Jim Herrington, a 62-year-old marketing professional from Suffolk, UK, spent months applying to 900 jobs after being made redundant in 2024, highlighting the growing challenges job seekers face in an AI-dominated recruitment landscape. After his electronics marketing company downsized, Herrington embarked on an exhaustive job search, treating each day like a workday starting at 8 a.m., creating tailored résumés and cover letters without using AI, and attending networking events.
Throughout his search, Herrington encountered conflicting feedback from employers—some wanted industry-specific experience while others were open to candidates from different fields. Many told him he was overqualified, with feedback suggesting “You’d be bored in this job.” Herrington believes this was age discrimination disguised as concern, failing to value his 40-plus years of experience, industry awards, and teaching credentials.
Herrington’s primary criticism centers on AI’s role in recruitment. He argues that while AI may help companies streamline hiring processes, it’s actually creating more problems for candidates. The emphasis on including the right buzzwords to pass AI screening tests has become more important than actual job fit. He’s particularly concerned about the emergence of AI video interviews, which he views as disrespectful to candidates who invest time and energy in applications. “If a business hasn’t got the time or courtesy to speak to me themselves, then I’m just not interested,” he stated.
Another major frustration was the lack of salary transparency in job postings. Herrington estimates he could have applied to just 100 jobs instead of 900 if salaries had been listed, as he would have known he was overqualified for most positions. Many job specifications were poorly written and didn’t clearly outline requirements.
After his grueling search, Herrington finally secured a position as Marketing Director at Omega Diagnostics, a health testing company, in December 2024. They called him the day after he applied, appreciating his seniority and cross-industry experience. The role offers good compensation, is relatively local, and allows him to work in an industry that positively impacts people’s lives—a satisfying conclusion to a challenging journey that tested his confidence and resilience.
Key Quotes
I think AI is not helping people find jobs. Getting all the right buzzwords into your résumé and cover letter to get past AI screening tests seems to have become more important than whether someone is actually a good fit.
Jim Herrington criticizes how AI recruitment tools prioritize keyword matching over actual candidate suitability, highlighting a fundamental flaw in automated hiring systems that may exclude qualified applicants who don’t optimize for algorithms.
If a business hasn’t got the time or courtesy to speak to me themselves, then I’m just not interested. In an interview, there would be so much that an AI could not possibly experience. To me, it shows a total lack of respect for the candidate.
Herrington expresses strong opposition to AI video interviews, arguing they demonstrate disrespect for candidates and miss crucial human elements that only face-to-face conversations can capture, reflecting growing candidate frustration with automated hiring.
Instead of applying for 900 jobs, I could have applied for 100, because I would have known with 800 of them that I would have been wasting a lot of effort, as I would have had a better sense that I was overqualified for most of them.
Herrington highlights how lack of salary transparency and clear job specifications, combined with AI screening systems, creates massive inefficiency in the job market, forcing candidates to waste effort on unsuitable positions.
When you do 900 job applications, you start to question yourself, and you think, ‘Am I actually that good?’ And you build up resilience.
This quote reveals the psychological toll of navigating AI-dominated recruitment systems, showing how automated rejection can erode confidence even in highly experienced professionals with decades of accomplishments.
Our Take
Herrington’s experience exposes a critical blind spot in the AI recruitment revolution: optimization for efficiency doesn’t equal optimization for outcomes. While companies celebrate reduced hiring costs and faster screening, they’re potentially filtering out their best candidates—experienced professionals who bring cross-industry insights but don’t game the algorithm.
The irony is striking: Herrington deliberately avoided using AI to craft applications, believing authentic, tailored materials would stand out. Instead, he faced AI gatekeepers that may have penalized his human approach. This creates a troubling arms race where candidates must use AI to beat AI, further removing human judgment from hiring.
The success story—being hired within a day by a company that valued his experience—proves that when humans make hiring decisions, qualified candidates can be recognized immediately. This suggests the problem isn’t a talent shortage but an AI-created bottleneck that mistakes keyword matching for competence assessment. As AI video interviews proliferate, companies risk alienating top talent who view such tools as disrespectful, potentially giving competitive advantage to organizations that maintain human-centered hiring.
Why This Matters
This story illuminates a critical tension in modern recruitment: AI-powered hiring tools designed to increase efficiency may actually be creating barriers for qualified candidates. As companies increasingly rely on AI screening systems and automated interviews, experienced professionals like Herrington face rejection not because they lack qualifications, but because they can’t navigate algorithmic gatekeepers. This raises important questions about whether AI is optimizing for the right outcomes in hiring.
The 900-application journey represents a broader crisis in the job market where AI has shifted power dynamics. Candidates must now optimize résumés for algorithms rather than humans, potentially excluding talented individuals who don’t know the right keywords. The emergence of AI video interviews further dehumanizes the process, creating mistrust between employers and candidates.
For businesses, this story serves as a warning: over-reliance on AI recruitment tools may damage employer branding and cause companies to miss exceptional talent. The lack of transparency in job postings, combined with AI screening, creates an inefficient market where qualified candidates waste effort on unsuitable roles. As AI continues transforming hiring, companies must balance efficiency with human judgment and transparency to attract top talent.
Related Stories
- AI’s Role in Tech Hiring Freeze: White-Collar Job Market Slump
- The Future of Work in an AI World
- The Dangers of AI Labor Displacement
- Business Leaders Share Top 3 AI Workforce Predictions for 2025
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/lost-my-job-after-900-applications-i-finally-got-hired-2025-12