We’ve been sold a simple idea about hiring.
More candidates means more choice. More choice means better decisions. Better decisions mean better hires.
It sounds logical. It feels right. It’s also wrong.
The Illusion of Abundance
On the surface, having hundreds of applicants for a role looks like success. It signals demand. It suggests quality. It gives the impression that somewhere in that pile is the perfect hire.
But abundance comes with a hidden cost. Because humans aren’t designed to evaluate hundreds of nuanced decisions in a consistent, objective way.
Instead, we do what humans always do under pressure. We simplify. We filter. We look for shortcuts. And that’s where things start to break.
When Volume Becomes the Problem
A hiring manager doesn’t experience “more candidates” as opportunity. They experience it as workload.
Fifty CVs might be manageable. A hundred starts to stretch. Three hundred becomes a problem to solve.
So the process changes.
- Criteria become stricter, often arbitrarily
- Screening becomes faster, and therefore less thoughtful
- Good candidates are missed because they don’t fit a narrow pattern
- Others get through simply because they match keywords
At scale, hiring stops being about finding the right person and starts being about reducing the pile.
The Rise of False Decisions
When volume is high, two things increase at the same time:
False positives – candidates who look right on paper but aren’t the right fit
False negatives – candidates who could have been exceptional but are filtered out early
The irony is hard to ignore. The more candidates you have, the less confident you can be in your decisions. Not because the talent isn’t there, but because the process can’t handle the volume.
Why Candidates Get Ghosted
From the outside, ghosting feels disrespectful. And in many cases, it is. But more often, it’s a symptom of something else.
Volume.
When a role attracts hundreds of applicants, it becomes practically impossible to give meaningful feedback to everyone. Even acknowledging each application becomes a challenge.
So people prioritise. They focus on the few moving forward. The rest fall away quietly. Not because they don’t matter. Because the system can’t support them.
The Paradox of Choice
There’s a well-known concept in psychology: when faced with too many options, people don’t make better decisions, they make worse ones. Or they avoid the decision altogether. Hiring is no different.
Too many candidates leads to:
- Slower decisions
- Lower confidence
- More second-guessing
- A tendency to default to “safe” choices
Which is why so many hiring processes end with a familiar outcome:
“We went with someone who had done the role before.”
Safe doesn’t always mean right. It just means easier to justify.
So What’s the Alternative?
If more candidates isn’t the answer, then what is?
Fewer, but better. Not fewer by excluding people unfairly, but fewer by improving relevance.
Imagine a process where:
- Every candidate has a genuine shot at being a fit
- Hiring managers can give each profile proper attention
- Conversations replace filtering as the primary mechanism
- Quality replaces quantity as the goal
That’s a very different experience, for both sides.
Rethinking What “Good” Looks Like
We’ve optimised hiring for reach.
Post a role. Maximise applications. Filter aggressively.
But what if we optimised for connection instead?
Smaller, more relevant pools of candidates. More meaningful interactions. Better-informed decisions.
It’s not about limiting opportunity. It’s about making opportunity real.
Hiring Shouldn’t Be a Numbers Game
The goal was never to collect the most CVs. The goal was to find the right person. Somewhere along the way, we lost that.
At Matchez, we’re exploring a different approach. One that reduces noise, improves relevance, and makes space for real interaction, not just filtering.
Because great people don’t need more competition. They need a better chance to be seen.
If you’d like to contribute your perspective, please join Matchez and we’ll be in touch, so that you can share your experience.