The hiring process has become a grotesque parody of what it once was, and seasoned professionals are done playing along.
You’ve spent 15 years building expertise. Your resume reads like a masterclass in your field. You’ve delivered results, managed teams, and navigated complex projects that would make junior hires’ heads spin. Yet here you are, being asked to record yourself answering canned questions into a soulless AI chatbot at 11 PM on a Tuesday.
This isn’t just frustrating anymore. It’s insulting.
The job market has morphed into something unrecognizable from even five years ago. What used to be a straightforward exchange—your skills for their compensation—has devolved into an exhausting gauntlet of psychological assessments, multi-month interview marathons, and free labor disguised as “case studies.” The professionals who built their careers in the 2000s and 2010s are now staring at this landscape with a mixture of disbelief and righteous anger.
They’re not wrong to feel this way.
When Experience Becomes a Liability Instead of an Asset
The cruel irony of modern hiring is that the very experience that makes you valuable also makes you “expensive” in the eyes of automated screening systems and junior recruiters who’ve been on the job for less time than you’ve been mastering your craft.
Companies claim they want experienced professionals. Job descriptions demand 10+ years of expertise, leadership capabilities, and proven track records. Then they funnel these same candidates through processes designed for entry-level screening. The disconnect isn’t just illogical—it’s actively driving away the talent these organizations claim to desperately need.
Consider what’s happening: A professional with 17 years at top-tier companies gets asked to complete a personality assessment that tells the hiring manager exactly nothing that couldn’t be gleaned from a 30-minute conversation. Someone with a portfolio spanning a decade of successful projects gets sent a link to record one-way video answers, performing for an algorithm instead of connecting with a human being who might actually evaluate their fit.
The message this sends is clear: We don’t trust your experience. We don’t value your time. We’re more comfortable with our screening theater than with actually identifying talent.
The Real Cost of Convoluted Hiring
Time is the currency that matters most to experienced professionals. They’re often juggling demanding current roles, family responsibilities, and the kind of complex life situations that come with being in your 30s, 40s, or 50s. Asking them to spend 8-10 hours on a “mock project” for a job they might not even get isn’t just unreasonable—it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the power dynamic.
One Reddit user shared their experience spending a full Saturday on a comprehensive project submission, leveraging their expertise to deliver what would be quality work for a client. The application fizzled out after submission. No feedback. No follow-up. Just silence. That Saturday could have been spent with family, pursuing personal projects, or simply recovering from a demanding work week. Instead, it was sacrificed to a broken system that extracted free labor under the guise of “evaluation.”
This isn’t an isolated incident. It’s become standard practice, especially in creative fields, marketing, and technical roles. Companies request complete campaign proposals, detailed technical solutions, or comprehensive strategic plans—work that would typically cost thousands of dollars if contracted—all before making a hiring decision. The intellectual property concerns alone should give anyone pause, but the larger issue is the normalized expectation that proving your worth requires working for free.
The AI Interview Dystopia Nobody Asked For
Few innovations in hiring have been met with more universal disdain than AI-powered interviews. The concept alone feels like it was designed in a laboratory specifically to remove every human element from what should be fundamentally about human connection.
Picture the experience: You click a link. A chatbot greets you with pre-programmed questions. You speak your answers into the void, knowing some algorithm will parse your word choice, vocal patterns, and facial expressions to generate a “score” that determines whether you advance. There’s no rapport building. No chance to ask clarifying questions. No opportunity for the kind of organic conversation that reveals cultural fit on both sides.
Multiple professionals have shared the same response to these AI interview requests: withdrawal. One experienced candidate spent two minutes in an AI interview before exiting, thanking the recruiter, and removing themselves from consideration. Another refused to engage entirely, reasoning that if a company couldn’t be bothered to speak with them as a human being, it wasn’t worth pursuing.
This reaction isn’t petulant or entitled. It’s a rational response to a system that treats candidates as data points rather than people. If this is how a company treats you during courtship—the phase where they should be putting their best foot forward—what does it signal about how they’ll treat you as an employee?
The recruiter reaching out to you has already reviewed your qualifications and decided you’re worth pursuing. The AI interview adds nothing except friction and dehumanization.
Some defenders of these systems argue they’re necessary for efficiency when dealing with hundreds of applications. This argument falls apart under scrutiny. If a recruiter has already identified you as a strong candidate worth contacting directly, what additional value does an AI screening provide? The answer is none. It’s efficiency theater—creating the appearance of a robust process while actually just outsourcing human judgment to inferior technology.
The Multiplication of Interviews: A Red Flag in Disguise
Three interviews used to be the standard. One with HR for basics and culture screening. One with the hiring manager for technical fit and role-specific discussion. One final round with senior leadership or a panel for final approval. This made sense. It was thorough without being excessive.
Now? Five, six, seven interviews spanning two to three months have become disturbingly common. Tech companies like Apple reportedly run candidates through 13 rounds of interviews. Thirteen separate interactions before making a hiring decision.
Let that sink in.
What possible additional information does interview number 11 provide that interview number 10 didn’t? At that point, you’re not evaluating candidates—you’re subjecting them to death by a thousand conversations, testing not their competence but their desperation or patience.
A tech recruiter from the Bay Area inadvertently revealed the truth behind these extended processes: often, when additional meetings keep getting added after your initial interview loop, it’s because you passed but didn’t wow anyone. The company is stalling, running other candidates through to see if someone better comes along. You’re the backup plan, but nobody has the courtesy to tell you directly.
This is disrespectful to everyone involved. It wastes the candidate’s time. It signals organizational indecision or dysfunction. And it virtually guarantees that the best candidates—those with options and confidence in their value—will drop out of the process.
Strong candidates with in-demand skills don’t need to subject themselves to three months of uncertainty. They’ll take offers from companies that can make decisions efficiently. The organizations running these marathon processes aren’t filtering for the best talent. They’re filtering for the most desperate or those with the fewest alternatives.
The Salary Information Smokescreen
Few hiring practices are as universally reviled as the refusal to provide compensation information upfront. It’s 2026. Salary transparency laws exist in multiple states. The information asymmetry that once benefited employers has been thoroughly exposed as a negotiation tactic designed to lowball candidates.
Yet companies persist in posting jobs with no salary range, or providing ranges so absurdly wide they’re meaningless ($60k-$150k tells you nothing useful). When pressed, recruiters deflect with “it depends on experience” or “we’ll discuss compensation at the appropriate stage.”
This game is exhausting for everyone involved, but particularly for experienced professionals who know their market value. Why would someone with 15 years of experience invest hours in an interview process only to discover the offer is $40,000 below their current compensation? It’s a waste of everyone’s time, and it breeds resentment.
More candidates are simply refusing to engage. No salary range listed? Application skipped. Recruiter won’t provide compensation details on the first call? Conversation ended. This isn’t being difficult—it’s respecting your own time and value.
States that have implemented salary transparency laws have proven this works. Job seekers can self-select appropriately. Companies get applications from candidates actually interested at the posted range. Everyone saves time. The resistance to this practice reveals that some employers are more invested in maintaining negotiating leverage than in efficient, respectful hiring.
Smart professionals now treat compensation transparency as a litmus test for company culture and respect.
The Free Labor Problem: Mock Projects and Case Studies
Among the most egregious practices in modern hiring is the expectation of unpaid work. Euphemistically called “case studies,” “mock projects,” or “practical assessments,” these are often substantial undertakings that produce real value for the company.
Marketing candidates get asked to develop complete campaign strategies. Developers get asked to build functional features or solve complex architectural problems. Designers get asked to create comprehensive mockups or redesign existing products. All before receiving an offer. All without compensation.
The justifications for this practice are thin. “We need to see how you think.” “We want to evaluate your process.” “This helps us understand your capabilities.”
Your portfolio exists for exactly this purpose. Your resume details your experience. Your references can speak to your abilities. If those aren’t sufficient, a structured conversation about your approach to problem-solving would be. Requiring actual deliverable work is extracting value under the pretense of evaluation.
Multiple professionals have reported suspicions that their submitted work appeared in company materials after they weren’t hired. Whether this happens frequently or rarely, the fact that it happens at all is damning. Even when companies aren’t directly using submitted work, they’re benefiting from the collective intelligence of dozens of candidates who’ve all solved the same problem from different angles.
The power dynamic here is brutally one-sided. The company risks nothing. The candidate invests hours or days, often using vacation time or personal weekends, with no guarantee of return. It’s exploitative, and experienced professionals are increasingly refusing to participate.
One director shared their hiring philosophy: look at the resume and portfolio, conduct a phone screen, do a focused interview, and make a decision. If someone isn’t working out, part ways within 30 days. This approach treats candidates like the professionals they are rather than supplicants who must prove their worth through free labor.
Why This Matters Beyond Individual Frustration
The broken hiring process isn’t just annoying—it’s actively harming organizations and the broader economy. Companies complaining about talent shortages while simultaneously running processes that repel qualified candidates are creating their own problems.
When you make hiring unnecessarily difficult, you don’t get better candidates. You get more desperate ones or those willing to game the system. The tech-savvy professional who knows their worth and has options will simply opt out. They’ll stay in their current role, start their own venture, or take offers from companies with sane hiring practices.
Research has consistently shown that simpler hiring processes focused on skills and qualifications produce better hires than elaborate multi-stage screenings. One study divided hiring managers into two groups: one using traditional processes with multiple interviews and assessments, the other relying primarily on CV evaluation and skills matching. The simplified approach produced more productive, better-integrated employees.
This shouldn’t be surprising. If you’re hiring for experience and expertise, those qualities are evident in someone’s track record. The interview process should validate that they’re who they claim to be and assess cultural fit—not re-prove competence that’s already demonstrated through years of performance.
Organizations treating hiring as a performative exercise in thoroughness are solving for the wrong problem.
The real challenge isn’t identifying qualified candidates. With LinkedIn, professional networks, and detailed resumes, that’s easier than ever. The challenge is making good matching decisions efficiently and treating people with respect throughout the process. Everything else is waste.
The Age Discrimination Nobody Talks About Openly
Buried in the frustration about process is a darker reality: age discrimination is alive and well in hiring, despite being illegal.
It manifests in subtle ways. Application systems that demand graduation years, making it trivial to calculate age. Requirements for “recent” experience with specific tools, implicitly favoring younger workers. Cultural emphasis on “energy” and “fresh perspectives” as code for “young.” And the simple economic calculus that experienced professionals command higher salaries, making them more expensive than equally capable younger candidates.
Professionals in their 40s and 50s—theoretically in their prime earning and contribution years—increasingly find themselves shut out. Not because they lack skills or capability, but because they’re perceived as expensive, potentially set in their ways, or not “cultural fits” for organizations that equate youth with innovation.
The irony is thick. Companies benefit enormously from experienced professionals who’ve seen multiple business cycles, navigated various organizational contexts, and developed judgment that only comes with time. These individuals bring stability, mentorship capabilities, and perspective that prevents repeating historical mistakes. Yet hiring systems filter them out in favor of cheaper, less experienced alternatives.
This creates a vicious cycle. Experienced workers who lose jobs face extended unemployment because they’re systematically disadvantaged in hiring processes. The longer they’re out, the harder it becomes to get back in. Meanwhile, organizations complain about lack of leadership, poor institutional knowledge, and teams that keep making rookie mistakes.
What Actually Works: Hiring Done Right
For all the dysfunction in modern hiring, examples of better practices exist. They share common characteristics:
Efficiency. The process moves quickly. Initial contact to offer happens in weeks, not months. Decisions get made rather than deferred.
Respect. Candidate time is valued. Interviews are scheduled considerately. Feedback is provided. Communication happens throughout.
Focus. The process evaluates what actually matters for the role. If it’s a technical position, technical assessment makes sense. If it’s leadership, conversations with potential team members matter. Personality tests and AI screening for experienced professionals don’t.
Transparency. Compensation is disclosed upfront. Expectations are clear. The timeline is communicated. No surprises emerge late in the process.
Human connection. Real people have real conversations. There’s opportunity for both sides to assess fit authentically.
These aren’t revolutionary concepts. They’re basic professional courtesy applied to hiring. Companies that implement them report better hiring outcomes, faster time-to-fill, and stronger candidate satisfaction. The complexity isn’t needed. It’s a choice.
Many experienced professionals report their best job opportunities came through networks rather than applications. Someone who knew their work made an introduction. A former colleague reached out about an opening. A LinkedIn connection led to a conversation. These paths bypass the broken formal process entirely, which is telling about the value of that process.
Taking Back Power as a Candidate
Individual candidates can’t fix systemic hiring dysfunction, but they can protect themselves from its worst excesses.
Set boundaries. Decide in advance what you will and won’t tolerate. No AI interviews? State that clearly. Maximum three interview rounds? Stick to it. Won’t work for free? Don’t complete unpaid projects regardless of how they’re positioned.
Value your time. You’re not just looking for any job—you’re seeking a good mutual fit. Processes that waste your time or disrespect your experience signal how you’ll be treated as an employee.
Communicate clearly. When you withdraw from a process because of its dysfunction, tell them why. Generic withdrawal helps no one. Specific feedback that “I’m removing myself from consideration because I don’t participate in AI interviews” or “requiring a full-day project before an offer isn’t acceptable” might actually create change if enough candidates do it.
Leverage your network. The best opportunities often don’t go through formal channels anyway. Cultivate relationships. Help others. Be visible in your professional community. When roles open up, you want to be top of mind for people who can make introductions.
Be selective. You don’t need to apply to 200 jobs. In fact, that’s probably counterproductive. Target companies known for sane hiring practices. Research their processes. Apply where you actually want to work rather than playing a numbers game.
The professionals who recognize that bad hiring processes are a red flag about company culture are making the right call. If an organization can’t organize a competent hiring process, what does that suggest about how they handle other business functions?
The Path Forward for Organizations That Want to Compete for Talent
Companies complaining about talent shortages while maintaining byzantine hiring processes are their own worst enemies. The talent exists. It’s just not interested in jumping through arbitrary hoops.
Organizations serious about attracting experienced professionals need to fundamentally rethink their approach:
Strip out everything that doesn’t directly assess job-relevant capabilities. Personality tests, AI screening, and lengthy assessment centers have minimal predictive value for experienced hires. Resume review, focused interviews, and reference checks are sufficient.
Empower hiring managers to make decisions. If seven people need to approve every hire, your organizational structure has bigger problems than recruiting.
Pay competitively and communicate that upfront. Trying to get a discount on talent is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Treat candidates like the professionals they are. That means respecting their time, communicating clearly, and making the process as streamlined as possible.
The companies that figure this out will have significant competitive advantages. They’ll hire faster, get better candidates, and build reputations that attract talent. Those that don’t will continue struggling while blaming “the market” for their self-inflicted wounds.
Your Next Career Move Shouldn’t Require a Marathon
The modern hiring process has become unnecessarily complicated, disrespectful, and counterproductive. Experienced professionals are rightfully pushing back against practices that waste their time and undervalue their expertise.
You’ve built a career. You’ve developed skills. You’ve delivered results. None of that requires validation through AI chatbots, month-long interview processes, or free consulting disguised as “case studies.”
The organizations worth working for understand this. They move efficiently, communicate transparently, and treat candidates with respect. They recognize that hiring is a two-way evaluation and that the best talent has options.
Everyone else is just noise.
If you’re ready to explore opportunities that respect your experience and value your time, discover what’s possible at HireSleek.com. We’ve built a platform that connects professionals with companies that actually get it—organizations that hire based on capability, communicate compensation upfront, and run processes designed for efficiency rather than theater. Whether you’re actively looking or just curious about what’s out there, find roles that match your expertise without the exhausting gauntlet. Because your next move should be about finding the right fit, not surviving an obstacle course.
The hiring process doesn’t have to be this broken. Companies that respect talent prove it through how they hire. Everything else is just talk.