Misalignment Is the Core Issue: We Don’t Lack Applicants or Roles, We Lack Intelligent Matching

The illusion of abundance

Every founder and business owner has lived this paradox: a vacancy attracts hundreds of applications, yet the shortlist feels empty. It is tempting to conclude that the talent pool is weak, but the reality is more uncomfortable. The problem is not scarcity; it is misalignment.

LinkedIn data shows job applications now exceed 11,000 per minute worldwide. Recruiters are not starved of CVs; they are swamped by them (LinkedIn via eWeek). Yet three-quarters of employers still report they cannot find the skills they need (ManpowerGroup). The contradiction is clear: roles exist, applicants exist, but the two rarely meet in a meaningful way.

Why misalignment is the true bottleneck

The hiring process is still built on proxies. Degrees, past employers, and keywords dominate shortlists, while the strongest predictors of performance, work samples, structured interviews, and context-fit assessments, are underused.

A century of research confirms this. Cognitive ability tests, structured interviews, and real work tasks consistently outperform unstructured conversations and CV screenings when it comes to predicting job success (Schmidt & Hunter; Schmidt & Oh). Yet most companies still default to “gut feel” or convenience.

Meanwhile, technology has made it easier for candidates to apply at scale. Generative tools allow job seekers to produce dozens of applications in an afternoon. Recruiters face an ocean of applicants, many of whom are barely filtered for relevance. The best candidates risk being lost in the tide (Financial Times).

The hidden cost for founders

For small businesses and startups, the damage from misalignment is magnified. A wrong hire is not just a line on a balance sheet. It delays launches, diverts scarce managerial energy, and shakes team morale. SHRM places the average cost per hire in the thousands, but when you add lost productivity, missed deadlines, and replacement costs, the real figure is far higher.

When labour markets soften, as they have recently in the UK, founders feel the pain more acutely. Hiring intent has fallen to multi-year lows, meaning that every decision carries more weight (CIPD via The Times and Reuters). In these conditions, misalignment is not an inconvenience, it is existential.

The candidate’s side of the story

For applicants, misalignment feels like rejection without reason. Candidates are filtered out by algorithms, ghosted after interviews, or left waiting months for feedback. Over a third of job seekers report hearing nothing at all one to two months after applying (SHRM). This silence is corrosive.

The frustration is not limited to those who are unqualified. Strong candidates often exit industries altogether after repeated poor experiences. A platform like Greenhouse has even added features to discourage employer ghosting, a sign of how widespread the problem has become (Axios).

The result is a vicious cycle. Disillusioned candidates stop applying to firms that mishandle them, further shrinking the pool of genuinely engaged talent.

What actually works

The evidence is unambiguous: structured methods outperform improvisation. Work samples replicate the tasks of the job. Behaviour-based interviews focus on observable actions. Cognitive assessments gauge problem-solving in relevant contexts. When combined, these tools provide a far clearer signal of future performance than prestige or keywords ever could (Schmidt & Hunter; Schmidt & Oh).

But beyond ability, context matters. A high-performing candidate in one environment may flounder in another. This is why founders need to check for alignment on what I call TEMPO: team pace, exposure to stakeholders, meeting load, pressure cycles, and ownership depth. Many failed hires are not cultural mismatches but tempo mismatches. Someone used to monthly cycles can struggle in a firm that pivots hourly.

Building a better system

So how do founders move from theory to practice?

1. Write roles around outcomes. Replace sprawling job descriptions with three clear deliverables, three constraints, and three behaviours. This helps the right candidates self-select in and the wrong ones self-select out.

2. Introduce short, real tasks. Start with a 15-minute screening exercise, then a deeper task for finalists. Keep them authentic to the job.

3. Standardise interviews. Use a consistent bank of structured questions with scoring rubrics. Evidence beats intuition.

4. Calibrate TEMPO. Ask candidates to self-assess against your environment’s pace and pressure. Discuss gaps openly before making offers.

5. Close the loop. Acknowledge every application within 24 hours, give interview results within 10 working days, and offer constructive rejection notes.

Each of these steps reduces noise without adding delay. They also scale. A founder who codifies this process once can use it across future roles without reinventing the wheel.

Technology as a lever, not a crutch

There is a temptation to believe that more technology will solve misalignment. The opposite is often true. Applicant tracking systems and generative application tools increase volume but not precision. Without structure, more tech only adds more noise.

Used wisely, however, technology enforces discipline. Automated scheduling, rubric-based scoring, and templated communication free managers to focus on evidence. What matters is not the sophistication of the software, but the clarity of the process it supports.

Measuring alignment

Success should not be measured in speed alone. Time to fill is a vanity metric if it results in churn three months later. Better indicators include:

• Percentage of candidates passing the work-sample threshold.

• Offer acceptance rate.

• 90-day retention and performance outcomes.

• Manager satisfaction scores at 60 and 120 days.

• Candidate closure rate (how many applicants receive final feedback).

Founders who track these numbers see fewer false positives and stronger early-tenure success.

A South African lens

In South Africa, misalignment carries additional weight. The country faces one of the highest unemployment rates in the world, with youth unemployment particularly acute (OECD; Statistics South Africa). Graduate unemployment remains stubbornly high (econ3x3). This means the issue is not a shortage of people but a failure to link education and employment effectively.

For founders, this is both a risk and an opportunity. Misaligned processes exclude capable but non-traditional candidates who could thrive if given the right assessment. Designing short, fair work samples opens the door to talent overlooked by conventional screening. In a market where many employers treat candidates poorly, simply offering clarity and closure is a competitive advantage.

Two case illustrations

• The SaaS product hire. A 12-person startup kept hiring product managers who preferred long cycles, which slowed releases. They redesigned their process around outcomes, added a backlog-prioritisation task, and ran TEMPO checks. Within weeks, they secured a candidate who thrived in weekly sprints and improved NPS within six weeks.

• The agency finance hire. An agency lost weeks each month to slow closes. By designing a two-part accounting task and structured interviews focused on escalation and ownership, they hired a candidate who cut close time by 30% and flagged risks early.

These stories demonstrate that misalignment is not abstract. It is operational. And it can be corrected with intentional design.

Closing thoughts

The labour market does not lack applicants or roles. It lacks intelligent matching. Founders who continue to rely on proxies and improvisation will repeat the same mistakes, wasting money and energy while competitors move faster. But those who invest in clarity, structured evidence, and context-fit checks build teams that not only perform but stay.

As one study put it, a CV shows you where someone has been, but a work sample shows you where they can go. The choice is whether you want to know their past, or whether you want to know their future.