The Governance Problem Hidden Inside Modern Hiring

Key Takeaways

• ATS Supports Process, Not Judgment: Applicant tracking systems are administrative tools for workflow and compliance, not substitutes for professional evaluation in hiring decisions.
• Keyword Filtering Fails Specialized Roles: In fields like cyber risk, GRC, TPRM, privacy, and regulatory functions, competence and execution cannot be reliably assessed through resume keyword matching.
• Process-Driven Hiring Erodes Accountability: Deferring decisions to “the system” weakens evaluation of judgment, leadership, and real-world execution.
• Passive Intake Is Not Recruiting: High-quality hiring requires active sourcing, targeted outreach, and substantive screening rather than waiting for applications.
• Hiring Failures Create Real Risk Exposure: Overreliance on ATS-driven workflows leads to slower hiring, weaker outcomes, and increased operational and risk exposure in critical roles.

Deep Dive

There is a growing problem in how applicant tracking systems are being used in hiring, and it is one that deserves more honest scrutiny. Too often, ATS (Applicant Tracking System) platforms are treated as decision engines rather than what they actually are: administrative tools designed to support process, not replace judgment.

This is not an anti-HR argument. Many HR and Talent leaders do this work exceptionally well. They proactively source candidates, partner closely with hiring managers, and assess people based on real skills, experience, and demonstrated results. When used thoughtfully, an ATS can support that work.

The issue arises when organizations allow ATS workflows to replace recruiting effort, professional judgment, and accountability. In those environments, the system begins to function as a gatekeeper for roles where nuance, context, and experience matter most. That shift has real consequences.

How the Breakdown Happens

From Capability Assessment to Keyword Matching

In specialized fields such as cyber risk, GRC, TPRM, privacy, and legal or regulatory roles, competence cannot be captured through simple keyword matching. Yet many hiring processes now default to filtering candidates based on how closely a resume mirrors the language of a job posting.

Strong candidates are routinely screened out because their resume phrasing does not perfectly align with the posting, even when the underlying work and experience are effectively the same. What should be an initial sorting mechanism becomes a substitute for evaluation.

When Process Replaces Judgment

“The system screened them out” becomes the explanation, and with it comes a quiet abdication of responsibility. Hiring teams stop doing the most important part of the job: assessing execution ability, risk judgment, leadership, and stakeholder influence.

At that point, process compliance takes precedence over professional discernment, and the hiring outcome suffers accordingly.

Recruiting Becomes Passive Instead of Intentional

Posting a role and waiting for applicants is not recruiting. Recruiting requires targeted search, proactive outreach, screening for substance, and actively presenting the opportunity to the right people.

When ATS-driven intake replaces sourcing, organizations lose access to exactly the kind of candidates they claim to want—those who are experienced, selective, and often not actively applying through job boards.

The Business Cost Is Real

The downstream effects are measurable. Time-to-fill increases. Hire quality weakens. Turnover rises. And for risk, security, and compliance roles in particular, the exposure grows as critical positions remain open too long or are filled without proper evaluation.

These are not abstract process failures. They are operational and risk management failures.

What Needs to Change

Organizations do not need to abandon ATS platforms. They serve a legitimate purpose for tracking, compliance, and workflow management. What needs to change is how much authority they are given in decision-making.

Active sourcing should be a mandatory expectation, not an optional best practice. Auto-rejection should be limited to objective knockouts such as work authorization, location constraints, or hard regulatory requirements. Candidates should be evaluated based on outcomes, execution, and risk judgment rather than keyword similarity. Job descriptions should also be revisited, moving away from unrealistic “unicorn” profiles and toward a clear focus on the few outcomes that matter in the first 90 to 180 days.

ATS did not ruin hiring on its own. Hiring breaks down when organizations rely on systems instead of judgment, effort, and accountability. If a hiring process cannot recognize competence because it is scanning for keywords, the problem is not the candidates. The problem is the process.

For leaders responsible for outcomes (CIOs, CISOs, CROs, lawyers, and CEOs) the more important question is this: what changes have actually improved the quality of hires in specialized roles? That is where the conversation should be focused.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.