AI Can Help You Get Past the ATS. But Can It Tell You Whether You Should Apply?
As candidates use AI to beat automated recruitment systems, employers are fighting back with more AI. But both sides may be overlooking a more important question: whether the candidate and the job are actually right for each other.
Something strange is happening in recruitment.
Job seekers are using AI to rewrite their CVs, tailor cover letters, identify keywords and improve their chances of getting past Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS).
Employers, overwhelmed by applications, are using AI to screen candidates, identify inconsistencies and increasingly detect fraud.
Candidates use more AI to get noticed. Employers use more AI to filter them out.
And the cycle continues.
Sarah O’Connor recently described this escalating arms race in the Financial Times, in an article titled HR Doesn’t Need to Be the CIA. Some employers are now checking whether candidates appearing in video interviews are even real people. Others are introducing identity verification and sophisticated fraud detection.
I understand why employers are concerned. Having spent decades hiring, promoting and developing people, including as CEO of large international businesses, I know how costly a poor hiring decision can be.
But I wonder whether we’re concentrating on the wrong problem.
We’re investing enormous resources in determining whether candidates are who they claim to be, and whether their applications match a job description. We’re spending much less effort helping people understand whether they should be applying for those jobs in the first place.
Getting through the ATS is not the same as getting the right job
Imagine you’re applying for a strategy consulting position.
You find a job description. You upload your CV to an AI tool and ask it to optimize your application.
The tool identifies missing keywords, rewrites your achievements using consulting terminology and produces a persuasive cover letter.
Your application gets through the ATS.
Excellent. Or is it?
Perhaps you’re intellectually curious, analytical and an excellent problem solver. You have the academic qualifications and relevant experience.
But what if you dislike constant client-facing work? What if you’re uncomfortable challenging senior executives? What if you don’t want the travel, unpredictability and demanding hours?
Or perhaps you enjoy the work environment but struggle with some of the natural capabilities the role requires.
Your AI-enhanced CV might get you an interview. It might even help you get hired.
But it hasn’t answered whether you’ll succeed, enjoy the work or want to stay.
And that’s a problem for you and your employer.
The difference between matching and fitting
Recruitment has traditionally relied heavily on matching.
Does the candidate have the required degree? The right experience? Relevant technical skills? A credible employment history?
These questions matter. I’m certainly not suggesting otherwise.
But they don’t tell the whole story.
Over the years, I’ve seen highly qualified people struggle in jobs that looked perfect for them on paper. I’ve also seen less conventional candidates outperform expectations because their personal characteristics and motivations were particularly well suited to the environment.
The distinction is between matching the job description and fitting the actual job.
A CV describes where you’ve been and what you’ve done.
It tells us relatively little about the conditions under which you perform best, the sacrifices you’re prepared to make or the capabilities that come most naturally to you.
And these differences become increasingly important as you progress in your career.
Consider two equally qualified candidates for a general management position.
Both have strong commercial experience. Both have managed teams. Both understand financial performance.
But one thrives on making decisions with incomplete information, taking personal accountability and confronting difficult situations. The other prefers structured environments, collaborative decisions and clear direction.
Neither is necessarily a better professional.
But they may be very different fits for the same job.
An ATS is unlikely to uncover that distinction. And polishing their CVs won’t make it disappear.
Before applying, become your own ATS
I’ve previously argued that candidates should become their own Applicant Tracking Systems.
Not by trying to imitate the software employers use, but by performing their own due diligence before applying.
Most candidates ask: How can I convince this employer that I’m right for the job?
I’d suggest asking an earlier question:
What evidence do I have that this job is right for me?
That requires examining three dimensions.
READY: Are you prepared to make the effort and sacrifices?
A promotion may bring more travel, longer hours, relocation, greater pressure or less flexibility.
You may be perfectly capable of performing the role but unwilling to accept what comes with it.
That’s not a weakness. It’s useful information.
WILLING: Does the working environment suit you?
Some people thrive in competitive, fast-moving, individual-accountability cultures. Others perform better in collaborative, predictable or purpose-driven environments.
A successful career in one organization doesn’t guarantee success in another, even when the job title is identical.
ABLE: Do you have the natural capabilities the role demands?
I’m not referring simply to qualifications or technical knowledge.
Think about managerial courage, judgment under uncertainty, initiative, interpersonal influence or the ability to handle ambiguity.
These characteristics can develop, but people don’t all start from the same place or find them equally natural.
The important question isn’t whether you’re a good or bad candidate.
It’s whether your particular combination of readiness, workplace preferences and capabilities fits the career you’re pursuing.
And, importantly, where the gaps are.
AI could help us make better career decisions. But we’re mostly using it to produce more applications.
Here’s the irony.
We have access to extraordinary technology capable of helping us research employers, compare career paths, understand organizational cultures and examine the demands of different roles.
Yet much of the attention goes toward generating more applications, faster.
This makes sense from an individual candidate’s perspective. When rejection rates are high and responses are scarce, applying broadly can feel like the only rational strategy.
But collectively, the consequences are troubling.
Employers receive more applications than they can meaningfully review. They automate screening. Candidates respond by optimizing their applications for those systems.
Genuine candidates risk becoming indistinguishable from artificially polished ones.
And everyone spends more time trying to get through the process than understanding whether the eventual match makes sense.
I don’t believe the solution is simply to tell candidates to apply for fewer jobs. Particularly when finding employment is urgent.
The solution is to help candidates identify where they have a stronger chance of both being selected and succeeding, and then invest more intelligently in those opportunities.
AI could be extremely useful here.
It can help research the employer, interpret the real demands behind a job description and identify questions worth asking.
But it cannot establish your personal fit simply by rewriting your CV.
That requires understanding yourself as well as the job.
From job search to career fit
This is one of the reasons I developed Career GPS.
Drawing on my experience leading businesses and working with thousands of career assessments through Tal&Dev, I wanted to create a practical way for individuals to examine their career options from the inside out.
Rather than starting with a job advertisement, Career GPS starts with you.
Through a structured 48-question assessment, it examines your readiness, workplace preferences and natural capabilities, and uses them to explore potential fit across different career arenas and levels of responsibility.
It isn’t a personality label, an automated hiring decision or a guarantee of career success.
And because it relies on self-reported information, its value depends partly on how candidly you answer.
Think of it instead as a personal career due-diligence instrument.
It helps you formulate better questions:
- Which career environments are likely to bring out my best?
- Where might my preferences or natural style create difficulties?
- What demands of my target career am I overlooking?
- Am I pursuing this opportunity because it fits me, or because of its prestige, compensation or perceived status?
- Where should I focus my applications and development efforts?
The results aren’t a verdict. They’re a starting point for reflection, research and better conversations with employers.
Explore the free Career GPS assessment →
Employers have a role to play, too
There is another side to this argument.
Candidates cannot evaluate their fit with jobs that employers describe poorly.
Too many job advertisements are long lists of qualifications, generic competencies and fashionable corporate language.
They tell candidates what the organization wants but remarkably little about what working there actually feels like.
What decisions will this person make? How much autonomy will they have? How is performance measured? What behaviors are rewarded? What pressures and trade-offs come with the role?
And what kind of person tends to thrive in that environment?
If employers want more relevant applications, they should be more transparent about these realities.
This doesn’t mean replacing interviews with psychometric tests or allowing algorithms to decide who belongs where.
It means making fit a two-way conversation rather than something employers judge privately after candidates have invested substantial time in the process.
A candidate who understands why a job doesn’t suit them is not necessarily a failed applicant.
They may have avoided a failed hire.
The question AI isn’t asking
I don’t expect employers to abandon ATS systems, nor should they ignore the very real risks of fraudulent applications.
Identity verification and appropriate screening have legitimate roles.
But the current recruitment arms race risks creating a system that’s increasingly sophisticated at processing applications and increasingly poor at understanding people.
We should distinguish three questions:
- Is this candidate real?
- Does this candidate match the requirements?
- Is this a career in which this person is likely to perform well and find satisfaction?
The first is about authenticity. The second is about qualifications and experience. The third is about fit.
We need all three.
And perhaps we should start asking the third question much earlier.
Before the AI-generated CV.
Before the optimized cover letter.
Before the ATS.
Not just “How do I get this job?” but “Why should I want this job, and why would I be right for it?”
That’s a question worth answering, whether you’re applying for your first job or your next CEO position.
