Why applicant tracking software is no longer enough

Applicant tracking software was built to organise hiring. It centralised applications, recorded decisions, and gave organisations a way to manage recruitment at scale.

For a long time, that structure was sufficient.

Hiring pressure now looks fundamentally different. Application volumes have surged. CVs and cover letters written with ChatGPT allow candidates to generate and submit polished applications at scale. As a result, written applications no longer provide a reliable signal of how people actually think, communicate, or behave at work.

The cost of poor hiring decisions is also more visible at leadership level than ever before. Applicant tracking software still plays an important role, but many systems were never designed to support hiring when CVs themselves have lost their value as a primary decision-making input.

This growing gap between administration and decision-making is forcing organisations to rethink what their hiring systems are actually built to evaluate.

The original role of applicant tracking software

Applicant tracking software was created to solve a practical problem. Hiring teams needed a consistent way to collect CVs, track candidate progress and maintain records across roles, locations, and hiring managers.

Most traditional systems focus on:

• Capturing and storing applications

• Tracking candidates through defined stages

• Logging communications and hiring decisions

• Supporting audit and compliance requirements

This structure provides order and visibility across the hiring process. It helps teams manage information, but it does not help them evaluate candidates. Even in low-volume hiring, applicant tracking software organises applications without improving decision quality.

As hiring volume increases, this limitation becomes more visible. Teams can track candidates accurately while still remaining uncertain about who is actually right for the role.

Where traditional ATS struggles under volume

When hundreds of applications arrive in a short period of time, the limitations of traditional ATS platforms become harder to ignore.

Leadership teams begin asking questions that tracking systems were never designed to answer:

• How do we review large applicant pools quickly without cutting corners?

• How do we treat candidates consistently when multiple managers are involved?

• How do we reduce bias when time pressure is high?

• How do we communicate clearly at scale without adding administrative burden?

Most ATS platforms remain heavily dependent on CVs, keyword matching, and manual screening. These tools organise applicants, but they assume that written applications provide a reliable picture of a person’s capability, behaviour, and fit for the role.

As AI-generated CVs and cover letters become more common, that assumption breaks down. Screening effort increases while confidence in hiring decisions declines. Managers disengage. Agencies are brought in to compensate when internal teams fall behind.

The challenge is not speed. It is whether the information used to assess candidates still reflects how people actually work.

Tracking applicants is not the same as managing hiring fairly and fast

Applicant tracking software is effective at answering operational questions such as who applied, where candidates sit in the process and how long each stage took.

What it does not consistently support is decision-making when applicant volume is high, even when only one or two roles are being filled.

Hiring teams still need to determine who fits the role, who aligns with team expectations, and who should move forward when large numbers of applicants meet the basic criteria. When those decisions rely on manual CV review and subjective interpretation, outcomes vary.

Some candidates move quickly. Others wait. Fairness becomes difficult to demonstrate. Early turnover increases. Candidate experience suffers. Costs rise quietly across operations and finance.

AI did not create these weaknesses. It made them impossible to ignore.

How hiring expectations have changed

Modern organisations need more than administrative control. High-volume and multi-site employers feel the impact of weak hiring inputs almost immediately.

• Vacancy days affect service delivery and revenue

• Overtime increases when roles remain open

• Inconsistent decisions lead to uneven performance across sites

• Early attrition resets recruitment cycles and drains budgets

• Job advertising spend increases as organisations attempt to compensate for poor hiring outcomes by attracting more applicants

Hiring teams are expected to move quickly while treating candidates consistently and fairly. Systems built primarily to manage documents struggle to meet those expectations when written applications no longer reflect how people actually work.

What modern applicant tracking software needs to support

As hiring expectations change, so do expectations of applicant tracking software.

Many organisations now look for systems that support the full hiring workflow, not just application management. This typically includes the ability to:

• Handle high application volumes without manual bottlenecks

• Assess candidates using structured, consistent criteria

• Communicate clearly with large applicant pools

• Coordinate scheduling, compliance and onboarding steps

• Integrate hiring activity with wider people and operations systems

Crucially, this also requires moving beyond CVs as the primary hiring input. When decision-making is supported by behavioural and performance-related insight, hiring teams can move faster without sacrificing fairness or control.

The organisational impact of better hiring inputs

When hiring workflows rely less on document review and more on decision-grade insight, the impact extends across the organisation.

HR teams spend less time managing backlog and less time correcting poor hiring decisions. That time shifts toward workforce planning, retention, and the development of people who are aligned with the role, the team, and the organisation’s culture from the outset.

Hiring managers receive clearer shortlists and make decisions with greater confidence. New hires are more likely to contribute productively sooner, reducing the time and effort spent trying to coach or manage performance issues caused by poor role or culture fit.

Operations leaders gain stability across sites, even during periods of heavy recruitment. Teams experience fewer disruptions caused by early turnover or underperformance, supporting more consistent service delivery.

Financial leaders see fewer agency fees, lower early attrition, and more predictable labour costs. Productivity improves earlier in the employee lifecycle, supporting both margin protection and business growth rather than reactive cost control.

At an executive level, connected hiring workflows provide clearer visibility into how hiring decisions affect productivity, service levels, and long-term organisational resilience.

How to evaluate applicant tracking software today

When reviewing applicant tracking software, organisations benefit from looking beyond basic functionality and focusing on how well the system supports real hiring decisions.

Key considerations include: 

• Can the system manage large numbers of applicants without overwhelming hiring teams, even when only one or two roles are being advertised?

• Does it help teams assess candidates consistently when CVs alone no longer show how people are likely to perform at work?

• Are communication, scheduling, and compliance handled within a single, connected workflow rather than spread across disconnected tools?

• Does the system support timely decisions while maintaining visibility, accountability, and fairness throughout the process?

Applicant tracking software can organise applications effectively. What differentiates more advanced hiring systems is their ability to support judgement, consistency, and confidence when applicant volume is high and written applications offer limited insight.

Evaluating hiring technology today requires understanding the difference between evaluating predictive hiring versus basic ATS capability, and whether the system is designed to manage documents or to help teams select people who are more likely to succeed in the role and the organisation.

Moving beyond administrative hiring

Applicant tracking software brought much-needed structure to recruitment. That structure still matters.

What has changed is the role these systems are expected to play. Tracking applications is no longer enough when a single advertised role can attract hundreds of applicants and written applications no longer carry meaningful insight.

Organisations hiring at scale increasingly look for platforms that support decision-making, not just administration. In this context, scale refers to applicant volume, not the number of roles being filled. One vacancy can create the same pressure on hiring teams as dozens.

This shift moves hiring away from document-led screening and toward understanding how people are likely to perform at work. It marks the difference between managing candidate volume and building a hiring process that remains effective in 2026 and beyond.

FAQs

What is applicant tracking software used for?

Applicant tracking software is used to manage applications, track candidates through hiring stages and support compliance and record keeping during recruitment.

Is an ATS enough for high-volume hiring?

An ATS helps organise applications, but high applicant volume often requires additional support for assessment, communication, scheduling, and consistent decision-making. High volume can occur even when only one or two roles are advertised, if those roles attract large numbers of applicants.

How can applicant tracking software support fair hiring?

Fair hiring is supported when candidates are assessed using consistent criteria, communicated with clearly, and progressed through a structured process. That structure can be configured around each organisation’s own hiring requirements, rather than forcing teams into a fixed or one-size-fits-all workflow.

When should a company reassess its applicant tracking software?

When hiring teams struggle to manage large applicant pools, delays increase, or fairness and consistency become harder to maintain, it may be time to review whether the system still meets current hiring needs.

Does applicant tracking software replace human hiring decisions?

No. Applicant tracking software provides structure and visibility to support decision-making, but hiring decisions remain with people. The structure reflects how the business chooses to hire, helping teams apply their own processes more consistently and efficiently.