In 2014, I started working on a product that represented a novel approach to solving one of the most challenging problems I’d encountered in life: hiring and getting hired. I had had several subpar experiences on both sides of this equation, both as someone doing the hiring, and as someone looking for a job. Now, 2 years later, the product I built has been relegated to the dust bin, and I may have stumbled upon the future of building a startup.

By now, hopefully you agree that, “Yes, the candidate experience sucks.” And, as you can very clearly see, “No, I will not shut up about it.” If you made it through Parts 1–5, bravo! (and thank you). But I didn’t write all this just to word-vomit all over Medium. I wrote it because we need change, and we’re not going to get it by sitting around reading essays like this one. Here’s what we should do:

One of my favorite terms to use when describing the candidate experience is the resume black hole. Whoever thought of it, A+ on that one. In three short words, it conveys so much that a candidate feels. But why do we have that term in the first place? That’s an easy one. It’s because employers as a group have a lousy track record of getting back to and keeping up with a candidate who has applied. Sure, the candidate might get one of those lovely auto-responses that tell them their resume has been received. Ok, great, now what? They wait. And wait. With little or no ability to get in touch with anyone at the company.

Think of the last time you went to a crowded bar or club. If it was crowded, in all likelihood, you waited in line to get in. When you got up to the front of the line, you dutifully handed over your ID and stood there quietly awaiting confirmation from the bouncer that you could proceed. In that moment, the bouncer was the gatekeeper. He had the power to allow you to enter and have a great night inside said bar/club, or to deny your entry for any reason he wanted — legitimate or not. In our current hiring model, talent managers or screeners or whomever is serving as the entry point for an applicant has a similar power, and low and behold they’re demonstrating all the same characteristics as bouncers.

One of the first use cases of the early internet was to move classified listings for employment online. Think Craigslist, early job boards, the careers section of corporate web sites, etc. We thought we’d be entering a golden age where everyone was able to find job opportunities online, and easily apply, all without leaving their desk or pickup the phone. However, an unintended consequence of this online growth was more applications. Lot’s more. It turns out when you let everyone easily apply, everyone does. This paradox was best exemplified by a clever ad from The Ladders.

When we started Varsidee, we did a lot of customer development with professionals in an effort to understand the degree of interest a typical job description generated about a company and the opportunity to work there. We asked people, “on a scale of 1–10, how well does the average job description motivate you to want to apply for the position?” The highest number ANY respondent gave us was 3! Note: Several people lobbied for answering with a negative number

When you think Nordstrom, you think customer service. When you think Zappos, you think customer service. When you think Apple Store, you think customer service. These companies — each in their own way — pride themselves on delivering customer service that is markedly better than their competitors. In fact, I’d go so far to say (and so would they) that customer service is a competitive advantage that each posseses. Now here’s a thought exercise: Who’s the Nordstrom, Zappos or Apple of candidate experience?

There has been a LOT of talk about diversity within the workforces of technology companies as of late. Tim Cook has spoken out on this issue. Google, Slack and others have released diversity reports detailing the gender ratios and ethnicities of their employees. Article afterarticle after article has come out talking about diversity. But they’re all missing the point. And we’re worse off for it.