Facing 2,539 Applicants Per 10 Jobs? Skip the Big Names
Edited by Casualplayhub News Editorial. Source: Fortune. Casualplayhub News adds summary, context, and editorial framing while linking back to the original report.
The job market feels like a battlefield, and the numbers prove it’s not just your imagination. Daniel Chait, CEO of the hiring platform Greenhouse, has run the data, and the results are staggering: for every 10 job openings on his platform, 2,539 applicants are vying for them. That’s a 412% jump in applications per recruiter, with 175,000 active positions and roughly 254 hopefuls per posting. But Chait insists the real issue isn’t the sheer volume of candidates—it’s where they’re aiming.
“Don’t just apply to, you know, OpenAI, because they’re in the news every day,” Chait told Fortune exclusively. “Think of the job you want and apply to less-known companies who do that type of work—you’ll find a lot more success.” His logic is backed by the data: household-name brands soak up an outsized share of applications, leaving similar but lesser-known firms with far fewer contenders. “It’s actually less about the roles, and it’s more about the companies,” Chait explained. “Across thousands of organizations, what we see is there are certain companies that have really high-profile brands, and they get massive numbers of job applications. If you’re a company that’s been in the headlines or that’s very popular with consumers, you get tens of thousands of job applications for an open role. They’re swimming in it. If you go to a very similar company with a very similar type of work that isn’t as well known or that doesn’t have a flashy consumer brand, they might have very few applicants. So my encouragement is: go beyond the headlines.”
The struggle is especially acute for young workers. Globally, about one in five Gen Zers are classified as NEETs—not in employment, education, or training. In the U.K. last year, more than 1.2 million applications were submitted for fewer than 17,000 graduate roles. Even Goldman Sachs economists have acknowledged that Gen Z’s hiring nightmare is real and unlikely to fade soon. The process itself has become a gauntlet: AI-powered resume screening creates a feedback loop where candidates flood systems with AI-written applications, while recruiters respond with grueling 6-hour interviews, 90-minute assessments, and even quirky tests like the “coffee cup” challenge.
Yet there are tactics to break through. One simple but effective move: write a handwritten note. A Gen Z hiring manager pointed out that such gestures are increasingly rare, making them stand out. Netskope CEO Sanjay Beri offered a more radical approach: skip the formal application entirely. “The best jobs are never published,” he told Fortune. His advice for young, hungry job seekers without family obligations is to network at least two to three times a week. “Who you know, how you get to know them, and building your network will pay off over time,” Beri said, emphasizing that internal referrals often bypass the crowded applicant pool.
Another path is to embrace the very technology disrupting the market. “This is the time of opportunity,” said Glean CEO Arvind Jain. “You have this phenomenal tool, and it allows you to do so many cool things.” Jain argues that candidates who have genuinely mastered AI can work at ten times the speed of those who haven’t—and that gap will only widen. “If you’ve mastered these tools, you can create amazing software, systems, applications, imagery, videos. Show your creativity with it.” CEOs consistently cite AI fluency as a standout skill, making it a smart bet for those willing to adapt.
In a market where every opening draws a flood of applicants, the key may be to shift focus: target smaller companies, build genuine relationships, and leverage the tools that others fear. As Chait puts it, the problem isn’t the job seeker—it’s the companies they’re chasing. Go beyond the headlines, and the odds start to shift.
Article commentary
The data from Greenhouse underscores a harsh reality: the job market is increasingly skewed toward a handful of superstar employers, creating a funnel of despair for applicants. Chait’s advice to avoid big-name brands is practical but reveals a deeper imbalance—companies with strong consumer brands benefit from a halo effect that has little to do with actual job quality. Meanwhile, the advice from Beri and Jain highlights a shift toward relationship-based hiring and AI proficiency, which may widen inequality for those without networks or technical skills. The commentary should note that while these strategies can help individuals, they don’t address systemic issues like the sheer volume of applicants or the impersonal nature of AI-driven screening. Ultimately, the market demands a pivot from mass applications to targeted, human-centric approaches, but the burden remains on the job seeker to navigate a broken system.