I've spent 20 years building talent functions, designing hiring processes, and scaling teams from zero. Then I found myself on the other side of the system I helped build. Here's what the data taught me.
I need to be honest about something uncomfortable. For twenty years, I've been on the other side of this process. I've configured ATS filters, written job specs, designed scorecards, and trained hiring managers on structured interviews. I've built talent functions at organisations scaling from 50 to 2,500 people.
And when I found myself as the candidate — applying through the same kinds of systems I'd helped build — I couldn't get through the front door.
This isn't bitterness. It's data. And the data tells a story the industry needs to hear.
I've implemented these systems. I know how they work. The majority of CVs are rejected by automated filters before a recruiter sees them — for formatting, keyword gaps, or arbitrary criteria that have nothing to do with whether someone can do the job. The system I helped build is filtering people like me out.
Of my 1,417 touchpoints, the vast majority received no response. Not a rejection. Not a "not right now." Nothing. As someone who's always prioritised candidate experience, experiencing this at scale was a wake-up call. Companies that would never ignore a customer routinely ignore hundreds of candidates.
Job specs have evolved from realistic profiles into wishlists. Roles that needed 5 years now ask for 10. "Nice to have" has become a hard filter. This prices out experienced operators who'd thrive in weeks. I've hired hundreds of those people — they're often the best performers.
Easy-apply created an arms race. Candidates spray applications because response rates are abysmal. Recruiters drown in volume and reach for blunter filters. Everyone does more activity for worse outcomes. I've seen this from the inside. Now I'm living it from the outside.
Six-to-eight stage processes spanning months have become standard. I've designed leaner processes that don't sacrifice quality — they're the exception. Each extra stage adds friction, increases drop-off, and biases toward candidates who can afford to wait.
Twenty years of data tells me referrals produce the highest-quality hires. Yet most companies pour investment into public application channels — the channel with the worst signal-to-noise ratio. The system incentivises who you know over what you can do.
I approached my search the way I'd approach any talent problem — with data. Every application, every outreach message, every response, every stage. Two parallel funnels. One unmistakable pattern.
Here's what surprised me though. Once I got into a conversation — once a human actually engaged — my progression rate was strong. The system isn't failing because I'm not right for these roles. It's failing because the gap between application and conversation is almost entirely impenetrable.
I could frame this as a personal complaint, but that would miss the point entirely. My experience is one data point — but it maps onto a pattern that's hurting companies, candidates, and the broader economy in ways most people don't talk about openly.
If someone with my profile — 20 years of building talent functions, multiple 0-to-1 builds, a track record of measurable commercial impact — gets filtered out, who else is being lost? I've hired hundreds of people. The best ones rarely looked perfect on paper. That was always the point.
Every ghosted application is a brand impression. I've seen first-hand how much companies invest in employer branding. The damage done by hundreds of non-responses undoes a lot of carefully crafted EVP work. Candidates talk. They post. They remember.
Companies report they can't find talent while simultaneously rejecting qualified candidates at scale. The talent exists. The filters can't see it. I've spent my career building systems that actually find people — the gap between best practice and common practice is enormous.
I'm fortunate — I have perspective from years on the other side. But I think about people going through this without that context. The psychological toll of sustained, silent rejection is significant. It changes how people see themselves. That matters.
"I've configured ATS filters. I've designed scorecards. I've trained hiring managers. I've built talent functions at four scaling companies. And I still couldn't get through the front door of the systems I helped create."
The person the system rejected has spent twenty years building the system. If that doesn't tell you it's broken, the data will.
This wasn't passive browsing. Every application was researched and tailored. Every outreach message was personalised. This was targeted, strategic, and intentional — the same approach I'd use to build a sourcing function for any company.
If any sales funnel, marketing channel, or product onboarding flow converted at 4% response and 1.1% to actual conversation, it would be killed in a sprint review. In hiring, we call it normal. We shouldn't.
I'm not just here to diagnose the problem. I've spent my career fixing broken talent processes, and my own search has sharpened my thinking on what actually moves the needle.
Create visible evidence of your thinking and work. Write about what you've built, the problems you've solved, the frameworks you use. A body of public work bypasses the ATS — because people find you rather than you finding them.
What I'm doing nowMy data shows it clearly: the cliff is between application and first conversation. Go direct. Reach out to hiring managers, founders, team leads. A thoughtful message outperforms a hundred portal applications. The numbers back this up.
Data-backedShare your perspective. Post your thinking. Comment with substance. This isn't personal branding — it's making the quality of your thinking visible so that when the right role appears, they already know your name and what you bring.
High signalIf your ATS is filtering out 95%+ of applicants before a recruiter sees them, you don't have a screening process — you have a rejection machine. Pull a random sample of filtered CVs quarterly. You will be surprised by who you're losing.
Quick winAcknowledge every application. A "no" is infinitely better than silence. The companies that respond — even briefly — build dramatically stronger employer brands and referral networks. I've seen this first-hand across multiple organisations.
Brand impactStop writing job specs as wishlists. The best operators won't tick every box — they'll learn the gaps in weeks. I've hired hundreds of people. The ones who outperformed were almost never the ones who looked perfect on paper.
Culture shift
I've spent my career building talent functions from scratch in high-growth, investment-backed technology companies. I've scaled teams from 50 to 2,500. I've built hiring engines that reduced acquisition costs by 90% while increasing quality. I've personally hired at every level from graduate to C-suite across multiple continents.
This site exists because I believe transparency is more useful than a polished CV. The data on this page is real. The experience below is real. And I'm looking for an organisation that hires on signal, not noise — because I've spent twenty years building systems that do exactly that.
Built and led the talent scaling strategy for a software advisory firm delivering digital transformation to enterprise clients. Expanded engineering capability from 250 to 2,500 while reducing acquisition costs by 90%. Designed a CRM-driven talent model mirroring revenue pipelines. Increased conversion by 80% and project margins from 25% to 60% through strategic geographic deployment across onshore, nearshore, and offshore locations.
Drove 350% headcount growth (50→175) across UK and US for a healthtech scale-up running at £20m revenue. Personally hired C-suite leadership including CMO, VP Engineering, VP People, and Head of Finance. Reduced external agency dependency from 100% to 30% by building a self-sufficient internal function.
Scaled this Danish Series C SaaS company (€35m from SEB) from 95 to 200+ global employees. Increased direct sourcing from 10% to 80%. Led hiring transformation of Engineering and Product — 30+ engineers hired in 3–4 months to repatriate mobile development from Hanoi to Copenhagen. Hired CTO, CHRO, and CRO.
Created a bespoke in-house executive search function for this FTSE 250 retailer. Delivered 75% reduction in executive hiring costs. Personally placed 40+ senior executives including C-suite across Europe, US, and Asia. Led the platform supporting 5,000+ annual hires. Recognised by CEO for game-changing impact on leadership operations.
Cielo Holdings (Head of Talent). Co-founded Jefferson Young — an executive search firm shaped by MiFID II regulatory impact across financial services. Head of Talent EMEA & US at The Tardis Group. Managing Partner at Armstrong Gardner Associates, working directly with investors on search firm acquisitions. Earlier roles at StrataSearch, Osiris Search, and Harvey Nash.
If this resonated — whether you're a candidate in the same loop, a company that wants to hire differently, or you're looking for someone who's seen both sides of the table — start a conversation. That's what the data says works.