Your ATS Tracks Applications. But Can You Find the People?

11 minutes ago

10 min read

By Christopher ED Graham FCIPD, ACTP - CGC — By Christopher ED Graham *FCIPD, ACTP - CGC*

An internal talent acquisition team with 100,000 CVs in its applicant tracking system ought to have a head start when a senior vacancy opens. At least, that is what the hiring manager reasonably assumes.

The difficulty is that the system may tell the team far more about previous recruitment processes than about the people it now needs to find.

The understandable response from a chief executive, CFO or HR director is often: “Surely we already have these people in our database?” After years of advertising roles, paying recruiters, conducting interviews and collecting applications, it seems reasonable to assume that the organisation must already possess the answer. Before authorising a new recruitment exercise, somebody asks the internal talent acquisition team to check the ATS first.

The right person may indeed be there. Unfortunately, so may an old email address, a role they left three years ago and a CV written before they accomplished the very thing that now makes them interesting.

This is the ATS illusion: the belief that possessing a large quantity of candidate data means possessing current knowledge of the talent market.

The reassuring database

Applicant tracking systems perform several important functions. They manage applications, support recruitment workflows, retain records and help organisations meet governance and compliance requirements. A sizeable recruitment function would struggle to operate without one. The difficulty begins when a system designed principally to administer recruitment is expected to provide a living picture of an external executive market.

A database is attractive because it is visible and measurable. Leaders can be shown the number of profiles it contains, how many applications have been processed and how many candidates appear when a recruiter enters a selection of keywords. The numbers look substantial. The organisation appears to know a great many possible candidates.

An ATS is not a CRM

An ATS is usually organised around a vacancy: who applied, which stage they reached and what happened to the application. A candidate relationship management system is organised around the person, retaining conversations and professional interests across assignments. The distinction is easy to overlook because both contain names, contact details and CVs.

Some modern ATS platforms include CRM functions, and others integrate with separate sourcing and relationship tools. Possessing the feature, however, does not mean that an internal team uses it in the same way as an executive search firm.

Corporate talent acquisition is usually organised and measured around vacancies. The system tracks applicant numbers, the diversity of the applicant pool, time to fill, interview stages, offers and outcomes. Those are legitimate operational requirements, but they encourage records of process rather than detailed records of relationships. Notes may be limited to a status, a short assessment or a reason for rejection. Conversations are often necessarily brief because the recruiter is filling numerous roles at the same time.

A properly run retained search operates differently. A consultant concentrating on perhaps two or three live mandates can spend longer mapping a defined market, speaking with executives and recording what has been learnt: motivation, compensation, location, timing, concerns, reputation and possible relevance to future work. The database is used across assignments rather than principally to move applicants through one vacancy.

Having led corporate talent acquisition and worked in retained executive search, I see this as a question of capacity and priorities. Asking a recruiter handling many vacancies to maintain search-firm depth across an executive market requires more than activating another software feature.

There is a technical problem as well. In many organisations, searching for people remains surprisingly awkward. Results depend on how a CV was parsed, which fields were completed, how titles were entered and whether useful information sits in searchable text, an attachment or a note nobody can now find. Duplicate records and inconsistent terminology add further entertainment, although rarely for the recruiter doing the searching.

A person can therefore be present in the ATS and remain effectively invisible. The database contains the record, but neither its architecture nor the way it is maintained makes the individual easy to rediscover outside the vacancy for which they originally appeared.

Careers move on

Executives continue having careers after entering a database. They change employers, take on broader responsibilities and lead acquisitions or restructurings. Compensation and family circumstances change too. An opportunity that would have been impossible two years ago may now be attractive, while a role they once wanted may no longer make sense.

Very little of this appears automatically in an ATS. Unless someone deliberately refreshes the record, the organisation is looking at a historical snapshot that may be accurate but no longer answers the question being asked.

An ATS might show that someone was a finance director when they applied for a position four years ago. It may not reveal that they have since become a regional CFO, integrated an acquisition and led a significant transformation. The system may therefore overlook precisely the experience the current mandate requires.

Equally, it may surface an apparently perfect candidate whose circumstances have moved in the opposite direction. The title still fits and the keywords are all present, but the individual may no longer want an operational role, may be unwilling to relocate or may now earn considerably more than the position can support.

A record is not a relationship

An executive appointment requires an understanding of what somebody delivered, at what scale and under what conditions. Their response when a strategy failed or a board lost patience can be more revealing than their job title. The assessment also needs to establish why this particular move makes sense for them. Conversations and references supply evidence that a CV cannot.

A person may have interacted with an organisation before, but that does not mean a relationship exists. They may have applied and received no response. They may have endured five interviews before the position was withdrawn. They may have been approached by a recruiter who left the company shortly afterwards, taking the useful context with them. The ATS proves that contact occurred. It does not prove that trust was created.

Nor does it explain the quality of the previous interaction. A label such as “not progressed” conceals rather more than it reveals. The candidate may have been unsuitable, unavailable, too expensive, poorly assessed or simply considered for the wrong role. They may have withdrawn because the process moved slowly or because nobody explained the opportunity convincingly. Four years later, the administrative outcome remains while the reasoning has disappeared.

Executives do not respond to opportunities simply because a database has rediscovered them. They decide whether to engage based on the credibility of the approach, the substance of the mandate and their confidence in the people representing it.

The cost of “checking the ATS first”

There is nothing unreasonable about asking an internal talent acquisition team to examine its existing records before commissioning external work. Organisations should use information for which they have already paid. The mistake is assuming that a large database will produce a reliable answer quickly.

A search may return hundreds of apparently relevant profiles. Someone must then determine whether the records are current, whether the individuals genuinely possess the required experience and whether there is any realistic prospect of engaging them. Contact details need checking. Career changes need researching. Earlier assessments need interpreting. People who once applied for a mid-level role may now be senior leaders; others may have taken careers in entirely different directions.

If the organisation postpones external market research until this exercise is exhausted, the apparent saving can become a delay. An overstretched recruiter is asked to reconstruct information that was never maintained for this purpose, while the vacancy remains open. Searching existing records is sensible; making it a prolonged prerequisite to examining the market is harder to justify. The two can run alongside each other, with the initial database review informing where further research is needed.

When efficient filtering excludes the answer

Outdated information is only part of the problem. The criteria used to search and filter that information may also exclude relevant people.

A 2021 Harvard Business School and Accenture study involving more than 2,250 executives and 8,000 workers across the United States, United Kingdom and Germany examined how recruitment processes create populations of “hidden workers”. It reported that 88 per cent of surveyed employers agreed that qualified high-skilled candidates were screened out because they did not match the exact job-description criteria. The research considered applicant tracking and recruitment-management systems alongside employers’ practices. It was not an audit of executive searches or a finding that software alone caused those exclusions.

A system can apply a poorly constructed specification with impeccable consistency. If a leadership team asks for somebody from one industry, with one title, in one location and a career history resembling that of the previous incumbent, the technology may execute the instruction perfectly. It may also screen out executives with adjacent experience, transferable capabilities or an unconventional path that would make them more effective.

The fault is not necessarily in the software. Recruitment requirements often pass through several translations before reaching it. A business leader describes a problem to HR. The problem becomes a job description. The job description becomes a list of criteria. The criteria become search terms and filters. By the end, the organisation may be searching very efficiently for a simplified version of what it originally needed.

The ATS then provides a reassuringly precise answer to the wrong question.

At executive level, this matters because titles are unreliable shorthand. A managing director in one company may run a substantial business, while the same title elsewhere may carry limited commercial responsibility. A chief operating officer may lead technology, operations and transformation, or may be responsible for only one of them. Industry labels also conceal considerable variation. Two organisations described as financial-services businesses may differ profoundly in economics, regulation, ownership and culture.

Keyword matching struggles with that context because context is not a keyword.

Can AI repair the problem?

The latest generation of recruitment technology promises to recover more value from existing databases. Semantic search can recognise related experience, infer adjacent skills and retrieve profiles that a conventional Boolean search might miss. Used carefully, these tools can reduce administrative effort and help recruiters look beyond exact wording.

Search tools connected to external sources can also help refresh public career information. That is a genuine improvement, but refreshed titles and employers do not establish what an executive personally contributed or what would persuade them to move. Those remain questions to investigate. Technology can improve retrieval and supply new evidence; it cannot make unverified information reliable merely by presenting it more clearly.

There is also a danger that improved search makes weak data appear more authoritative. A polished summary, a numerical match score or a neatly ranked list can suggest a level of certainty the underlying evidence does not justify. The presentation becomes more sophisticated while the source material remains an old CV and a handful of incomplete notes.

Aptitude Research’s public report summary states that 82 per cent of organisations report significant functionality gaps in their ATS. This is a broad finding about system capabilities, not a measure of executive-search effectiveness or data quality. It is useful context, but the more practical question for a hiring leader is which gaps prevent their own team from finding and assessing relevant people.

The recruiter leaves; the records remain

The consequences of thin records become particularly visible when an experienced recruiter leaves. Their successor inherits CVs, status codes and dates, but may not know why a promising candidate withdrew or whether an earlier concern was ever resolved. The understanding leaves carrying a laptop bag and, one hopes, a reasonably tasteful farewell gift.

Keeping more notes is not, by itself, the answer. An unexplained judgement can outlast the circumstances that produced it and unfairly shape future decisions. Useful records distinguish observed evidence from opinion, identify the assignment and date, and explain the reasoning sufficiently for a colleague to reassess it. Sensitive information also needs appropriate handling. The aim is a record another professional can use responsibly, not a permanent collection of unchecked impressions.

From stored data to usable knowledge

Gartner describes the ATS as the operational backbone of the recruitment technology ecosystem while also concluding that no single platform can satisfy every organisational hiring requirement. That is an important distinction.

The ATS remains essential infrastructure, but its value depends on the information entering it and the people interpreting what it contains. A well-managed system can prevent duplicated effort, preserve useful history and help recruiters rediscover people who deserve renewed consideration. It is an effective starting point, not a finished map.

A useful executive talent map is therefore not simply a larger collection of names. It combines structured information with current external contact, distinguishes confirmed evidence from assumption and recognises that motivation, availability and fit often need to be established through a new conversation.

It also requires ownership. Someone must decide which talent populations matter strategically, how knowledge will be refreshed and who is responsible for maintaining credible relationships before an urgent vacancy appears. Without that discipline, the database continues to grow while its practical value gradually declines.

This has an economic consequence. Organisations sometimes describe talent pipelines as assets already created through previous recruitment activity. In reality, a pipeline requires continuing investment. Candidates who hear nothing for several years do not remain engaged merely because their details remain in a corporate system. Careers move on, context disappears and confidence in the data becomes increasingly expensive to test.

The objective should not be to discard the ATS or repeat research unnecessarily. It should be to understand what the organisation actually possesses.

It may possess a valuable record of previous interaction, leads worth revisiting and candidates who were overlooked for reasons that no longer apply. That is useful. It is not the same as possessing a ready-made shortlist.

Before relying on the database for a consequential appointment, leadership should ask when the relevant records were last updated, what important information is missing, whether previous conclusions remain valid and who has a current relationship with the people identified. It should also ask whether the search criteria reflect the business problem or merely reproduce the language of an old job description.

Those questions are less exciting than purchasing another AI-enabled platform. They are also more likely to improve the outcome.

An ATS can tell you whom you once encountered. Executive search still requires somebody to discover whom you need now.

At C Graham Consulting, we bring experience of leading corporate talent acquisition and conducting retained executive search to that work. I advise clients across financial services, management consulting and technology on senior appointments and the recruitment decisions behind them. If your organisation is finding that a substantial candidate database offers surprisingly little help with a difficult appointment, I would welcome a conversation.

www.cgrahamconsulting.com

#ExecutiveSearch #TalentAcquisition #RecruitmentTechnology #SeniorHiring #CGCInsightsSources