For the better part of a decade, I've been fortunate enough to let my work speak for itself—opportunities came via word-of-mouth, and any downtime felt like a well-earned break. Lately, though, the landscape feels unrecognizably convoluted. Even with solid interviews lined up, the initial hurdles (like ATS-optimized resumes) demand a level of polish that borders on performative, especially when competing against what seems like an influx of AI-assisted applications. A few observations bubbling up from this shift:

The applicant pool is noisier than ever, with tools enabling mass-customized submissions that often blur the line between genuine and fabricated experience. It's a real challenge for everyone involved. This pushes even straightforward candidates to amp up their materials just to get past filters, which feels counterproductive—penalizing those who'd shine in a more direct evaluation. Screening often falls to folks without hands-on dev experience, leading to mismatches in what gets prioritized (e.g., keyword hits over problem-solving depth). Devs and HR types bring different strengths, but it can create odd blind spots. Beyond core engineering, many roles in software orgs (HR, PMs, etc.) are filled by generalists rather than those with lived dev cycles under their belt. Contrast this with pro sports, where ex-players often handle coaching and ops. There are plenty of dev-savvy people who might not code full-time anymore but could bridge those engineering-business divides effectively. In practice, though, these positions rarely tap that potential, sticking to neutral (or sometimes frictional) contributions.

I'm still mulling this over—curious if others are seeing the same? How are you navigating hiring as a candidate or hirer? Any creative workarounds or signs of change on the horizon? (Posting anon for now.)