Every week, I speak with senior executives who share the same story. Hundreds of applications. Almost no response. Mounting frustration.
A regional C-suite leader recently told me, “I have applied to more than one hundred roles. Three interviews. Zero offers.”
This pattern is no longer unusual. It is becoming typical.
Over the past 12-18 months, I have talked to, or heard of, expats in Thailand who have been made redundant.
Every week, that is. So many that you can call it a trend.
Not to be replaced by a Thai executive, but because of cost savings.
The uncomfortable truth behind the numbers
Most executives assume job hunting is a volume exercise. Send more applications, increase exposure, and you think it improves your odds.
But math does not support this belief.
Applicant Tracking Systems eliminate the majority of executive profiles before any human review.
- Around 70 to 80 percent of resumes never reach a recruiter
- Small keyword mismatches trigger automatic rejection
- Formatting inconsistencies reduce parsing accuracy
Executives interpret silence as competition pressure, but in many cases, software simply filtered them out.
Time investment no one calculates
Executives rarely quantify the cost of applying. 300 applications multiplied by 30 minutes per application equals 150 hours.
That equals nearly one full month of working time. For what outcome? Often, two or three screening conversations.
Job hunting quietly becomes a full-time job with minimal return. And then there is the psychological damage executives underestimate.
Repeated rejection without feedback creates hardship and measurable effects.
- Confidence erosion
- Decision fatigue
- Risk aversion during interviews
After months of silence, executives start adjusting expectations downward. Lower salary targets. Lower seniority levels. Lower selectivity.
Ironically, this weakens positioning further, because companies interpret downward flexibility as a signal of reduced market value.
The ghost job problem executives rarely consider
This is no longer a secret for most. But there are still many executives who believe every posted role on LinkedIn, Indeed, and other job boards represents an active hiring need.
Sorry to tell you but reality differs.
Organizations post roles for multiple reasons, even though there is no immediate hiring need.
- Talent pipeline building
- Internal benchmarking
- Budget justification
- Market mapping
Executives compete for advertised positions that were never intended to be closed immediately.
The visibility paradox
Executives assume applications increase visibility, but they often have the opposite effect.
High application volume without a targeted strategy creates noise rather than positioning.
In my executive recruitment practice, I see this pattern repeat itself, again and again:
- Multiple applications across unrelated roles
- Misaligned seniority levels
- Inconsistent career narratives
Executives unintentionally signal uncertainty instead of clarity.
How executive hiring actually works
Executive hiring rarely behaves like mid-level recruitment. Most senior roles close through controlled channels.
- Direct search by headhunters
• Internal referrals
• Board-level networks
• Confidential succession planning
Many of the most attractive roles never appear on job boards, and executives chasing posted vacancies often miss the actual hiring market.
Why hiring companies struggle as well
Not funny at all, but this system fails employers too.
Keyword filters remove strong candidates, and rigid, boring job descriptions discourage qualified executives.
Organizations complain about talent shortages while filtering out relevant profiles.
So, what about a more effective approach?
Executives benefit from abandoning the application volume mindset. Replace quantity with precision, and focus on three high-impact areas.
Market visibility
- Define a clear professional narrative.
- Your LinkedIn profile is now more important than your resume. It’s where we find you.
Relationship activation
- You have to network when you don’t need one! That’s my mantra.
- Engage industry networks, former colleagues, board members, and specialist recruiters.
Search alignment
- Target companies, sectors, and leadership contexts where experience directly matches business needs.
Executive careers rarely move through anonymous submissions. They move through conversations, credibility, and positioning.
The math of executive job hunting does not reward effort alone. It rewards strategy.
An executive shared this openly on LinkedIn
This comment appeared on my LinkedIn feed yesterday. A senior leader I know wrote this publicly on his LinkedIn profile.
It should concern every senior executive because this pattern is becoming impossible to ignore.
This is not an isolated case. It is repeating across the market.
What do you think? What if this were you?
Quote: I submitted an application for a CMO role. My background is a strong match to the role description, based on my education, global work accomplishments and Board experience.
Two minutes later, literally, I received an “After reviewing all the candidates…” rejection email for that CMO role.
Yes, closure is good, and no, I do not expect to get interviewed for every job I apply for. But this process shows a distinct lack of respect for the candidate population.
If nothing else, I now have one fewer company and one fewer recruiting company to ever consider working with. Unquote.
