Roast the Post: Grounds for Discussion
Grounds for Discussion delivers a short, unfiltered analysis on the headlines shaping organizations and the world of work. In each episode, Jen and Paul dissect one key story with sharp, bullsh*t-free insights. No fluff, just the deep dives that workplace professionals need to stay ahead of the curve.
Sources
Ewen, Lara. “Jobs Exist but Are Harder to Fill, Hiring Managers Say | HR Dive.” HR Dive, Informa TechTarget, 18 Aug. 2026, www.hrdive.com/news/jobs-exist-but-are-harder-to-fill-hiring-managers-say/828089/.
MBFC bias and factuality rating for this source : Least-Biased / High Factuality
The Issues
The August 2026 Express Employment Professionals–Harris Poll survey captured a labour market contradiction: 44% of US hiring managers report open positions they cannot fill (the highest level since fall 2023, up from 36% in fall 2025) while an average of 21% of open roles are closed without anyone being hired. Canadian findings mirror the pattern. Meanwhile, skilled and qualified job seekers remain visibly out of work, and report that automated hiring systems make it harder to feel heard.
The survey's own framing concedes the point: the hiring process itself may be getting in the way. Long timelines, misaligned recruiter–hiring manager expectations, over-reliance on applicant tracking systems, and underinvestment in talent pipeline management all point to a process failure being mislabeled as a talent shortage.
That mislabel carries costs: unfilled roles mean lost productivity and stalled growth, while capable candidates are filtered out before a human ever sees them.
Topical Q&A
Why can’t companies fill open positions?
Companies struggle to fill roles mainly because of process failures, not candidate scarcity. Slow decision-making, over-restrictive job requirements, poorly configured applicant tracking systems, and misalignment between recruiters and hiring managers screen out or lose qualified candidates before they can be hired.
The survey found 43% of US hiring managers say filling roles takes longer than it did two years ago, with 26% reporting timelines of at least four weeks (HR Dive). Canadian hiring managers report the same pattern of longer timelines and positions closing without a hire (Yahoo Finance). In the episode, the hosts argue that many organizations never invested in the tools, technology, and people to manage the full talent pipeline, from market sourcing through onboarding, so the failure surfaces as "no candidates." Express CEO Bob Funk Jr.'s own commentary acknowledges the dynamic: "Technology can help streamline the process, but it delivers the greatest value when paired with thoughtful, human interaction" (HR Dive). When screeners don't understand the role, ATS filters and AI screening reject qualified applicants automatically, and the role eventually closes with no hire… 1 in 5 open positions, per the survey's own summary (PR Newswire).
Is the talent shortage real, or a hiring process problem?
Both, but the evidence increasingly points to process. Surveys show record numbers of unfillable roles alongside large pools of qualified job seekers, and a significant share of openings close without a hire… a pattern consistent with broken hiring processes rather than an actual absence of talent.
The macro framing of a “talent shortage” persists, but the hosts draw a distinction: for an individual organization, the shortage is real in effect (they are short on talent) yet the cause is their own hiring system, not the labour market. With 21% of open roles closing unfilled while skilled candidates actively search, the supply exists; the pipeline connecting the two does not. The hosts also flag the homogenizing effect of network-based hiring: relying on referrals narrows candidate pools to people who look and sound like existing employees, deepening the apparent shortage for everyone outside those networks.
Do applicant tracking systems reject qualified candidates?
Yes, frequently. ATS filters and AI screening tools reject candidates automatically based on keyword matching and rigid criteria, dropping qualified applicants whose resumes don’t mirror the job description… often before a human ever reviews them.
The survey’s job seeker side found that automated systems leave candidates feeling unheard, and the episode builds on this: screeners who don’t understand the role compound the problem, while skilled recruiters who read for potential (connecting non-obvious experience to role needs) consistently outperform keyword filters. The hosts argue the resume itself is a degraded signal, since template-driven resumes all read alike, and that any redesigned process needs more human review time, not less. The risk of over-automation is a self-reinforcing loop: worse screening produces fewer hires, which leadership reads as a talent shortage, justifying more automation.
Support the Show
Roast the Post is a passion project of Jennifer Houle and Paul Austin-Menear. The show helps job-seekers and employers get dud job ads out of their lives. There are several ways that you can help us on our mission to unf*ck the hiring process…
1 —> Share this episode with someone who’d like it.
2 —> Pick up a copy of our new e-Book, the Job Description Decoder and leave a review. The price is pay-what-you-can (even free), and all proceeds will be donated equally to Ronald McDonald House BC & Yukon, and the Toronto Humane Society.
3 —> Send us a one-time or recurring tip on Buy Me a Coffee. This helps pay for our production costs.
