Job Search Obstacles

💡 If I were graduating today, I wouldn’t spend hours on job boards. Thousands of candidates apply every day, and most resumes get lost in the noise. Instead, I’d follow a proactive approach that actually works: 1️⃣ Track startups that just raised funding Check out venture capital firm pages on LinkedIn or their websites. Startups that recently secured funding are growing fast—and they need talent. 2️⃣ Find the founders and founding team They know exactly what their company needs, making them the ideal people to pitch. 3️⃣ Send a thoughtful, personalized message Introduce yourself, but more importantly, show that you’ve done your homework. Mention 1–2 things you genuinely admire about their product, mission, or recent achievements. 4️⃣ Show the ROI of hiring you Instead of sending a resume, explain how your skills can solve their immediate challenges or accelerate growth. Your outreach should say: “Here’s how I can add value,” not “Hire me.” Fun fact: one month before I graduated, I didn’t have a job. I got tired of applying through traditional channels, so I messaged every founder I knew, explained how I could help them grow, and landed my first Product Manager contract without a single job board application. 🔥 Opportunities don’t always come through the standard path. Sometimes, you have to create them yourself.

Friend: Can you look at my CV? A friend reached out after 18 years abroad. Me: Sure. I opened the file. Eight pages. No structure. No story. Just job titles, projects, and bullet points. Me: Why do you want me to look at it? Friend: I’m planning to return to India. Me: Great. Do you have a job in hand? Friend: No, I’ll return first and figure it out. Me: Don’t even think about it. Friend: Why? Because Job Search in 2025 is Brutal. Me: This isn’t the India of 2007. Back then, expats had an edge—global exposure, niche skills, fewer competitors. Today? That advantage is gone. Recruiters are overwhelmed. Hiring managers don’t have time. For every job posting, there are 4000+ applicants. A colleague who helps returning professionals told me: "Gopal, I had 250+ expats apply for one role. Not one got selected." The market has changed. People struggle because they: �� Assume overseas experience is a golden ticket. ⇢ Don’t align skills with industry needs. ⇢ Have lost touch with networks back home. And it’s not just expats. It’s everyone. As a Business Leader, I See Hundreds of CVs. Most Are Forgettable. ⇢ No story. Just a robotic list of jobs. ⇢ No punch. Overused clichés ⇢ No impact. Too much focus on where they’ve been, not where they’re going. ⇢ Fancy templates, bold fonts, random icons. If your CV doesn’t grab attention in 10 seconds, it’s gone. "I Applied… But Never Heard Back." Sound Familiar? I hear it all the time: "I’ve sent out 50+ applications. Nothing." "My CV looks great, but no one is calling me." Most CVs never even get read. They’re: ⇢ Too long. ⇢ Too generic. ⇢ Focused on past experience, not future impact. A CV isn’t a career summary. It’s a sales pitch for your next role. Yet, people send the same version to 100 companies, expecting different results. Job Search in 2025: The New Rules If you’re still applying the old way, you’re already behind. ⇢ Be Visible. Your next job won’t come from a portal. It’ll come from your network, referrals, and reputation. ⇢ Fix Your Positioning. A sharp, strategic CV that tells a story beats a jazzy one every time. ⇢ Stop Applying Blindly. Forty targeted applications will get better results than four hundred random ones. ⇢ Upgrade Your Skills. The market has changed. Have you? Friend: Wow, is the job market really that hard? Me: It’s not about hard or easy. It’s about being prepared. The ones who get hired today: ⇢ Don’t just apply. They build relationships. ⇢ Don’t just list jobs. They tell compelling stories. ⇢ Don’t just wait. They take control of their job search. My friend sat back, silent. "I thought moving back would be easy," he said. I smiled. "It’s not about easy or hard. It’s about knowing the game before you play it." If you’re looking for a job today, don’t follow the old playbook. Because in this market, hope is not a strategy. #jobs #careers #resumes #cvs

“I applied to 200 jobs on Naukri, LinkedIn, Indeed… but no one even saw my resume.” This is what one of my students told me, eyes filled with doubt. And I wasn’t surprised. Because after reviewing 60,000+ resumes, I’ve seen the same painful truth: 90% get rejected by ATS before a human ever reads them. Not because the candidate isn’t talented. But because the resume is invisible. Here’s the reality: Recruiters spend 7 seconds skimming your resume. Job portals use ATS filters to auto-reject anything that doesn’t match keywords. And these small mistakes are costing thousands of people their dream jobs. Here are 10 game-changing details most candidates miss (don’t let yours be one of them 👇): 1️⃣ Missing Contact Info Sounds obvious, but 1 in 5 resumes don’t have a phone number or clickable email. ✅ Put your phone and professional email right at the top, ATS-readable. 2️⃣ No Clear Role Title “Intern” isn’t enough. ✅ Use: “Marketing Intern – Social Media Campaigns” instead. It tells the recruiter what you actually did. 3️⃣ Achievements Without Numbers “Handled client accounts” = vague. ✅ Try: “Managed 12 client accounts worth ₹3 Cr, improved retention by 25%.” 4️⃣ Ignoring ATS Keywords Job portals like Naukri & LinkedIn match resumes by keywords. ✅ Mirror exact job description terms in your skills/experience section. 5️⃣ Not Linking LinkedIn/Portfolio In 2025, recruiters expect proof. ✅ Always include your clickable LinkedIn URL + portfolio/GitHub/Behance links. 6️⃣ Using Fancy Templates That Break ATS Many Canva-style resumes look pretty but fail ATS scans. ✅ Stick to clean, text-based formats in Word/PDF. 7️⃣ Burying Skills at the Bottom Recruiters skim. ✅ Put a “Core Skills” section on the first half of page one. 8️⃣ Generic Summaries ❌ “I’m a hardworking professional seeking growth opportunities.” ✅ Instead: “Data Analyst with 3 years’ experience in SQL & Python, improved reporting speed by 40% at TCS.” 9️⃣ Overcrowded With Irrelevant Details Nobody needs your 12th board marks if you’re 5 years into your career. ✅ Cut the noise, keep it sharp, 1–2 pages max. 🔟 Forgetting to Proofread One typo can ruin first impressions. ✅ Run it through Grammarly + ask a peer to review. I’ve helped 50,000+ candidates land offers at companies like Google, Accenture, KPMG, Barclays, and Wipro by fixing exactly these mistakes. And trust me, your dream job isn’t far. It’s just one strong resume away. If you want my step-by-step guide on “How to Write an ATS-Friendly Resume” that got my candidates hired at top companies, comment YES and I’ll share it in my next post. #resumetips #atsresume #careercoach #jobsearchindia #interviewpreparation

Sending another application today? Cool. Just know that hitting 'submit' isn't the win you think. Here's the thing: applications feel productive. They're measurable. They're safe. But they're not moving you forward 👇 STEP 1) Redefine your finish line - Stop counting applications sent. Start counting conversations had. One real conversation with someone at your target company beats 20 cold applications every single time. - The goal isn't volume, it's connection. STEP 2) Pick one person this week - Find someone doing the work you want to do. Someone who's been where you're trying to go. Reach out with a clear, specific ask. "I'd love 15 minutes to learn how you approached X" works better than "Can I pick your brain?" - Make it easy for them to say yes. STEP 3) Show up prepared - Don't waste their time with questions Google could answer. Come with insight. Share what you've learned about their company, their role, their challenges. - Ask how they'd approach a problem you're thinking through. - This isn't an interview, it's a conversation between two professionals. STEP 4) Follow through - After the call, send a thank you. Share something useful. Stay visible. The relationship doesn't end when the Zoom closes. - People refer candidates they remember, not resumes they forgot. The application makes you feel busy. The conversation makes you memorable. Leave the dopamine hit of clicking 'apply' behind. Start building the relationships that actually open doors. One conversation this week. That's the finish line that matters. Go find it ✌🏼

Today, a VP of Product reached out asking if I’d be willing to have a “quick backchannel conversation” about a candidate he’s considering hiring. His reasoning? “You only get the best side of someone during the interview process.” That request stopped me cold. I said yes—but only so I could tell him directly that backchanneling is not a practice I agree with or participate in. I only proceeded because I happened to have positive firsthand experience with the candidate, and I wanted to advocate for them. But I left that conversation unsettled. Let me be clear: - Backchanneling is unprofessional. - It’s slanderous when done to discredit someone. - And if you’re still employed at the same company as the candidate, it can be illegal. No one should ever speak off-the-record in a way that could jeopardize someone else’s opportunity for employment. If a candidate wants you to serve as a reference, they'll ask you directly. And if you're hiring, respect the process: interview thoroughly, ask for thoughtful references, and make an informed decision based on facts—not whispers. Backchanneling is lazy hiring dressed up as due diligence. It violates trust. It fuels bias. And it has no place in a professional, equitable hiring process. Let’s do better. ___________________________________________________________________ 🔄 UPDATE: I want to add a few clarifications based on the thoughtful discussion happening in the comments: The VP of Product who reached out to me was a leader at another company—someone I didn’t know personally. “Backchanneling” refers to the common (and problematic) practice of contacting former managers or colleagues of a candidate for an unofficial reference—without the candidate’s knowledge or consent. I’m grateful for the positive and constructive dialogue this post has sparked. Thank you all for engaging with honesty and care. 🙏

There's a fair bit of chatter about Publicis' decision to cut back on the use of freelance talent. Now, whilst I'm biased, I do have a strong opinion on the future of fluid talent, and would say I can see both sides of the challenge. Many businesses see freelancers as a "fill the gaps" option, where they don't have enough resource, and need to bring someone in to tide them over - but freelance resource can be used strategically to add superpowers, to stretch into new spaces, to bring in senior leaderships to accelerate projects. With a mindset shift, they're not "freelancers", they're subject matter experts who can add value. Many businesses also don't have the management and engagement processes in place, and are often very responsive/reactive in how they engage freelancers (I've lost track of how many posts I see like "I need someone tomorrow"). Going to the public market to find a brand new freelancer you've never worked with to start the next day is never going to be successful approach. You need to proactively build a bench of trusted freelancers, who you can keep engaged, and see them as an extended part of your talent community. Many businesses cite IR35 as being an issue (additional cost, additional management overheads) - but if you're working with freelancers effectively, IR35 rarely gets in the way: give them clear scopes of work, respect their ways of working, don't treat them as an employee but a partner, and don't use blanket determinations. IR35 is only costly if you haven't sorted out how to properly engage with freelancers. And many businesses say that freelancers are more costly than employees - but if you inspect the results, freelancers tend to have higher productivity, and you're not saddled with training, insurance, holiday, sick leave. If you look at the ROI of freelancers, it's generally higher per day than employees (but no-one ever looks at ROI, they only look at cost). But I think there's a bigger opportunity for freelancers - and that's to recognise the increasing shift in fluid workforces, and embracing how people are wanting to have more mobility, more autonomy and more engaged roles. Looking at your total workforce as a hybrid community of people on varying models of engagement, some are longer term, some are shorter term, and all have their capabilities, utilisation, availability matched to the task at hand. Managing any talent workforce requires good management, and to ignore the the infinite pool of people who you can call upon that aren't on your staff - seems counterintuitive. I don't know Publicis' decision-making process, it's entirely possible they've done a very solid value-based interrogation of how they deliver the best possible work - but if businesses stop seeing freelancers as gap-fillers, and more like a the ultimate talent pool, I think the value equation changes significantly. https://lnkd.in/eBTQbaCd

Agree? Do you want this practice to be changed immediately? There are several compelling reasons why companies should consider shifting away from asking for salary slips and focus on hiring based on experience and skills: Promotes Fairness and Equality: Relying on salary history can perpetuate wage gaps and discrimination. If someone has been underpaid in their previous job due to bias or other factors, using their salary history as a benchmark can unfairly limit their earning potential. Shifting the focus to experience and skills helps level the playing field and promotes fairness and equality in hiring. Skills-Based Hiring Improves Quality: Hiring based on experience and skills allows companies to focus on what really matters – a candidate's ability to perform the job. This approach ensures that candidates are selected for their competency and potential to excel in the role rather than their previous compensation. Encourages Employee Development: When companies prioritize skills and experience over past salaries, they are more likely to hire candidates with growth potential. This can foster a culture of continuous learning and development within the organization, as employees are hired based on their ability to adapt and acquire new skills. Attracts Diverse Talent: Salary history can disproportionately affect women and underrepresented minorities, as they often face pay disparities. Removing this requirement can make job opportunities more attractive to a wider range of candidates, leading to a more diverse and inclusive workforce. Reduces Administrative Burden: Verifying salary history can be a time-consuming and often unnecessary administrative task. Eliminating this step simplifies the hiring process, allowing HR teams to focus on more critical aspects of candidate assessment and selection. Aligns with Future Job Market Trends: The job market is evolving rapidly, with many traditional roles becoming obsolete and new skills in high demand. Relying on past salaries may not accurately reflect a candidate's worth in the current job market, making skills-based hiring more relevant and adaptable. Enhances Employee Satisfaction: Employees who are hired based on their skills and experience are more likely to feel valued and confident in their abilities. This can lead to higher job satisfaction, increased engagement, and better retention rates. Fosters Innovation: A diverse workforce with a range of skills and experiences can bring fresh perspectives and innovative ideas to the company. By hiring based on skills and experience, companies can tap into a broader pool of talent, potentially driving innovation. Compliance with Laws: Some regions or jurisdictions have laws or regulations that prohibit or discourage employers from asking about salary history due to concerns about pay equity. Adhering to these laws helps a company avoid legal risks and reputational damage. Reshare. #salaryslip #hr #practice

The heavy cost of slow hiring 👇 I see this conversation happen all the time: Recruiter: “The candidate accepted another offer.” Manager: “But we were their first choice!” Recruiter: “You were.” Manager” “What happened?” Recruiter: “Your 8-week process. The other company? 3 weeks.” Why companies lose top talent: 1. The "perfect candidate" myth → Chasing impossible requirements → Meanwhile, great candidates accept other offers → The market moves faster than your wishlist 2. Death by committee → “Everyone must agree” → No one decides → Talent then walks away 3. Interview fatigue → 6+ rounds of same questions → Exhausted candidates → Diminishing returns 4. Fear paralysis → Obsessing over bad hire risk → Missing great talent → Competitors move faster 5. Process chaos → Delayed feedback → Poor communication → Candidates feel devalued 6. Assessment overload → 10+ hour assignments → Testing patience, not skills → Top talent opts out How to navigate this as a jobseeker: ↳ Create Urgency "I'm in later stages with other companies" isn't manipulative, it can help with planning. ↳ Watch Their Communication Radio silence or constant reschedules aren't just annoying, they can be red flags. ↳ Ask About Timeline Early "What does your hiring timeline look like?" saves everyone time and sets expectations. ↳ Trust Your Gut If they can't make hiring decisions efficiently, imagine how they handle business decisions. ↳ Keep Your Search Active Until you have a signed offer, keep looking. Being told “you’re the top candidate" isn't an offer letter. The strongest professional relationships start with mutual respect. That begins with how you handle the hiring process. Been in this situation? Share your story 👇 ♻️ Repost to help your network ➕ Follow me for more insights on navigating today's complex job market

I sent out 100 identical resumes with different names and genders. The results will shock you. Here’s what happened: - A resume named Rohan Sharma (a common Indian male name) received 27 callbacks. - The same resume, with the name Ritika Sharma, got 18 callbacks—a 33% drop, despite having identical qualifications. - When I changed the age from 28 to 45, the callback rate dropped by 40%. - A resume with a foreign-sounding name (Ryan Smith) had a 12% higher response rate than Rohan Sharma—even in India! This isn’t just my experiment. Studies show that women, older professionals, and people from underrepresented backgrounds face discrimination before they even get an interview. So, what does this mean for Indian job seekers? - Your skills alone won’t get you hired. How you present yourself—on your resume, LinkedIn, and in interviews—matters just as much. - Bias is real, but it can be worked around. A well-crafted, ATS-friendly resume and a strategic job search approach can tilt the odds in your favor. - Networking is key. Many roles are filled before they’re even posted. The right connections can help you bypass biased screening. If you’ve faced bias in hiring—because of your name, gender, age, or background—you’re not alone. Drop a comment if you’ve ever experienced this.

Why do companies <insert one of the many annoying things that happen in a hiring process>? These are some of the common complaints I hear, and some of the perfectly logical reasons these things happen. "Why do companies post a broad range, but then tell you they're not paying the top of the range?" 😒 Misconception: They're just trying to low ball you. 💡 Reality: Wage transparency laws are vague so many companies will post the full range, but typically reserve the higher end for people with proven results over time. Often, a job posting or compensation page on the website will outline this for you. "Why do companies repost a role over and over again when they have hundreds of applicants?" 🤨 Misconception: They're just farming resumes or not serious about hiring. 💡 Reality: They are using that one pipeline to fill many roles over time, and the reposting is usually automated. There's really no reason to collect resumes when we have LinkedIn available. "Why do companies post a role and then change the details of the job or level mid-process?" 🤔 Misconception: They are using a more desirable job to get applications. 💡 Reality: Sometimes they didn't really know what they wanted/needed and have a strong enough understanding of the market when they initially posted. Sometimes things shift internally leading them to rescope the role. Other times, they may like a candidate and see potential but not feel they are at the level needed so they'll tweak the role. "Why can't companies talk to every applicant instead of asking us to fill out all this info or rejecting people who can do the job?" 🙄 Misconception: Recruiters are lazy and don't want to do their jobs. 💡 Reality: Recruiters are working on lots of roles and may have the time to meet with just 4-5 candidates for each position each week. So they use the info they have to prioritize the people who they think have the most potential. "Why don't companies prioritize applicants who have been out of work longest instead of hiring people who are employed?" 🧐 Misconception: Companies are missing out on great talent that is eager to work. 💡 Reality: Being unemployed isn't a qualification (but it's not a disqualification either!) It's our job to hire the most qualified person we can for the role, not the person most in need of work. We also can't judge why someone is applying. An unemployed person could be independently wealthy; an employed person could be on the verge of bankruptcy. I have seen hiring teams prioritize this when they're looking for a fast start but outside of that, it's usually not going to be something they pay attention to. Now are there cases of bad companies that do this stuff to take advantage of the workforce? Absolutely. But by and large, most of these decisions aren't actually made by "companies". They're made by humans like you and me doing the best they can with the information, resources, and training they have.