Hiring Managers, HR, and AI: The Bermuda Triangle of Incompetence

Your resume didn’t disappear because you’re unqualified. It disappeared because three different groups of people are too busy blaming each other to actually hire you.

You’ve been there.

You spend 2 hours tailoring your resume. You write a thoughtful cover letter. You have 10+ years of experience doing exactly what the job description asks for. You hit “submit” with confidence.

Then… nothing.

Three weeks later, you check the job posting. It’s still open. Six weeks later? Still open. Three months later? Still freaking open.

Meanwhile, you’re seeing LinkedIn posts from that same company: “We’re struggling to find talent! There’s a labor shortage! Nobody wants to work!”

What the hell is going on?

Welcome to the Bermuda Triangle of Incompetence—where resumes go to die, jobs stay open forever, and everyone involved swears it’s someone else’s fault.

Let me introduce you to the three corners of this disaster:

Corner 1: The HR Gatekeeper (The Overwhelmed Filter)

Meet Susan.

Susan works in HR at a 250-person company. She’s responsible for:

Recruiting (40% of her job)
Payroll processing
Benefits administration
Onboarding new hires
Planning the company picnic nobody asked for
Investigating complaints about fish in the microwave

Susan makes $68K/year and handles 15 open job requisitions at any given time.

Here’s what happens to your application:

You apply for “Senior Data Analyst”
Your resume goes into an Applicant Tracking System (ATS) that scans for keywords
The ATS was configured by someone who Googled “data analyst skills” and copy-pasted a list
Your resume says you “built predictive models using Python” but the ATS is looking for “Python programming”—close, but not exact match
You’re filtered out before a human ever sees your resume
Susan has 287 other applications to review this week
Even if you made it through, Susan doesn’t actually understand what a “Senior Data Analyst” does
She’s looking for someone who checks every single box because if she hires wrong, she gets blamed

The result?

Your perfectly qualified resume sits in a digital graveyard with 200 others while Susan tells the hiring manager “we’re not getting any good applicants.”

Why Susan acts this way:

Zero incentive to take risks – Hiring someone “risky” who doesn’t work out = her fault. Job staying open for 6 months = “tough market”
Drowning in volume – 300 applications per job posting, 75% completely unqualified (people applying to anything remote)
No actual recruiting training – She was an admin who got promoted into this role
Burned out – Every day is candidates no-showing, lying on resumes, calling 40 times after rejection
Protecting her territory – If an external recruiter fills the role she couldn’t, it makes her look incompetent

Susan isn’t evil. She’s trapped in a system that rewards gatekeeping over hiring.

Corner 2: The AI Recruiterbot (The Algorithmic Black Hole)

Meet the AI.

Companies looked at Susan drowning in 300 applications per role and thought: “What if we replaced her with an algorithm?”

Brilliant plan. What could go wrong?

Everything. Everything went wrong.

Real examples from the Reddit trenches:

Candidate 1:
“I had an AI chatbot pre-screen today. I have 12 years of experience. It parsed my career as 1-2 years and auto-rejected me.”

Candidate 2:
“The AI asked me to explain my last project. I gave a detailed answer. It said ‘Thank you for your interest’ and ended the interview.”

Candidate 3:
“I got rejected for a job I’m literally already doing at another company because the AI decided my ‘cultural fit score’ was too low.”

Here’s how AI recruiting actually works:

Keyword matching on steroids – If the job description says “5+ years SQL” and your resume says “5 years of database experience with SQL” you’re filtered out (SQL didn’t appear in the exact format)
Pattern recognition trained on existing employees – If all current employees went to certain schools or have certain job titles, the AI assumes those are “must-haves” even if they’re not
Arbitrary “predictive” scores – The AI assigns you a “likelihood to succeed” score based on… vibes? Nobody actually knows. It’s a black box.
Can’t handle nuance – Career gaps? You’re out. Job hopping? You’re out. Non-traditional background? You’re out. The AI doesn’t care that you took time off for cancer treatment or that you pivoted careers.
Optimized for speed, not quality – The AI’s job is to get the candidate pool from 300 to 10 as fast as possible. Accuracy is secondary.

The darkly hilarious part?

Companies implemented AI recruiting to “reduce bias” and “find better candidates.” Instead, they:

Encoded all the same biases into the algorithm (plus new ones)
Made the process LESS transparent (at least with Susan you could email and ask why)
Created a system where qualified people get auto-rejected and there’s no human to appeal to

One recruiter admitted:
“We got 300+ applicants. Only 11 met our criteria. But the AI filtered out 8 of those 11 before I ever saw them.”

The AI isn’t incompetent because it’s bad at its job. It’s incompetent because its job is impossible: reduce 300 humans to 10 “perfect” candidates using keyword matching and vibes.

Corner 3: The Hiring Manager (The Unicorn Hunter)

Meet Dave.

Dave is the Director of Engineering. He’s been “urgently” trying to fill a Senior Data Analyst role for 4 months.

Here’s what Dave wants:

7+ years of experience
Expert in Python, R, SQL, Spark, Tableau, and “preferably” Java
Master’s degree (PhD preferred but “not required”)
Experience with machine learning, fraud detection, and A/B testing
Leadership potential but willing to take individual contributor role
Passionate about the company mission
“Culture fit” (whatever that means)
Willing to accept $95K (market rate is $130K but budget is tight)

Here’s what Dave does when he gets candidates:

Week 1:
Susan sends Dave 5 resumes of people who meet 80% of requirements.

Dave: “Hmm, none of them have fraud detection experience specifically. Can we keep looking?”

Week 3:
Susan finds someone with fraud detection experience.

Dave: “Great! Let’s interview.”

Week 4:
Dave schedules interview, then cancels 30 minutes before because “something came up.”

Week 5:
Interview finally happens. Candidate is great.

Dave: “They seemed great but… did they seem enthusiastic enough? I got a weird vibe. Let’s see who else is out there.”

Week 7:
Susan: “Dave, we’ve interviewed 12 people. What’s wrong with them?”

Dave: “I need someone who’s done this exact job at a similar-sized company with this exact tech stack. Is that too much to ask?”

Week 10:
Dave finally finds “the one”—checks every single box.

Dave makes an offer: $95K

Candidate: “The market rate for this role is $130K. I have other offers in that range.”

Dave: “We don’t have budget for that. Can you ask if they’ll take $100K?”

Candidate declines.

Week 12:
The role is still open. Dave is now complaining in leadership meetings: “HR can’t find anyone! There’s a talent shortage!”

Why Dave acts this way:

No consequences for delay – His team is overworked, but that’s “just how it is.” There’s no penalty for taking 6 months to hire.
Afraid of hiring wrong – If he hires someone who doesn’t work out, that’s a black mark on his leadership. Better to wait for perfection.
Wants a unicorn at a donkey price – Dave has champagne taste on a beer budget. He wants someone with 10 years experience who’ll accept junior-level pay.
Doesn’t actually know what he wants – The job description is a wishlist of “nice-to-haves” presented as “must-haves” because more requirements = better candidate, right?
Terrible at interviewing – Dave asks vague questions like “tell me about a time you solved a problem” and then rejects people based on “gut feel” and “culture fit” (which is code for “I didn’t vibe with them”)

The psychology:

Dave isn’t intentionally sabotaging the hire. He’s operating in a system where:

Hiring the wrong person is career suicide
Waiting forever for the “right” person is just “being thorough”
Budget constraints aren’t his fault (finance decided compensation)
He has no training on how to interview or evaluate candidates

Dave is also trapped. But his trap is comfortable enough that he’s in no hurry to escape.

The Bermuda Triangle in Action: A Case Study

Let’s watch what happens when all three corners interact:

Monday:
Dave (Hiring Manager) tells Susan (HR): “I need a Senior Data Analyst ASAP. This is urgent.”

Tuesday:
Susan posts the job. The AI (ATS) is configured with Dave’s wishlist: Python, R, SQL, Spark, 7+ years, Master’s degree, fraud detection.

Week 1:
300 people apply.

225 are filtered out by AI for missing keywords
50 are filtered out by Susan for being “overqualified” (translation: will want too much money)
20 are filtered out by Susan for being “underqualified” (translation: missing one item on the wishlist)
5 make it to Dave

Week 2:
Dave reviews the 5. Rejects 3 immediately.
Reason: “Just doesn’t feel right”
Actual reason: One went to a state school, one is over 50 (unspoken ageism), one has job-hopped (red flag!)

Week 3:
Dave interviews the final 2. One is great. One is okay.

Dave to Susan: “The great one is overqualified, they’ll leave in 6 months. The okay one doesn’t have enough leadership presence. Can we find more candidates?”

Week 4:
Susan goes back to the AI pool. Finds 3 more who were borderline. Sends to Dave.

Dave ghosts for 2 weeks (busy with other priorities).

Week 6:
Dave finally reviews. Schedules interviews.

All 3 candidates have accepted other offers. They’ve been waiting a month and a half.

Week 7:
Susan reposts the job.

AI filters 280 of 300 new applicants.

Week 9:
Dave interviews 2 new people. One is perfect.

Dave makes offer: $95K.

Candidate: “I need $120K.”

Dave to Susan: “See if they’ll take $105K.”

Candidate: “No.”

Week 12:
Role is still open.

Dave to leadership: “We can’t find talent.”

Susan to Dave: “You rejected everyone I sent you.”

AI: continues silently filtering out qualified candidates

Week 16:
An external recruiter reaches out to Susan: “I have the perfect candidate.”

Susan: “We only work with approved vendors.”

External recruiter: “Can I get approved?”

Susan: “That takes 6-8 weeks and goes through procurement.”

Week 20:
Role is still open.

Dave has stopped responding to Susan’s emails.

Susan has stopped looking.

The AI is doing its thing.

Your resume is still sitting in that database, never seen by human eyes.

The Blame Triangle: Everyone Points Fingers

HR blames Hiring Managers:
“They’re too picky! They reject everyone! They won’t clear their calendars for interviews! They won’t pay market rate!”

Hiring Managers blame HR:
“They’re not sending me good candidates! The ATS sucks! They don’t understand what I need! They’re too slow!”

Both blame the AI:
“The algorithm is filtering out good people! We’re missing qualified candidates! The technology isn’t ready!”

The AI blames the humans:
“Garbage in, garbage out. You gave me a wishlist and told me to find perfection. This is what you asked for.”

Everyone blames “the market”:
“There’s a talent shortage! Nobody wants to work! Candidates have unrealistic salary expectations!”

Nobody blames the actual problem: the system itself.

Why the System Is Designed to Fail

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:

The hiring process isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as designed—to protect the people running it, not to actually hire anyone.

HR’s incentive: Don’t get blamed for a bad hire.
Solution: Create so many filters and requirements that you can always say “we followed the process.”

Hiring Manager’s incentive: Don’t risk your reputation on an imperfect candidate.
Solution: Wait for a unicorn, then blame HR when you can’t find one.

AI’s incentive: Reduce 300 applications to 10 as fast as possible.
Solution: Use blunt instruments (keyword matching, pattern recognition) and call it “data-driven.”

Company’s incentive: Minimize cost, maximize quality.
Solution: Demand 10 years of experience for entry-level pay, then act shocked when nobody applies.

Nobody’s incentive is to actually fill the job quickly with a good-enough candidate.

The Real Talent Shortage

Companies love to complain about “talent shortages.”

Here’s what they mean:

“We can’t find someone with 10 years of experience in a technology that’s only existed for 5 years, who’s willing to work for $60K, start immediately, have no career gaps, and also be a ‘culture fit’ based on our vibe check.”

Here’s what’s actually happening:

There are TONS of qualified people
They’re being filtered out by AI for arbitrary reasons
They’re being rejected by HR for not checking every box
They’re being passed over by hiring managers for “gut feel” reasons (often unconscious bias)
They’re declining offers because the pay is insulting

The “talent shortage” is a myth created by companies who refuse to:

Train people
Pay market rates
Hire people with non-traditional backgrounds
Move quickly on good candidates
Compromise on anything

How Did We Get Here?

The 1990s-2000s:
Hiring was done by hiring managers directly or with a dedicated recruiter who actually understood the role. It was slow, but it worked.

The 2010s:
“We need to scale! Let’s use technology!”

Applicant Tracking Systems to “streamline” the process
Online job boards making it easy to apply (now you get 300 applications instead of 30)
HR departments to “professionalize” hiring

The 2020s:
“We need AI! It’ll eliminate bias and find the best candidates!”

AI filtering that creates NEW biases
Even MORE applications (thanks, “Easy Apply”!)
HR stretched even thinner
Hiring managers overwhelmed with choice paralysis

The result:
We “optimized” hiring into complete dysfunction.

What Happens to Your Resume

Let’s trace the journey of your perfectly qualified application:

Step 1: The ATS
Your resume is scanned. The AI decides you’re missing keywords. You’re filtered to the “no” pile.
Survival rate: 10-20% make it through

Step 2: HR Screening
Susan quickly scans the survivors. You’re missing one “preferred” qualification. She moves on.
Survival rate: Another 50% eliminated

Step 3: HR Phone Screen
You make it to a call with Susan. She asks generic questions. You do well, but she’s juggling 14 other candidates.
Survival rate: 30-40% move forward

Step 4: Hiring Manager Black Hole
Dave is supposed to review your resume. He’s busy. Two weeks pass. He finally looks. You seem good but not “perfect.”
Survival rate: 50% get interviews

Step 5: The Interview
You interview. It goes great! …Dave’s checking his gut. Do you “fit the culture”? He’s not sure. He wants to see more candidates.
Survival rate: 20% get offers

Step 6: The Offer
You get an offer! It’s $30K below market rate. You counter. They decline. Offer rescinded.
Survival rate: 50% accept offers

Your actual odds of getting hired from one application:
0.2 × 0.5 × 0.35 × 0.5 × 0.2 × 0.5 = 0.175%

That’s why you have to apply to 100+ jobs to get 1 offer.

It’s not you. It’s the Bermuda Triangle.

The Worst Part: Everyone Knows It’s Broken

Here’s what makes this truly maddening:

Everyone involved knows the system is dysfunctional.

HR people complain on r/humanresources: “I hate recruiting. It’s my least favorite part of the job. It’s repetitive and soul-crushing.”

Hiring managers complain in leadership meetings: “HR can’t find anyone! The process takes forever!”

Candidates complain everywhere: “I applied to 500 jobs and heard back from 3!”

But nothing changes.

Why?

Because changing the system would require:

HR admitting their processes don’t work
Hiring managers accepting “good enough” instead of “perfect”
Companies paying market rates
Everyone moving faster and taking more risk

And none of those things are politically safe.

So the Triangle persists.

Case Study: The Guy Who Bypassed the Triangle

Quick story:

“I was rejected by HR/recruiters multiple times. Then I directly messaged the director on LinkedIn. He immediately scheduled an interview after viewing my CV.”

What happened?

He bypassed Corner 1 (HR) and Corner 2 (AI) and went straight to Corner 3 (Hiring Manager).

The hiring manager wasn’t actually that picky—he just never saw qualified candidates because HR kept filtering them out.

This happens ALL THE TIME.

Companies complain they “can’t find anyone” while qualified candidates are sitting in the ATS, filtered out by robots and gatekeepers.

The Solutions Nobody Wants to Implement

What would actually fix this?

1. Eliminate the ATS keyword filters
Make humans actually read resumes. Crazy, I know.

Why it won’t happen: That’s expensive and slow.

2. Train hiring managers to interview properly
Teach them to assess skills instead of “gut feel.”

Why it won’t happen: Training costs money and hiring managers are “too busy.”

3. Pay market rates
Stop trying to get senior talent at junior prices.

Why it won’t happen: “Budget constraints.”

4. Hire for potential, not perfect fit
Take someone with 80% of requirements and train them.

Why it won’t happen: “We don’t have time to train.”

5. Move quickly on good candidates
1-2 week hiring process instead of 3 months.

Why it won’t happen: “We need to be thorough.”

6. Actually hold people accountable
If a role is open for 6 months, someone should answer for why.

Why it won’t happen: Nobody wants to admit the system they built doesn’t work.

What Can YOU Do?

Since the system won’t fix itself, here’s how to navigate the Triangle:

1. Bypass the AI (Corner 2)

Use exact keywords from job description in your resume
Format simply (no fancy designs that confuse the ATS)
Include a skills section with verbatim matches
Apply through company website, not job boards (better ATS treatment)

2. Bypass HR (Corner 1)

Find the hiring manager on LinkedIn
Send a brief, personalized message
Mention you applied and why you’re a great fit
DON’T be pushy or entitled

3. Make the Hiring Manager’s job easy (Corner 3)

Be specific about your accomplishments (numbers, impact)
Show you understand their problems (research the company/role)
Be flexible on non-essential requirements
Follow up once if you don’t hear back, then move on

4. Play the volume game

Apply to 50-100 jobs minimum
Expect 1-2% response rate
This isn’t personal, it’s math

5. Network your way in

Warm introductions bypass all three corners
Employee referrals are the fastest path to interviews
Go to industry events, build relationships

6. Know when to walk away

If a company can’t make a decision in 6-8 weeks, they’re dysfunctional
If they lowball you, they don’t value you
Don’t wait around for companies that ghost you

The Takeaway

Your resume didn’t disappear because you’re unqualified.

It disappeared because:

An algorithm that doesn’t understand your career filtered you out
An overwhelmed HR person didn’t have time to read carefully
A hiring manager is waiting for a unicorn that doesn’t exist
A company won’t pay what you’re worth
Nobody involved is incentivized to actually hire you

The Bermuda Triangle of Incompetence isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.

It exists to protect the people running the system from accountability.

You’re not the problem. The system is.

But since the system won’t fix itself, your job is to figure out how to navigate around it.

Find the cracks. Bypass the gatekeepers. Get directly to decision-makers.

Because the only way out of the Bermuda Triangle is to not enter it in the first place.

Good luck out there. You’re going to need it.