The people behind this post have each been through multiple job searches where progress felt reactive rather than intentional. Even with solid backgrounds, the process often lacked structure, visibility, and meaningful feedback. Decisions were made with limited information, and effort did not always translate into learning.
One recurring issue was the absence of feedback loops. CVs were edited repeatedly without understanding what actually improved outcomes. Interviews were prepared for without clarity on how candidates were perceived. Rejections arrived without explanation, leaving people to change direction blindly.
Over time, it became apparent that job seekers are asked to make high-stakes decisions with almost no structure. What should be changed and why? Which signals matter at each stage? How do you distinguish between a positioning issue, a communication issue, or a simple lack of fit?
Most tools address isolated moments in the process. A CV template here. Interview tips there. But the job search itself remains fragmented, with no clear way to connect actions to outcomes.
This raises a broader question. What would it look like if job search were treated as a system rather than a set of disconnected tasks? Something with feedback, structure, and visibility, instead of guesswork and repetition.
Treating job search as a system rather than a series of disconnected tasks may be one of the most overlooked opportunities in how careers are navigated today.
Curious how others here think about this - where does the job search process break down most for you?
For example, recently a friend had an interview and the guy interviewing him seemed disappointed that my friend didn't have experience solving a problem in a particular way as if that were the only way to solve that problem. In my opinion, the way the interviewer solves that problem is inefficient. But they didn't seem to see any other way.
(Yes, a candidate can communicate their abilities better. But in my experience, this only goes so far, and the people hiring need to make more effort.)
A better process would be more open-minded and test itself by interviewing candidates who the interviewer thinks are bad. In science there's an idea called negative testing. If a test is supposed to separate good from bad, you can't just check what the test says is good, you also need to check what the test says is bad. If good things are marked as bad by the test, something's wrong with the test. If I were hiring, I'd probably start by filtering out people who don't meet very basic requirements and have some fairly open-ended interviews early with randomly selected people to refine the hiring process and help me realize gaps in my understanding.
1. Poor signaling. There is a bunch of noise in both job requirements and resumes.
2. Unclear goals. Many technical job postings are not clear in what they want. This is not really the fault of the employer but more of an industry failure to identify qualifications.
As a result you get super talented people that cannot find work and simultaneously grossly unqualified people who easily find work that is substantially over paid for the expected level of delivery and responsibilities.