Ghosted by Bots: Job Seekers’ Frustrations in an AI-Driven Hiring World

(5 Min Read)

Jul 30, 2025

Hi, it’s David Lambert, and welcome to The Business Growth Blueprint, my weekly newsletter where I delve into the critical elements of business growth—strategy, leadership, operations, and the technologies shaping tomorrow. Subscribe to join 2,250+ readers who get The Business Growth Blueprint delivered to their inbox every week.

Introduction

The modern hiring process is increasingly powered by algorithms, chatbots, and automation, and many job seekers are feeling the downside. While technology has brought efficiency to recruiting, it has also created an impersonal “black box” that leaves candidates anxious and alienated.

In fact, an estimated 99% of Fortune 500 companies use some form of hiring automation today, and roughly 88% of companies use AI tools for initial resume screening. This AI-driven approach can process thousands of applications quickly, but it often comes at the cost of human touch and transparency.

As Jon Stross, President of Greenhouse, bluntly puts it, “the job market has become more soul-crushing than ever” for applicants. I have observed this phenomenon perusing LinkedIn. Post after post of individuals confused and fearful of how companies recruit today. Below, I explore the key frustrations job seekers report from ghosting to bot-like interactions and share insights from experts on how candidates and employers can navigate these challenges.

Let’s dive in! Please feel free to comment and subscribe - it’s free!

The Rise of AI and Automation in Recruiting

Recruiters have turned to AI and automation to handle high volumes of applicants and streamline hiring. Tools like applicant tracking systems (ATS) (e.g., Greenhouse, Workable etc.) automatically filter resumes based on keywords, chatbots schedule interviews or answer candidate questions, and some companies even use one-way video interviews analyzed by AI. These innovations promise faster and “fairer” hiring by eliminating human inefficiencies. In theory, algorithms can standardize evaluations and reduce certain biases.

For example, structured AI interviews that focus on skills have shown more consistent questions and less variance in quality than human interviews. One experiment saw AI-screened candidates succeed in human interviews at nearly double the rate of those selected by traditional resume ranking (53% vs 29%). Companies also enjoy practical gains: using AI for initial screening can cut hiring costs by as much as 87% in one analysis.

However, these benefits often do not feel apparent to job seekers. In practice, automation has made the hiring process feel one-sided. Candidates frequently describe today’s recruitment as a “black box”, they submit applications and then hear nothing. The human element can seem missing entirely.

Laurie Jane Roth, a technical recruiter and career coach, notes that just a few years ago hiring was more personal: “Most interviews happened in person… you weren’t just a resume, you were a person with skills, a story, and potential.” Now, she says, “candidates are first judged by algorithms, keyword searches, and online assessments before sometimes not ever speaking to a person”. In her view, the system has been designed to reject applicants rather than hire them, automated filters look for any reason to say “no,” often dismissing qualified people for arbitrary reasons.

This shift has created new pain points for job seekers across industries. Below
I highlight some of the most common frustrations candidates report in the AI-era hiring process.

Job Seekers’ Top Pain Points in an Automated Hiring Process

Top frustrations job seekers report during their job hunt, according to a 2024 survey. Nearly half of candidates cited not hearing back from employers (“ghosting”) as a major frustration, followed by issues like low salaries and unrealistic requirements.

Ghosting: The Silence is Deafening

One of the biggest complaints from candidates today is “ghosting”, when employers simply stop responding without explanation. Unfortunately, ghosting has become disturbingly common. In a recent survey of 1,000 job seekers, 44% said that never hearing back from employers is among their top frustrations. Likewise, Greenhouse’s State of Job-Hunting report found 61% of job seekers have been ghosted after a job interview, a rate that has climbed nearly 10 percentage points since early 2024.

Job seekers across all sectors share similar stories of investing hours into applications or multiple interview rounds, only to be met with radio silence. “Candidates invest many hours of their time and effort … only to never hear back,” Roth observes, calling out the lack of feedback that pervades today’s process. This abrupt silence isn’t just frustrating; it’s demoralizing. It can especially rattle early-career candidates who are still building confidence or those who haven’t actively been in the job market for years.

Why do employers ghost candidates so frequently now? Experts suggest several reasons:

Volume Overload: With online applications and AI tools, companies receive far more applicants than they can handle manually. Over 38% of job seekers admit to mass-applying to roles (often using AI to generate resumes/cover letters), which floods employers with resumes. Recruiters simply cannot respond to everyone in a timely way, and many candidates fall through the cracks. In other words, silence may reflect an overwhelmed hiring team rather than a personal slight, but the candidate is left in the dark either way.
Automation Gaps: Companies rely on ATS filters and automated emails, but these systems aren’t perfect. A candidate might be auto rejected by software without any human interaction, and if the system fails to send a rejection note, the person is effectively ghosted by a bot. In some cases, “ghosting” is unintentional, an email might get caught in spam, or there was simply no process in place to ensure every applicant gets closure.
Fear of Legal Risks: Interestingly, some hiring managers choose to say nothing rather than risk an uncomfortable conversation. Career columnist Jack Kelly notes an “underlying fear that a recruiter or HR representative may inadvertently say something that can be misconstrued… so they feel safer to just not say anything” when rejecting a candidate. In a hyper-sensitive environment, silence can feel like the safest route for employers, though it’s little solace to the candidate left hanging.

Regardless of the cause, ghosting leaves a bitter taste. It’s a lose-lose situation, as career coach Adam Broda argues: “Candidates are left wondering, relationships are broken, recruiters lose trust – time is wasted. Companies MUST realize their hiring process is part of the culture they’re trying to create. If a company can’t respect the candidates… how could they ever claim to value employees?”.

In the short term, ignoring applicants might save a recruiter a few emails, but it seriously harms the employer’s reputation in the long run.

“Ghost Jobs” add another layer of frustration related to ghosting. These are job postings that appear active but for which the company isn’t actually hiring (or the role was already filled internally). According to Greenhouse, posting phantom openings has become more common: about 18–22% of jobs on its platform each quarter turn out to be “ghost jobs”, and three in five candidates suspect they’ve encountered such listings.

From a candidate’s perspective, ghost jobs are a huge time waster and feel like a bait-and-switch. In the Resume Genius survey, nearly one-third of job seekers (32%) said they were frustrated by ghost jobs, making it one of the top five job search irritants. Applying to a position that was never real can be even more infuriating than being rejected from a real one.

It’s Not Just the Bots: The Human Element Matters Too

While AI and automation catch most of the heat, let’s be honest, some of the ghosting and cold, impersonal treatment comes from actual people. Behind every “noreply@company.com” email is a team that chose not to follow up. Behind every drawn-out interview process with no closure is a human who didn’t prioritize communication.

Yes, recruiters are overwhelmed. Yes, HR teams are understaffed. But the lack of empathy isn’t just an AI flaw, it’s a cultural one. Treating applicants like disposable inputs isn’t a tech issue, it’s a leadership and accountability issue.

Empathy doesn’t require an hour-long phone call. It can be as simple as a well-written rejection email, an honest update, or a brief note of thanks after an interview. The best hiring teams blend the efficiency of automation with the emotional intelligence of real people. Candidates remember who made them feel seen, and who didn’t.

Impersonal, Bot-Like Communication

Even when candidates do hear back, they often describe the communication as robotic or lacking empathy. The use of templates and automation in messaging means applicants frequently receive canned responses, e.g. a one-line rejection email with no reasoning, or generic updates from a “noreply” address.

Initial outreach from recruiters has also become formulaic. Many job seekers have stories of LinkedIn messages clearly copied-and-pasted, or recruiters forgetting to change the candidate’s name (a giveaway that an email blast or AI tool was used). These impersonal interactions leave candidates feeling like numbers, not humans.

In some cases, candidates’ first “conversation” is not with a person at all, but with a chatbot. Companies have rolled out AI chatbots to ask screening questions or schedule interviews. While convenient, these bots can’t convey warmth or adapt to nuanced situations.

There’s no ability to ask follow-up questions or build rapport. Similarly, one-way video interviews, where you record answers for an algorithm or recruiter to review later, have been criticized as impersonal. Without a live interviewer, candidates get no feedback or encouraging nods, which can be unsettling. As one individual put it, “Fully automated processes enable robotic and impersonal experiences… hiring is about human connection, and that’s getting lost”.

Automation can even lead to tone-deaf mistakes. For example, some applicants have received congratulatory emails for advancing to the next stage, only to find it was an error by the system, there was no next stage. Others get asked to interview for a role they already interviewed for, because the left hand (ATS) didn’t know what the right hand (recruiter) was doing. These technical missteps amplify the sense that the process lacks basic respect and coordination.

The lack of empathy in communication is a common refrain. Candidates often crave a human touch, even a brief, polite note from a real person, especially at later stages of hiring. Instead, they may get auto-emails that feel cold.

When rejection comes, it’s usually boilerplate. And when candidates attempt to ask for feedback, they’re frequently met with silence or a generic response. This depersonalization leaves many job seekers feeling disillusioned with employers before they’ve even met any humans at the company.

Lack of Human Interaction in the Hiring Funnel

Closely related is the reduced human interaction throughout the recruiting funnel. Many candidates go through multiple stages (application, assessments, maybe even AI interviews) before ever speaking to a live person. In-person interviews early in the process have become rare, and even real-time phone calls are often preceded by automated filtering steps.

This matters because human-to-human contact can build trust and allow candidates to showcase qualities that don’t come through on a resume. In the past, a conversation could reveal a culture fit or passion that overrides a missing credential. Without those interactions, candidates feel they’re reduced to checkboxes.

One job seeker in marketing lamented that she only ever talked to a recruiter after being filtered by an AI assessment and completing a project: “By the time I spoke to a human, I felt like they’d already made up their mind based on some algorithm. I had no chance to truly tell my story.” That sense of helplessness is common, the feeling that decisions are being made in a black box, with no opportunity for the candidate to influence the outcome through interpersonal skills or clarifying questions.

Moreover, limited human interaction can lead to misunderstandings. A nuanced resume might confuse an ATS but would make perfect sense to a person if given the context. Without dialogue, those candidates simply get weeded out. This is particularly harmful for candidates who might not have the “right” keywords on paper but could excel if someone gave them a shot.

Finally, when interaction does occur, it may come too late. Hiring managers often meet only a tiny filtered pool of candidates. By that point, some truly excellent prospects may have been screened out by rigid automated criteria. This is a frustrating reality for many job seekers who feel they could shine if only they had a chance to talk to a human earlier.

Navigating the New Reality: Guidance for Job Seekers

Facing this automated, often impersonal gauntlet, what can job seekers do to improve their chances and maintain their sanity? While one can’t fix the system alone, there are strategies to navigate it more effectively. Career coaches and HR experts suggest the following approaches for candidates dealing with AI-heavy hiring:

Don’t Take Ghosting Personally: First, remember that if you get ghosted, it’s usually not a reflection of your worth. Try not to dwell on it or let it torpedo your confidence. Keep your job search momentum going even while waiting to hear back. In practical terms: continue applying elsewhere and don’t “fall in love” with one opportunity until you have an offer.
Ask for Next Steps and Timelines: To avoid uncertainty, be proactive in your interviews. When you speak with a recruiter or hiring manager, politely ask about the hiring timeline and next steps. For example: “When can I expect to hear about the next stage?” or “What are the remaining steps in your process?” Securing a clear timeline can set expectations for both sides. This makes it easier to know when (or if) to send a follow-up, and it subtly signals to the employer that you value communication.
Follow Up Strategically: If the promised timeline passes with no word, it’s reasonable to send a gentle follow-up message. Keep it professional and short: reiterate your interest and ask if there are any updates, or if they need anything else from you. Experts suggest waiting 1–2 business days after the expected response date for the first follow-up, then perhaps another ping a week later if needed. After a couple of attempts, it’s usually best to move on gracefully if you still get no response. Persistence can pay off, but use your judgment, one or two check-ins are usually enough.
Leverage Personal Connections: In an era when online applications vanish into a void, networking is more crucial than ever. It might feel old-school, but tapping your connections can help you break out of the algorithmic pile. Attend industry events (even virtual ones), join professional groups, and let your network know you are job hunting. A referral or a direct introduction to a hiring manager can bypass a lot of automated gates.
Tailor Your Application (for Humans and Bots): It’s still important to craft customized resumes and cover letters for each job, not only to impress any human reviewer, but also to satisfy the ATS algorithms. Use the job description as a guide for keywords and required skills, and make sure those terms appear (naturally) in your resume if you have them. Many ATS filters will rank you higher if you match more keywords. That said, avoid extreme “keyword stuffing” or other tricks that make your resume hard to read. And absolutely double-check that your contact information is correct and formatted plainly, you don’t want a computer parsing error to make you uncontactable!
Embrace AI as a Tool on Your Side: The AI revolution cuts both ways. Just as employers use AI, job seekers can too. There are AI-based tools to help you optimize your resume, practice interview questions, or even assess job descriptions for hidden requirements. For example, some candidates use generative AI (like ChatGPT) to draft cover letters or to role-play common interview questions for practice. Used wisely, these tools can save time and improve your preparation. Additionally, keep an eye on new platforms that might connect you with recruiters more directly or showcase your skills.
Manage Your Expectations: The job search can be a long and unpredictable process, often filled with silence, delays, and impersonal interactions. It's important to set realistic expectations from the outset. Understand that not every application will lead to a response, and not every interview will result in an offer. Instead of checking your inbox obsessively, establish a routine, perhaps reviewing updates once or twice a day, to stay balanced and focused. Celebrate progress along the way, whether it’s a call from a recruiter or constructive feedback from an interview. Talk to peers or mentors who’ve been through the same thing; they can offer insights and help normalize the ups and downs.

Rebuilding the Human Touch: Recommendations for Employers

The burden of fixing an impersonal hiring process shouldn’t fall only on candidates. Employers have a critical role to play in making recruitment more humane and effective. Not only is this the right thing to do for applicants, but it’s in companies’ self-interest as well. Here are some constructive recommendations for recruiters and hiring managers to consider:

Communicate, Communicate, Communicate: The message from candidates is loud and clear, 42% want stronger communication from recruiters. Make it a point to keep applicants informed at each stage. This doesn’t require writing dozens of individual emails; it can be as simple as setting up automated status updates when a position is filled or when a candidate is no longer in the running. The key is to close the loop. Aim to never let someone you’ve interacted with just dangle indefinitely.
Eliminate “Ghost Jobs” and Bait-and-Switch Tactics: Posting jobs that aren’t truly open is a fast way to frustrate and lose trust with candidates. Audit your job postings, ensure that if a role is advertised, you are actively trying to fill it. If circumstances change (hiring freeze, internal hire made, etc.), take down the posting promptly. Likewise, avoid “evergreen” postings that collect resumes for no specific role unless you make it crystal clear that it’s a pipeline building effort. Candidates understand competition, but they do not appreciate feeling misled.
Inject Empathy into Automated Interactions: Automation doesn’t have to feel cold. Review the wording of your template emails and system-generated messages, can they be made warmer or more helpful? Small tweaks like using the candidate’s name, thanking them for their time, and acknowledging the effort they put in can humanize a mass email. The goal is to remind candidates that there are people behind the process who care. Moreover, consider transparency about AI usage: if you use automated assessments, you might let candidates know (“You may be asked to complete an AI-scored video interview; here’s what to expect…”). 28% of job seekers want more clarity on how AI is used in hiring, and being upfront can build trust and understanding.
Blend Tech with Human Oversight
Use AI for efficiency but let humans make the final call. Train recruiters to critically assess AI recommendations and override when needed, especially for borderline candidates. Implement review mechanisms to catch false negatives and account for qualities algorithms miss, like attitude and growth potential.
Restore Human Connection Where It Matters
Infuse personal touch where it counts. A quick video call early in the process can go a long way. Invite top candidates to informal meet-and-greets and encourage recruiters to build relationships, not transactions. Kind, transparent communication leaves lasting impressions.
Measure and Improve Candidate Experience
Treat candidate experience like a KPI. Use post-interview surveys, track feedback, and fix pain points in the process. Set standards for communication. A positive experience, even without an offer, boosts your brand.

The Pros and Cons of AI in Hiring: A Balanced View

Is AI in recruitment a blessing or a curse? The answer is: it depends on how you use it. Here’s a quick look at the pros and cons:

The Upsides

Efficiency at Scale: AI scans resumes, schedules interviews, and handles admin fast, freeing recruiters to focus on people. Faster process = better for everyone.
Consistency: Algorithms apply the same rules to all applicants, reducing variability and potential human bias.
Wider Talent Pools: Automation lets you consider more candidates, including those from unconventional backgrounds or geographies, surfacing hidden gems.

The Downsides

Impersonal Experience: Automation can make candidates feel like just another number, alienating top talent.
Bias Risks: AI can reinforce past hiring biases if not carefully designed and monitored.
Over-Reliance: Rigid systems may miss strong candidates or misunderstand context. Human judgment is still essential.
Candidate Skepticism: Some applicants, especially senior or creative ones, distrust AI-heavy processes and may opt out.

Bottom Line

AI in hiring is powerful, but it’s not magic. Use it to enhance, not replace, human decision-making. The best results come from a balanced approach: let AI handle the grunt work while people bring judgment, empathy, and fairness. That’s where the future of recruiting lies.

Conclusion

The recruiting landscape has evolved rapidly with AI and automation, and it’s clear that job seekers are feeling the growing pains. From being ghosted without a word to receiving form-letter communications and grappling with opaque algorithms, candidates are often left frustrated by the modern hiring process. These issues span industries and experience levels, whether it’s an engineer applying in tech or a nurse in healthcare, the desire for a fair, respectful, and human recruitment experience is universal.

Yet, this isn’t a problem with no solutions. Job seekers can adapt by staying proactive, leveraging new tools to their advantage, and finding ways to reintroduce human connection into their search. Meanwhile, employers can seize the opportunity to differentiate themselves by prioritizing the candidate experience.

Simply put, treating applicants with empathy and transparency is a competitive advantage in talent acquisition. Organizations that manage to combine AI’s efficiency with genuine human touch will not only hire better people, they’ll earn goodwill in the market.

Finally, it’s worth remembering that hiring is fundamentally about people, people with hopes, skills, and potential. As one recruiter commented, “Ghosting reflects poorly on a company’s culture… candidates deserve closure”. In the quest to streamline and optimize, we must not lose sight of the humanity at the core of work.

By heeding the frustrations voiced by today’s job seekers and taking thoughtful action, we can create a recruiting process that is both high-tech and deeply human, a process that finds great talent while treating everyone with the respect they deserve.