We’re often told a resume is the first chance to make an impression on a potential employer. But consider this — before you even get a chance to meet someone, share your story and skills, you’re being judged by a stranger, or worse, an applicant tracking system, on whether you’re deemed worthy of being spoken to.

Undeniably, a resume remains a requisite for job applications. However, the way resumes get evaluated ends up inequitably eliminating qualified candidates from roles they could thrive in. I speak in part from personal experience, but also as someone who is studying this field. Philosophically, there is a disconnect — the professional world insists resumes must be done a certain way, while in an athletic setting, we evaluate potential fit from every angle.

This begs the question — what should a resume’s role be? A resume tells a story, that is its purpose. Stories allow for interpretation, but the storyteller understands their own story best. Regardless of philosophy, there are flaws in hiring practices. As humans we cannot escape bias. But the goal should be to evaluate what’s in front of us objectively against what will lead to success.

This whole process mirrors recruiting student athletes. From a brief video, I could know within a minute whether or not they could play volleyball. But tapes alone did not show other factors that determined fit for our program. Even subpar tapes warranted a deeper look, as circumstances vary.

Likewise in hiring, a subpar resume could mean many things based on the perspective you look at it from. Remember, people apply to roles because they’re interested and believe they can succeed. If that can be acknowledged, what is the harm in talking to them even if the resume is underwhelming?

No two resumes will ever be identical. People describe the same role differently based on their own experiences and desired next steps. If you had two applicants with the same background, subjective factors could lead one to be favored over the other.

I’ve been openly critical of applicant tracking systems for these reasons. Hiring necessitates human decisions, so relying on computers to weed out resumes hurts both prospects and organizations. If your volume of applicants requires software filtering, that is what we call a “champagne problem.” It essentially indicates your employer brand has strong interest. That only further warrants investing in a more robust personnel team to effectively manage human capital.

I wish I had better advice to offer job seekers navigating this flawed system. Even with resume assistance, applicant tracking software can make the application process painstaking and uncertain. Resume preferences vary wildly across industries and companies, so any advice feels inconsistent and at times impractical.

Organizations need to provide more resources and training for their personnel teams to evaluate candidates holistically. Investing in skilled staff and limiting over-reliance on resume screening software can make the hiring process less taxing for applicants. It also leads to more meaningful interviews by enabling the ability to truly assess a candidate’s potential fit and value, beyond just what they see on paper.

The current state of resumes and job applications remains problematic. But by developing robust personnel teams and human-centered hiring practices, companies can dramatically improve the experience for job seekers while building a stronger workforce. The more we can move away from resumes as arbitrary gatekeepers, the better for all involved.