Job advertising and applications on LinkedIn have always been demanding, but over the past year things have shifted dramatically. The rise of AI-generated CVs and “Easy Apply” applications has multiplied the volume of submissions – triple digit applications are now the norm with many advertised roles being closed early. At the same time, hiring teams are leaner, budgets for external recruiters are tighter, and algorithms are serving candidates roles that don’t always match their skills or location. The result? What was once a challenging process has now become an exhausting, resource-heavy exercise for both employers and candidates. Is all of the manpower and energy required to advertise and apply really worth it?
AI bots are hammering the application process – what’s real and what isn’t real? Who is actually going through the applications? Is it a senior, experienced hiring manager, a junior lumped with the task of sorting through the applications, or is it an AI bot? A head of talent at a bank disclosed to us that they often use AI to screen out irrelevant applications; however, they are still left with a high volume to work through. Does the person or bot responsible for reviewing the multitude of applications know what great looks like? Do they know the industry well enough to know where the best professionals are?
Sarah Leembruggen, MD at The Works Search, was talking to a Director of Communications and Marketing at a legal company recently. A job ad had been posted on LinkedIn for a role on her team and she described the process as excruciating because she DID NOT want to interview people from other law firms but that’s all the applications she received. The hiring managers processing the applications did not have the skill, expertise or knowledge about what other companies do to be able to apply this to their application reviews. Therein lies a problem – how are you going to find people from comparable industries if you don’t know what that looks like?
We hear time and time again that even when LinkedIn job applicants get to interview stage they’re not really what the hiring manager was hoping for. HR is totally overwhelmed by the volume of applicants thanks to the nature of the current market, incorrect applications or AI bots. There isn’t the in-house capability yet to deal with the volume. So how do you identify the best applicants and process the applications internally? It’s incredibly challenging.
For employers advertising on LinkedIn – be prepared for the volume of inappropriate applicants. 80–90% of them will not be relevant for the level or experience you want. Too many senior people on the market has created the volume. It is time intensive to wade through them all and you may not be able to identify their cultural add.
The key consideration for any organisation thinking about advertising is understanding the substantial commitment required. To run an effective recruitment campaign, companies need to be prepared to:
Only with this level of time, resources, and systematic approach can organisations begin to develop a meaningful shortlist of candidates. Does your organisation truly have the time and expertise for this?
Companies are trying to save money by not paying for specialist recruiters and managing the hiring process in-house. Does the person (or AI bot) handling the role have the capacity to politely reply to everyone to maintain the company’s reputation? If not, then you have to think hard about whether you should handle your recruitment this way.
Ghosting a candidate leaves a sour taste and they’ll be wondering if it was ever a real role in the first place, ultimately questioning the authenticity of your organisation. A lot of their time invested in the application will have been wasted and by being ignored this does not give your brand a good name.
If your organisation has the capacity to handle this volume of activity while maintaining quality standards, then direct advertising may be viable. However, without these resources and the commitment to professional communication, the inefficiencies will likely result in a poor experience for all parties and damage to your company’s reputation in the market.
We recently ran a poll on LinkedIn to understand how professionals feel about being ghosted. We asked: “As a senior comms professional, when you apply for a role and receive zero acknowledgment (not even an auto-reply), how does this impact your view of that organisation?”
The results speak for themselves:
For communications professionals in particular, this is a double blow. If a company can’t manage its own candidate communications, what does that say about how it values strategic communication as a whole?
Rebecca Haroutunian, Executive Search Associate at The Works Search, says: “From a candidate’s point of view, they are being served roles by LinkedIn via the ‘Suggested Jobs’ feature where they meet some of the criteria and a lot of people who are out of work think ‘well I might as well give that a go…’” One candidate said she was now overwhelmed by all the roles that are sent to her due to the algorithms. She lives in London and works in financial services communications – she was served a social media role, based in Hampshire, requiring Spanish!
This mismatch is a growing frustration. LinkedIn’s algorithms are designed to maximise engagement, not necessarily accuracy. For candidates, this means wasted time applying for irrelevant roles. For employers, it means a flood of unsuitable applications. And with the “Easy Apply” button, the barrier to entry is so low that people apply speculatively, often without tailoring their CV or cover letter.
Communications is a discipline built on nuance – tone of voice, cultural fit, stakeholder management, and the ability to craft messages that resonate. These qualities are almost impossible to capture in a keyword-driven algorithm or a bot-led CV screen.
Unlike technical roles where certifications or hard skills can be easily matched, comms roles require a deeper understanding of context. A candidate who has led crisis comms in financial services may not be the right fit for a consumer brand, and vice versa. Yet to an algorithm, both may look identical.
This mismatch leaves many senior comms professionals feeling invisible in the process. They know their skills are transferable, but unless someone with industry knowledge is reviewing applications, their CV risks being overlooked.
So, what’s the way forward? A few shifts could make a real difference:
For corporate communications professionals, the irony is stark: the very people who specialise in clarity, messaging, and reputation management are being let down by a system that fails to communicate effectively.
LinkedIn remains a powerful platform, but right now, it’s a noisy, crowded, and often frustrating space for both candidates and employers. Until organisations invest the time, expertise, and resources to manage the process properly – or until platforms like LinkedIn refine their algorithms – applying for jobs will continue to feel like a broken experience.
For comms professionals, the challenge is to stay resilient, keep networks warm, and remember that the best opportunities often come through relationships and referrals, not just the “Apply” button.
For a free download of our full Annual Salary Guide 2025, click here.
Time for a change? Check out our latest jobs.
The Works Search: a search consultancy specialising in PR and corporate communications. We have unrivalled matching abilities and are known for finding the top 5% performers in the industry - the ones who deliver and make your reputation great. For more advice or market insights, do get in touch with us on 0207 903 9291 or email: sarah@the-works.co.uk.
