**Turning Rejections into Opportunities: Building Human-Centric Recruitment from the Ashes of Setback**
*“After 13,000 rejections, you either rebuild the system or let it break you. I chose to rebuild.”*
Some moments in life are formative—so disruptive in their pain or abruptness that your only options are to surrender or to harness the energy and charge forward anew. For me, navigating thousands of job application rejections wasn’t merely a bruising rite of passage. It seeded a mission: to humanise recruitment, making it an empowering experience for both candidates and employers, not a soul-crushing one.
Lately, I've found myself reflecting deeply on this journey, particularly after my recent conversation with Joanne Lockwood on the Inclusion Bites Podcast. Joanne is one of the most authentic, impact-driven voices in inclusion—an advocate capable of teasing out the private doubts, harsh realities, and quiet hopes that underpin the hiring process. Our discussion didn’t just rehash familiar complaints; it dissected the deep structural problems and invited real solutions.
If you see yourself somewhere in this story—job seeker, employer, frustrated recruiter or simply a believer in fairer systems—I want to share what I’ve learned, how I’m responding, and what needs to change. Let’s talk openly about dignity, about turning rejection into rocket fuel, and about why “belonging” must sit at the heart of the future of work.
**The Podcast and the Host**
Inclusion Bites, hosted by Joanne Lockwood, exists to spark transformation in our approach to inclusion and belonging. Joanne herself is a social entrepreneur and inclusion consultant, having built SEE Change Happen into a leading voice for workplace equity across Europe. Her interviewing style cuts through surface-level platitudes to reveal both hard-won lessons and hopeful paths forward—qualities sorely needed in the conversation around recruitment.
More than [INSERT_VIEW_COUNT] people have already watched our interview on YouTube, with many more tuning in via Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
If anything in these reflections resonates or troubles you, I urge you to comment below—tell me where you stand, where I’m wrong, what you’ve lived yourself. I read every reply, and I value the exchange.
---
### Why Rejection Feels Broken—and What It Can Build
Thirteen thousand. That’s the ballpark figure of times I was rejected during my job search journey. It sounds dramatic, but it was reality—a relentless cascade of “no’s,” a torrent of ghosted applications, and a period of deep financial insecurity and self-doubt.
Each automated response or, worse, radio silence left a bigger crater in my confidence. As Joanne pointed out in our conversation, *“You get to the end of that process and you have zero faith or trust in the system… You think, well, this is just pointless.”* I saw myself in that: the weary, slightly cynical, but ultimately still-hopeful candidate waiting for someone to recognise my value.
But here’s the rub: rejection, especially in its most impersonal, automated forms, doesn’t just harm candidates. It damages brands, undermines trust, and hollows out the future talent pipeline. Bad candidate experience, as Joanne reminded me, correlates directly with attrition; people who are bruised in the hiring phase rarely become loyal, thriving employees. And, quite bluntly—if your brand builds its recruitment on exclusionary, transactional, or careless practices, candidates will talk. Publicly.
This epiphany pushed me to shift focus from personal disappointment to collective solution. If millions are experiencing the same cycles of dejection and disempowerment, isn’t it a dereliction of duty not to fix what’s clearly broken? I couldn’t accept that inertia. Out of ashes of setback, a vision formed: helping everyone navigate the chaos by making the system more humane.
### The Systemic Flaws of Recruitment: Data, Bias, and Broken Feedback Loops
Let’s get specific. The recruitment status quo is not set up to select talent; it is built to reject efficiently. Joanne captured it succinctly: the initial sift is a “gatekeeping” exercise, designed to process immense volumes and minimise inconvenience for recruiters, not to discover the hidden gems.
When I had to review 2,000 CVs for my own start-up’s roles, the tables turned. Suddenly it wasn’t just about being ignored—it was about my inability, as an employer, to see the human behind the CV. The one-pager told me little about what truly matters: a person’s value, potential, or contextual achievements.
Resumes are a relic of an earlier era, more Wikipedia than roadmap. They reduce people to bullet points and omit the contextual stories, ambitions, or behaviours that predict real job performance. As employers, we crave standardised, actionable data—yet, paradoxically, our traditional tools give us little of either.
The system's biases further compound the mess. We use formats and formulas that discount neurodiversity, favour certain kinds of experiences and communication styles, and often unconsciously filter out anyone who doesn’t match an unspoken archetype. And then, ironically, we lament talent shortages.
Add in the rise of AI, pre-selection software, and psychometric testing, and things only become more fraught. As Joanne noted, “What we’re doing is almost forcing people to act,” shaping themselves into whatever persona the process seems to demand. The result? An arms race of keyword-stuffed CVs, formulaic cover letters, and candidates gaming psychometric “right answers”—not real human connection.
In this landfill of applications, trust corrodes. Both sides start seeing the other as adversaries or obstacles, not partners.
### Rebuilding Trust Through Authentic Candidate Experience
Trust doesn’t begin when someone is hired. It starts—crucially—at the very first point of contact. Yet most careers pages, job descriptions, and recruitment comms are exercises in generic “employer branding,” laced with buzzwords but devoid of real substance or clarity.
What if, instead, we were radically transparent? What if we said, here is exactly what the journey will look like. Here’s who you’ll talk to, what we’ll ask, and why. Here’s what the culture really means to us, not just as an aspirational phrase, but as lived day-to-day reality. When I began recruiting myself, I saw the difference this made—candidates who didn’t just “apply,” but genuinely engaged, invested, and reflected.
Joanne pressed on the importance of feedback, reminding us that “if you don’t value those people, they’re going to talk about it—your employer brand is candidates.” Increasingly, companies are being scrutinised not just for how they treat employees, but for how they treat aspiring employees. In the age of Glassdoor and social media, information flows freely, and brands live and die by these micro-moments of candidate experience.
One transformative idea: make hiring processes a two-way partnership, not an interrogation. Interview performance too often trumps job performance potential. We need workplaces—and hiring—where the candidate’s needs, growth ambitions, and skills are weighed as carefully as the employer’s requirements.
For neurodivergent candidates and others historically sidelined by the system, simple steps—like sending questions in advance or breaking from rigid formats—can make all the difference. That’s inclusion in practice, not in policy.
### The Technology Conundrum: Is AI the Villain or the Vessel?
We now live in a world where CV-generating bots compete with applicant-tracking algorithms, and “no-code” automation tools pump out mass-targeted, ‘personalised’ applications en masse. What’s lost is the human: both the signal from the candidate and the genuine ability for employers to see beyond surface-level “fit.”
Joanne and I traded stories of recruiters sifting for “a simple human being among the ChatGPT cover letters.” The problem is not just automation; it’s the absence of intention—the lack of real effort or care. If both sides are just gaming the system, then everyone loses: unsatisfied hires, higher attrition, and wasted effort.
Governments, rightly, are imposing constraints on the use of AI for hiring decisions, demanding that humans remain in the loop. But most tech stacks are still failing at the basics: providing actionable, bias-aware data that actually enables sound, human judgement.
Here’s the challenge then: how do we leverage technology’s scale to *augment* rather than *replace* empathy, discernment, and human touch? For me, the answer lies in targeted, thoughtfully designed tools—like the ones we’re building at Octopus—that empower both recruiters and candidates to share, understand, and act on real strengths and preferences, not just keywords or tick boxes.
### Evolving From Transaction to Partnership: Towards Inclusive, Human Recruitment
At the core, this is about redefining the recruitment relationship. Too often, hiring is seen as a zero-sum game: the employer holding all the cards, the candidate jumping through hoops, the rejection cold and transactional. But this mindset has landed us in an impasse of wasted potential.
Imagine if recruitment evolved from gatekeeping to curation; from adversarial filtering to mutual discovery. We should be looking not just for “the” right fit for this very moment, but for people whose growth trajectories can support—and be supported by—the company’s evolution over time.
Joanne shared a vision for companies building “talent academies”—venues for skill-building, career pivoting, and active nurturing of potential, not passive pools of CVs left to languish in a database. The ideal: bring someone in because you believe in them, then help them find their best seat at the ever-changing company table. The effect? Deeper loyalty, more innovation, and a virtuous cycle of trust.
Of course, not every employer can launch an in-house academy or rotation scheme overnight; scale and resources matter. But every company can do the small things: move past the archaic reliance on historical CVs, design interviews around real workplace challenges, allow for multiple pathways and contexts, and give honest, actionable feedback, even in rejection.
What’s needed is not technocratic reform, but courage—a willingness to treat recruitment as a partnership of equals, not a conveyor belt.
### Octopus: My Tentacle in the Solution
If the old system breeds burnout and blocks inclusivity, what’s the alternative? I genuinely believe that actionable, mutual data—shared fairly by both sides—is a cornerstone. That conviction underpins Octopus, the platform I now lead.
Our approach is deceptively simple: empower organisations to move only candidates who truly align with their needs into the pipeline, using smart pre-interview questionnaires generated from real job data. Candidates are given the chance to show, not just tell, their value and aspirations. For recruiters, it’s actionable evidence; for candidates, it’s dignity restored.
As I see it: each side receives feedback—specific, structured, humane. Even those who don’t make it to later rounds leave with insight, not just another unanswered application. For every pre-interview, both the candidate and recruiter get precise data on where alignment exists and where it doesn’t, making each hiring cycle an opportunity for growth rather than a black box.
We don’t pretend that machines can replace human hiring decisions. But they *can* be the extra tentacle that helps you see the nuances, clearing away the noise and giving you more space to relate to the person, not just the profile.
### Bringing It Full Circle: Building the Bridge
Rejection, for me, was never just about personal adversity. It illuminated all the unseen opportunity costs—the wasted talent, the eroded trust, the broken relationships—embedded in the recruitment status quo. If we’re to build something more dignified and productive, we need not just new technology, but new intent. We need candidate experience at the centre. We need real feedback, real partnership, and real opportunities for belonging.
As I look back at my conversation with Joanne Lockwood—whose resolve and radical candour continue to energise me—I’m reaffirmed in the belief that inclusion is not the domain of HR departments or compliance checklists. It’s embedded in every touchpoint, every rejection email, every awkward first interview. It’s there, quietly shaping who feels seen—and who chooses to stay.
So, to anyone out there struggling through rejection or questioning the system: turn that pain into design. Use your outsider vantage point to rebuild not just your own path, but perhaps the very road itself.
As always, if you have thoughts—arguments, memories, critiques—add them below. This isn’t just my journey or Joanne’s story; it’s a conversation we’re all writing, one bold act of inclusion at a time.