicants, the hiring journey has become one of constant effort with very little return. A study by Glassdoor in 2023 revealed that many candidates submit between 100 and 200 applications before receiving an offer. That is hundreds of hours spent researching companies, tailoring CVs, and drafting cover letters, often with no acknowledgement at all.

Psychologists call this kind of loop “cognitive drain.” Each unanswered application is an open mental tab that consumes energy. The Talent Board’s candidate experience survey reported that nearly 70% of applicants never receive any follow-up after submitting a CV. The silence is worse than rejection, because rejection at least brings closure. Without closure, candidates carry invisible weight.

Then there is the mismatch between what is promised and what is delivered. Many job descriptions read like three roles merged into one, or list unrealistic requirements such as “five years of experience” for an entry-level role. According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, more than half of candidates report that a role did not align with its job description once inside the process. The fatigue here is not just administrative but emotional: people invest hope in opportunities that were never accurately described.

It is little wonder that many applicants eventually give up tailoring applications altogether, choosing instead to send CVs en masse. A study from the University of Michigan showed that under conditions of stress, applicants are 30% less likely to customise their CVs. Fatigue reshapes behaviour, and not for the better.

The employer’s fatigue: drowning in irrelevant volume

If applicants are running a marathon, employers are trying to land planes in a crowded sky. The sheer number of CVs per role has become overwhelming. LinkedIn data shows that the average corporate vacancy receives over 250 applications, and high-profile companies can see thousands. Most are not remotely relevant. Hiring managers spend their days sorting rather than selecting.

The pressure of time makes it worse. Every vacancy left unfilled has a cost: work delayed, teams overstretched, opportunities missed. According to SHRM, the average time to fill a role is 44 days. For companies operating in fast-moving industries, that is six weeks of compromise. Hiring managers often face a stark choice: fill the role quickly or do it properly. Neither option feels safe.

And when the wrong hire is made, the consequences are severe. Research from the University of Wisconsin found that replacing a mis-hire can cost up to three times the person’s annual salary, once you factor in recruitment, training, and lost productivity. The fear of making a costly mistake adds another layer of stress to an already draining process.

The fatigue here is not just about workload but about risk. Every CV feels like a potential mistake waiting to happen.

The feedback loop: how both sides make the system worse

It would be easy to assume that applicants and employers are on opposite sides of the problem. In truth, they are caught in the same loop.

• Applicants, burned by silence, apply to more roles to increase their odds.

• Employers, burned by floods of CVs, add more filters and automation to cope.

• Automation generates more silence, which in turn pushes applicants back to volume.

The more both sides try to protect themselves, the worse the experience becomes. What started as a way of creating efficiency has produced a system optimised for fatigue.

Fatigue as structural risk

Fatigue does not just cause frustration. It introduces risk. Consider the metaphor of air traffic control. If too many planes arrive at once, the system is overwhelmed. Controllers become reactive, errors creep in, and safety margins shrink. The fatigue of the controller is not just a personal issue but a systemic risk.

The same is true of hiring. A fatigued hiring manager is more likely to skim applications, to rely on keyword searches, or to make decisions based on gut feeling rather than structured assessment. A fatigued applicant is more likely to mass-apply, lowering quality and feeding the very cycle that exhausts employers. Fatigue erodes judgement, and poor judgement in hiring has consequences that last years.

Attempts at change: small but important experiments

Not all organisations are content with this cycle. Some have begun experimenting with ways to reduce fatigue for both sides.

• Structured shortlisting. Netflix, for example, implemented structured interview guides that help managers assess candidates against defined criteria rather than subjective impressions. This reduced decision time while increasing confidence in outcomes.

• Automated communication. Smaller technology firms have introduced automated but empathetic status updates, closing loops with candidates at each stage. Greenhouse, a recruitment platform, reports that such updates can raise candidate satisfaction scores by over 30%.

• Task-based trials. Startups frequently use paid trials in place of traditional second-round interviews. These trials provide a more realistic measure of fit and allow both parties to experience working together before committing.

These experiments share one principle: clarity reduces fatigue. When expectations are clearer and communication is more consistent, both sides conserve energy.

What hiring managers can do today

For hiring managers, the goal is not to rebuild the entire system overnight but to take small steps that reduce the cycle of fatigue.

1. Simplify the job description. Focus on outcomes rather than exhaustive requirements. Applicants should be able to read a job post and understand what success looks like, the three or four skills that truly matter, and the values that define the team. According to Bersin & Associates, clarity in job descriptions reduces time-to-fill by nearly 20%.

2. Narrow the funnel. Resist the temptation to advertise everywhere. Instead, source from curated pools or networks where the likelihood of fit is higher. Smaller candidate pools reduce fatigue without lowering quality.

3. Communicate status. A simple acknowledgement can make the difference between hope and despair. Automated updates, when written with care, close loops without creating extra work.

4. Offer feedback selectively. Not every applicant needs personalised notes, but top candidates deserve at least a sentence or two on why they were not selected. LinkedIn data suggests that candidates who receive feedback are four times more likely to re-apply, preserving long-term brand value.

What applicants can do to protect themselves

Applicants, too, can make choices that reduce their own exhaustion.

• Apply selectively. Rather than chasing volume, focus on fewer, higher-quality applications. Indeed’s research indicates that candidates who apply to fewer than 20 carefully chosen roles are more likely to land interviews than those who apply to hundreds.

• Leverage networks. Direct contact with hiring managers or team members can bypass the noise of job boards. Even a short message on LinkedIn can put a face to a CV.

• Close your own loops. Some candidates create trackers with self-imposed cut-off dates: “If no response after 14 days, mark as closed.” This reduces the mental burden of indefinite waiting.

These actions do not fix the system, but they make it less draining to navigate.

Why fatigue is a warning light, not just a symptom

It is tempting to see fatigue as unavoidable. After all, hiring is high stakes. But fatigue is more than an inconvenience; it is a warning that the system itself is misaligned.

When both sides are drained, trust erodes. Candidates assume employers do not care. Employers assume candidates are not serious. Over time, this mutual scepticism becomes self-fulfilling. Talented candidates drop out of the market, while hiring managers settle for less than ideal fits.

Systems are human inventions. They can be rebuilt. If the current hiring process was designed for throughput, it can be redesigned for trust. The fatigue we see today is not inevitable; it is evidence of a design flaw waiting to be corrected.

A glimpse of what could be different

Imagine a hiring process where applicants know within days whether they are progressing. Where hiring managers receive only the 20 most relevant CVs. Where job descriptions set realistic expectations and interviews focus on practical collaboration rather than rehearsed answers.

This is not a utopian vision. Some organisations are already moving in this direction, and the technology to enable it exists. The difference is not resources but priorities. Do we want hiring to be about efficiency at all costs, or about clarity that sustains trust?

If fatigue is the current default, focus can be the alternative. Applicants would invest their energy where it matters, and employers would make decisions with more confidence. Both sides would leave the process with dignity intact.

Closing thought

Hiring is one of the most consequential processes inside any organisation. It shapes culture, performance, and trust. Yet today, it leaves both applicants and employers burned out. Fatigue is not an inconvenience to be endured but a signal that the system itself has lost its way.

The organisations that recognise this first, and begin to design for clarity, communication, and dignity, will not only attract better candidates but also build reputations for leadership that cares. Hiring should not feel like a contest of endurance. It should feel like a search for alignment.

When fatigue is addressed, hiring can once again become what it was meant to be: the meeting point of hope and possibility.