We recently posted a job on LinkedIn.
Like most companies, we expected applications. What we didn't expect was what happened afterward.
We received around 47 applications, but not a single applicant completed one of the most clearly stated prerequisites in the job posting.
That prerequisite was simple:
Create an account on Aqvil and publish one original article about a subject of your choice.
It could be a tutorial, opinion, analysis, guide, case study, technical deep dive, project write-up, or simply something they knew well enough to write about.
There was no assigned topic.
There was no complicated test.
And importantly, the work wasn't going to disappear if the applicant wasn't selected.
The prerequisite was designed to benefit the applicant too
We weren't asking candidates to spend hours creating something that would only benefit the company.
The idea was actually the opposite.
By creating an Aqvil profile and publishing an original article, applicants would have something they could keep regardless of the outcome of the hiring process.
Their profile could represent their experience and interests.
Their article could demonstrate what they know.
And their work could potentially be discovered by other people on the platform.
In other words, even if someone didn't get the job, they would still have created something useful for their own professional presence.
That was the point.
And then something interesting happened
People applied.
But nobody completed the prerequisite.
Not one.
At first, we thought perhaps the instruction wasn't clear enough.
So we went back and looked at the job posting.
It was there.
The prerequisite was explicitly stated.
The instructions explained what applicants were supposed to do.
It wasn't hidden behind a link or buried in a separate document.
Yet the applications kept coming in without the required article.
That left us with a fairly obvious question:
Did people actually read the job posting before clicking Apply?
The Easy Apply effect
This is where LinkedIn's Easy Apply feature becomes interesting.
Easy Apply is convenient. It removes friction from the application process and allows candidates to apply to jobs quickly.
That's useful when someone is genuinely interested in a position.
But what happens when applying becomes so easy that the decision to apply requires almost no consideration?
If clicking a button takes a few seconds, there is very little stopping someone from applying first and reading later.
Or perhaps never reading the posting at all.
And that's potentially a problem for both employers and applicants.
Employers can receive a large number of applications from people who haven't actually considered the requirements.
Applicants can end up applying to dozens of positions without understanding what those companies are looking for.
The strange part wasn't that people didn't want to write
The prerequisite wasn't asking applicants to write about the company, the job, or even about something related to the position.
They could choose any subject they wanted.
Someone interested in technology could write about technology.
Someone interested in business could write about business.
Someone who knew about photography, cars, engineering, cooking, finance, gaming, design, or almost anything else could write about that.
The point was to demonstrate that they had something they knew well enough to explain.
And they would get to keep the article.
That makes the outcome even more interesting.
The barrier wasn't really the topic.
It wasn't a complicated examination.
It wasn't an application form with dozens of questions.
It was simply:
Create an account. Write something original. Publish it.
And still, nobody who applied did it.
What does this actually tell us?
It would be too easy to conclude that LinkedIn applicants simply don't read job descriptions.
Our experience is only one job posting, so it certainly isn't enough to establish that as a general fact.
There could be many explanations.
Some people may have intended to complete the requirement later.
Some may have missed it.
Some may have decided the requirement was optional.
Some may have clicked Easy Apply before reading the entire description.
And some may simply have been applying very broadly.
But whatever the reason, the result gave us something worth thinking about.
An application doesn't necessarily mean someone has engaged with the job.
It may only mean that someone clicked a button.
Maybe a little friction isn't such a bad thing
Hiring platforms have spent years trying to make applications easier.
That's understandable.
Nobody wants candidates to fill out the same information ten times.
But perhaps there is a difference between removing unnecessary friction and removing all friction.
A small, relevant action can tell an employer something that a CV cannot.
Did the person read the instructions?
Did they understand what the company was asking for?
Were they interested enough to spend a few minutes on it?
And perhaps most importantly:
Did they actually want this particular job, or were they simply applying to another job?
In our case, the prerequisite gave us an unexpected answer.
We didn't need to reject anyone because they failed to complete it.
They had already demonstrated that they hadn't completed the first instruction.
For candidates, there is a lesson here too
If you're applying for a job through Easy Apply, the easiest thing you can do is also the most useful:
Read the job description.
Not just the job title.
Not just the salary.
Not just the first few bullet points.
Read what the company is actually asking you to do.
Sometimes the most important part of the application isn't the button you click.
It's what comes immediately before it.
And in our case, that was one simple instruction:
Create an Aqvil profile and publish something you know.
Nobody who applied did it.
Which makes us wonder how many other Easy Apply applications are submitted every day by people who never made it past the first few lines of the job description.