Hope it’s been a good week for all. This edition takes a closer look at how hiring decisions are shaped long before an interview happens, from the filters that quietly block strong candidates to the pressures that push speed over fit. We’ll also touch on the human toll of constant recruiting and what can be done to protect both sides of the table. Let’s get into it.
The Sectional Brief
Some of the best candidates never make it past the first click, not because they lack the skills, but because the filters designed to protect employers quietly shut them out. For founders, recruiters, and HR managers, it’s a reminder that the way we design those filters can either help us find what we need or cause us to miss it entirely. Seeing talent clearly requires more than scanning for the right words; it means looking beyond the gates we’ve built.
Filling a role is not the same as finding the right fit. Under pressure, especially in small and mid-sized businesses, the incentive is often to hire quickly rather than hire well. That pressure shapes decisions, reinforces speed over alignment, and creates long-term costs in turnover, team friction, and missed potential. Systems, incentives, and even the simplest methods influence who we bring on board and how well they last.
Hiring is rarely difficult because of complexity. It’s difficult because it is constant, a drain on the people responsible for making it work. Protecting the human side of hiring means reducing that strain: cutting down on unnecessary CV review, refining processes, and ensuring the act of recruiting doesn’t become a full-time drain on those already wearing too many hats.
For job seekers, many of the barriers have little to do with their ability to do the work. Hidden gates in the process, from automated keyword filters to rigid requirements, often decide who is seen and who isn’t. For recruiters and employers, acknowledging this reality is the first step toward building systems that notice talent rather than filter it out.
You can read all of these now at MJB Strategic, full articles below.
But first - the week in review
This week, the first module started taking shape in a real way. After wrestling with the code from Monday through mid-week, I finally cracked a key piece on Wednesday, the part that stores candidate details exactly how I needed. That win unlocked progress, and yesterday was spent expanding both the master vacancy database and the master candidate database. Today’s focus is tightening the candidate database so it’s functional, safe, and stable.
One thing that stood out: AI is an incredible partner, but it doesn’t read intent. It can tell you something is possible, but unless you feed it near-perfect context, you’ll run into walls, missing tools, geography limitations, or infrastructure gaps. The more detail you give, the more useful and realistic its guidance becomes. I’ve found it’s worth prompting AI to ask me questions back; the exchange helps surface blind spots and gets closer to what’s actually possible.
The next two weeks are about shipping this first module and opening the door to actual users both paying clients and job seekers. For anyone building or hiring, the takeaway is the same: tools are only as good as the context you give them. Whether you’re briefing AI, onboarding a hire, or delegating to a team, clarity in input is what drives reliability in output.
Signal from the Field
Most hiring pain is self-inflicted. We built systems that reward noise, not signal, then wonder why strong people slip through. When the process prizes speed, formatting, and compliance over judgment, you get throughput, not talent.
Look at the keyword games. Nearly all large companies now run applications through an ATS, which tempts candidates to pad resumes with buzzwords or gimmicks like hidden white text. The result is theatre that helps no one. Clear, plain resumes aligned to role requirements are still the safest path, but the bigger fix is on the employer side: write sharper roles, trim must-have lists, and tune filters to detect capability rather than templates.
Hiring is not the same as finding talent. Time-to-fill is easy to track, while quality of hire is hard, so teams optimize what they can measure. That bias pushes managers to rush decisions and overvalue interview “feel.” Use structured interviews and work samples. They consistently predict performance better than unstructured chats and curb bias creep.
For founders, the real tax is attention. Small business owners already log long weeks, and people issues consume a disproportionate share of that time. Every vague job post, messy funnel, and ad-hoc interview adds to the drain. Tighten the upstream inputs and you cut downstream churn.
Applicants are not the problem. Filters are. Degree screens are quietly being dropped, but skills-first hiring still lags intent. Close the gap with role clarity, skill screens that mirror the work, and simple paths for nontraditional candidates to prove fit. When you do, the noise falls, the signal rises, and hiring starts serving the business again.
Closing Thoughts
The systems we build will always reflect the priorities we set. If speed is the only goal, we’ll design for speed, and we’ll miss the people who could have made the biggest difference. This week’s work was a reminder that the right outcome depends less on finding “more” and more on creating the conditions where the right fit can surface.
In hiring, as in business, the challenge isn’t just knowing what you’re looking for, it’s making sure your process is capable of seeing it when it shows up. That’s the quiet discipline worth practicing, week after week.
Have a good weekend folks
Matthys Benson
