In six days, 214 people applied for a single $41,000 job in New Jersey. Each application represented someone’s hope for stability, for the ability to pay rent and support their family. But the mechanical process of modern hiring had reduced them to data points to process.

When Jessye Kass Karlin sits down to review these applications, she does something that might seem unremarkable but has become revolutionary in modern hiring: she treats job seekers like human beings.

As she began the methodical elimination of narrowing down candidates, Karlin found herself overwhelmed not just by the volume, but by what it represented. “As I review them, I am struck by the state of the economy, the need, the despair, and my desire for all of these people to be able to have jobs to take care of themselves and their families,” Karlin wrote in a LinkedIn post that resonated with thousands of job seekers and hiring professionals. “I can only hire 4 people of 214. I will interview about 30.”

Her solution was simple but profound: “Every time I click ‘disqualify’ I say their name out loud. I don’t know their story, and I might never, but I have seen their application.”

The Numbers Behind the Need

Karlin’s experience reflects broader realities that make hiring particularly brutal. The average job seeker now needs to submit between 32 and 200 applications to land a single offer, according to 2025 data from multiple industry sources. A prospective applicant is now three times less likely to hear back for a role today than three years ago..

Behind these statistics lies an even starker reality. Only 25 out of 100 completed applications ever reach a human reviewer, with 75% of qualified applicants rejected by automated tracking systems before any human consideration. The average recruiter now manages 56% more open job requisitions and processes 2.7 times more applications than three years ago.

Meanwhile, the human cost mounts. Recent research across 201 countries found that unemployment significantly increases rates of mental disorders, anxiety disorders, and depressive disorders. A systematic review of 33 longitudinal studies found that sudden job loss or continuous unemployment were associated with elevated depression, psychological distress, and anxiety.

The System That Requires Conscious Humanity

The fact that Karlin’s practice struck such a chord reveals something troubling about modern hiring systems. When treating applicants as human beings becomes noteworthy, it exposes how far employment processes have drifted from basic dignity.

Karlin’s practice of saying names aloud isn’t just personal preference. It’s a deliberate response to hiring systems designed around efficiency rather than respect. Algorithms filter resumes by keyword matches, reducing decades of experience to searchable terms. Volume metrics reward speed over consideration. The entire infrastructure encourages treating rejection as data processing rather than decisions that affect someone’s ability to feed their family.

“As a recruiter, I know the systems are broken. It’s not just the hiring process. It’s all the systems,” Karlin acknowledged in her post. “To everyone who keeps at it, who gets up every day and keeps applying because you have no choice but to do so, I see you. I can’t hire all of you, but that does not mean that all of you are not worthy of the security and means to tend to your needs.”

But Karlin’s experience suggests she’s not entirely alone in recognizing these problems. The response to her post indicates that other hiring professionals are also grappling with the tension between system efficiency and human dignity, even if they haven’t found their own ways to address it.

A Historical Perspective

This wasn’t always how hiring worked. Before the rise of digital applicant tracking systems in the 1990s, hiring was inherently more human-scale. People still “hit the pavement,” literally walked around to offices to hand out résumés, with job ads directing seekers to “inquire in person or by phone.” Resumes were physically handled, often by the same people making hiring decisions. Geographic limitations kept application volumes manageable. The personal touch wasn’t revolutionary because it was standard practice.

The digitization of hiring promised efficiency and broader access to opportunities. Instead, it created what labor economists now recognize as a fundamental disconnect between supply and demand in the job market. Today, over 90% of large organizations utilize ATS. These systems filter out 75% of candidates due to mismatched keywords before any human ever sees their application.

As Indeed economist Cory Stahle notes, while job postings remain strong in certain sectors, “finding a job in 2025 might feel trickier than in 2022, when the labor market was red hot” largely due to the structural changes in how hiring is conducted.

The Response That Reveals the Problem

Karlin’s approach resonated powerfully across professional networks. Job seekers expressed gratitude for being acknowledged while hiring professionals reflected on their own practices. The overwhelming response revealed how rare basic human acknowledgment has become in hiring processes. When people thank a recruiter simply for recognizing their humanity, it highlights the extent to which standard hiring practices have become dehumanizing.

This kind of public vulnerability about the emotional weight of hiring decisions represents a departure from typical HR discourse. Traditional HR discussions tend to focus on efficiency metrics rather than the human cost of employment systems. When hiring professionals like Karlin share their human-centered approaches publicly, they create permission for others to examine their own practices. Her LinkedIn post generated hundreds of responses from both job seekers expressing gratitude and other recruiters reflecting on how they might bring more humanity to their work.

Yet Karlin’s individual practice also highlights the limitations of relying on individual conscience to address systemic problems. The fact that saying candidates’ names aloud feels revolutionary reveals how far standard hiring practices have drifted from basic human dignity. As Glassdoor chief economist Daniel Zhao observed about current market conditions, “We’re finally in the eye of the hurricane,” referring to how mounting economic pressures have made job seeking even more difficult for workers while giving employers even more leverage to maintain impersonal systems.

Why This Matters Now

Karlin’s observation about being “struck by the state of the economy, the need, the despair” captures what hiring professionals are increasingly seeing: desperate people applying for jobs that barely support basic needs, in a system that treats this desperation as normal business practice. Her viral post came at a moment when job market dynamics are creating particular desperation among job seekers.

High application volumes, economic uncertainty, and the emotional toll of repeated rejection have created mental health challenges among people seeking employment. Against this backdrop, hiring professionals who maintain their humanity become not just better practitioners but invaluable resources for community wellbeing.

Recent data shows that 17% of U.S. job offers are currently being rejected, suggesting that workers are increasingly selective about opportunities that don’t meet their needs, while simultaneously facing more competition for positions that do. This creates practical challenges for maintaining humanity at scale, but also makes such efforts more necessary.

The Path Forward

Karlin’s practice represents both an individual solution and a call for broader change. By publicly sharing her approach and acknowledging that “the systems are broken,” she’s created space for conversations about what hiring could look like if human dignity were prioritized alongside efficiency.

The challenge extends beyond individual recruiters. As labor market analyst Julia Pollak notes, structural changes in the workforce, including an aging population and reduced immigration, will continue creating pressure on hiring systems. “Peak 65,” the years where the largest number of Americans are turning 65, means employers will face increasing competition for workers, making humane treatment not just ethical but strategically necessary.

“I don’t know their story, and I might never, but I have seen their application,” Karlin wrote. In a hiring landscape designed to minimize human connection, that simple acknowledgment becomes radical. It’s proof that even within systems designed around efficiency rather than humanity, individual choices about dignity still matter. The question is whether more professionals will follow her lead, and whether organizations will recognize that treating people like humans isn’t just the right thing to do. In an increasingly competitive labor market, it may be the only sustainable path forward.

---

Primary Sources:

• _{Indeed Hiring Lab, “Job Market Trends and Application Success Rates,” 2025}
• _{Glassdoor Economic Research, “State of Hiring Report,” 2025}
• _{Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment Situation Summary,” 2025}
• _{American Psychological Association, “Unemployment and Mental Health: A Systematic Review,” 2024}
• _{Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), “Talent Acquisition Benchmarking Report,” 2025}
• _{Jessye Kass Karlin LinkedIn post and engagement metrics, 2025}

Further Reading:

• _{Harvard Business Review, “Why the Hiring Process Is So Broken And How to Fix It,” 2024}
• _{The Atlantic, “The Dehumanization of Job Searching in the Digital Age,” 2025}
• _{ProPublica investigative reporting on algorithmic bias in hiring systems, 2024}
• _{Cornell ILR School studies on dignity in workplace practices and hiring, 2024}