Layoffs and Hiring in IT: The Harsh Truth and How to Stay Ahead

Reading Time: 10 minutes.

If you’re #OpenToWork 🔍, this article offers insights into how hiring teams think, helping answer those frustrating  “why?” 😩 questions when applications are ignored or rejected ❌

Or perhaps you’re seeing layoffs happening around you and wondering if there’s any way to prevent it from happening to you. And if there isn’t, what is the best way to prepare.

Some answers here will be straightforward, while others will require some deduction on your part to find what applies to you.

I understand how challenging it is to be laid off—the feeling of being undervalued, the lack of clear answers to “why didn’t I get an offer?” 🤷‍♂️, and the financial uncertainty that follows. Having gone through it twice during the 2010 crisis, I know firsthand how disorienting it can feel

Recently, I’ve supported friends navigating this same situation, helping with guidance and encouragement through their job searches. 

With so many people on LinkedIn expressing frustration and looking for answers about the recruiting process, I thought that sharing some insights could help others prepare, making their path to finding a well-suited job faster and less painful, just as it did for my friends.

And who knows—if I find myself in that position again, this article might serve as a valuable reminder.

Disclaimer: The insights shared here come from my experience participating in hiring processes as both an IT expert and a hiring manager across several companies, alongside feedback from other managers, primarily within the Romanian IT industry. While these insights won’t cover all scenarios, they address many common situations. 

I’ve heard rumors that there are instances where a role advertised as “open” is not truly open (e.g. for roles with high turnover or in a hunt for the perfect employee). However, since I haven’t encountered such cases personally nor heard directly from trusted hiring decision-makers, I’ll focus here on situations where a company genuinely intends to fill an open position, and I’ll simplify the process for clarity.

For each hiring process step, I include the following information:

• PARTICIPANTS & their ACTIONS
• Average candidates REJECTION RATE on that stage of the process and in total
• FEEDBACK one can generally expect, with explanations
• SUGGESTED ACTIONS for a rejected candidate

PARTICIPANTS: HR, management

ACTIONS: establishing the salary range and associated costs for the role based on market data and company budgets.

PARTICIPANTS: HR representative, hiring manager

ACTIONS: collaborating to create a checklist of ideal candidate skills and experience. This checklist is the basis of the job posting you see.

PARTICIPANTS: HR, recruitment agencies

ACTIONS: gathering applications and screening out those whose resume doesn’t align well with the job description

💔 REJECTION RATE: average 70%

📢 EXPECTED FEEDBACK: typically none – in order to optimize hiring team’s time

✅ SUGGESTED ACTIONS: 

• if this happens often to you, analyze how well your resume matches the jobs you’re applying for
• if you are confident in your relevance but feel your resume may not convey it, include a tailored cover letter or message the recruiter directly

PARTICIPANTS: HR, candidate

ACTIONS: HR representative contacts promising candidates for a quick call to discuss key aspects not covered in the job description or not clear from the resume—such as relevant experience or motivation to join the company.

💔 REJECTION RATE: average 50% in this phase (cumulated 85%)

📢 EXPECTED FEEDBACK: 

• clear, when it’s due to experience mismatch or budget issues
• cryptic, if there is perceived mismatch on motivation, confidence or culture fit

✅ SUGGESTED ACTIONS: if it’s not clear why, reflect on why you’re motivated to join the company (vs other companies) and ensure you can articulate it well. 

PARTICIPANTS: HR, hiring manager, relevant experts

ACTIONS: The HR representative presents promising resumes to the hiring team (this can be a group of experts and/or the hiring manager, depending on the company and its hiring process). The team further filters out candidates whose resumes are missing details about prior responsibilities, contain inconsistencies, or resemble profiles that have underperformed in past interviews.

💔 REJECTION RATE: average 40% in this phase (cumulated 91%)

📢 EXPECTED FEEDBACK: clear, but will probably mention a mismatch on required experience even if targeted job challenges are not clear in the job description or simply a bias of hiring team (e.g. bad experience with similar profiles in the past)

✅ SUGGESTED ACTIONS: 

• you might be asked to update your resume. If so, don’t generate it entirely with AI, nor include things you can’t explain – it does more harm than good
• if you’re highly motivated to join the company in the future, you can ask the recruiter for things you should learn to be a better match 

PARTICIPANTS: HR, hiring manager, relevant experts, candidate

ACTIONS: Selected candidates are invited to interviews with the hiring team. The number, order, and structure of these interviews vary across companies, but two key assessment types generally occur:

1. ⚙️technical evaluation (assessing the skills to perform the job)
2. 🤝behavioral evaluation (assessing communication, teamwork, and cultural alignment)

💔 REJECTION RATE: average 75% in this phase (so far 98%)

📢 EXPECTED FEEDBACK: 

• clear, if there is mismatch only on technical skills (such mismatch should usually be obvious to you in the interview) 
• cryptic, if red flags were identified in your behavior. Also if there is a perceived mismatch on what motivates you vs company culture, HR might avoid being transparent about this in order to prevent altering the company public image

✅ SUGGESTED ACTIONS: 

• accept graciously the received feedback. If there was a good vibe during the interviews, you can ask the recruiter for things you should learn to be a better match in the future
• think about and try to address in the future any red flags you exhibited, for example:
  • 🚩lack of preparation: if a candidate shows up unprepared, such as not being familiar with the company, its products, or the job role, it may indicate a lack of interest or initiative
  • 🚩lack of questions: if candidates do not ask questions about the role, team, or company, it might suggest they aren’t truly interested or invested in the opportunity
  • 🚩poor communication skills: difficulty articulating thoughts clearly or an inability to engage in a two-way conversation may indicate challenges in communication that could affect teamwork
  • 🚩inconsistent responses: inconsistencies between a candidate’s resume and their responses during the interview can raise concerns about honesty and integrity
  • 🚩vague or evasive answers: candidates who provide vague responses or avoid answering questions directly may lack the necessary skills or experience
  • 🚩inability to provide examples: candidates should be able to back up their claims about skills and experiences with specific examples. Inability to do so can raise doubts about their qualifications. It’s better to recall a set of relevant experiences before the interview
  • 🚩defensive behavior: if a candidate reacts defensively to feedback or probing questions, it may suggest an inability to accept constructive criticism or adapt to feedback
  • 🚩negative talk about previous employers: if a candidate frequently criticizes past employers or colleagues, it may signal a poor attitude, inability to work collaboratively, or potential issues with professionalism. Also be aware of spontaneous trait transference
  • 🚩overemphasis on salary and benefits: a strong focus on compensation rather than job responsibilities and company culture may indicate a risk of stagnation or lack of focus to align with the company’s values and team’s needs
  • 🚩excessive confidence or arrogance: while confidence is important, excessive self-promotion or arrogance can be off-putting and may indicate difficulties in working with others
  • 🚩lack of self-awareness: candidates who cannot acknowledge their weaknesses or areas for improvement may lack the self-awareness necessary for personal and professional growth.
  • 🚩inflexibility: a rigid attitude towards work schedules, team dynamics, or problem-solving approaches can suggests a lack of adaptability in a dynamic work environment

I’d like to tell you that all of the described evaluations are objective, but sadly they are not:

• Consciously, the hiring team is evaluating whether you’ll add value to the team
• Unconsciously, people naturally evaluate whether they’d enjoy working with you. Often, they subconsciously justify any negative emotions. If you are rejected due such biases, any feedback will feel cryptic (because will be unjust) and you won’t be able to get any relevant suggestions for improvement. If this happens, try not to be discouraged—most people make decisions similarly, likely including you. Additionally, such negative perception would be difficult to overcome even if selected, so there are chances you wouldn’t enjoy the workplace anyway.
  • Note: I don’t want to justify this behavior – it’s unprofessional, unfair and yields bad results (for example, uniformity of thought determines lack of innovation). Decision makers should be constantly training to identify and handle personal biases. Still, they happen… 

At the same time, your self evaluation may be subjective, not seeing your red flags or ignoring friends and colleagues raising them up. If the technical skills can be identified and improved easier, the behavioral/ character related ones will need more insight and motivation to be acknowledged and addressed. (But is it worthy as this will beneficiated not only your career but other aspects of life as well)

PARTICIPANTS: hiring manager

ACTIONS: Hiring manager decides who’s the best of the finalists to make an offer. That means that if you were the 1st candidate to pass all interviews but the manager is not in a hurry, he’ll probably wait to convince himself he can’t find someone even better. Most analytical managers and many of the inexperienced ones try to evaluate all the data gathered so far in order to make the decision, but the majority of the experienced ones that I spoke with base their decision on “gut feel” (then find reasons to justify it).

📢 EXPECTED FEEDBACK: cryptic. But this is the only justified case, in my perspective, to say that a better matched candidate was selected

✅ SUGGESTED ACTIONS: if you passed all interviews but are rejected in this phase often, your salary expectations might be just over the market standards/your level of expertise (so you were not rejected based on budget but a better candidate came along) 

At any point, 🚩 red flags will lead to a ❌ rejection. Reason: hiring the wrong person has very high costs (the time & money spent in the hiring process & on-boarding, negative impacts on existing employees morale, bad productivity and quality of work).

I’ll be addressing some 🚩 related to layoffs in the next chapter.

As bad as they feel, layoffs are a necessary business process: a company adjusts its workforce in an attempt to be more competitive (i.e. profitable for its owners).

As a hiring manager, when coming across a profile marked “open to work”, the simplest thought process is this:

• there’s a strong possibility that the individual is currently unemployed or will soon be
• regardless of the official explanation for their departure (companies often lack full transparency, to mitigate legal risks) no sane company would let go of its most capable employees
• consequently, there’s a significant chance the individual may have been a low performer

However, the reasons behind layoffs are often more complex and nuanced, beyond simple performance measures. 

I’m detailing below the most common scenarios, together with advice on how to prevent layoff from each scenario while still employed (PREVENTION) and what constitutes a red flag for a candidate that was laid off (CONCERNS):

1. You are a low performer and you know it (e.g. got demotivated)
   1. PREVENTION: reflect on your values. Decide if you like the job. If you don’t, change it! 
   2. CONCERNS: work ethics & responsibility
2. You are a low performer, but you don’t know it (you have all the good intentions, but lack focus—especially on what’s relevant to the company—leading to minimal results)
   1. PREVENTION: seek honest feedback regularly and address it with an open mind (manage up)
   2. CONCERNS: lack of focus or defensive behavior
3. You are a high performer, but your manager doesn’t know it
   1. PREVENTION: make your achievements more visible to your manager (manage up)
   2. CONCERNS:  communication skills
4. You are a high performer, but having bad relations with your manager and/or other colleagues
   1. PREVENTION: consider applying concepts from the book “Surrounded by Idiots”
   2. CONCERNS: bad attitude and inability to collaborate
5. You are a high performer, but the company decided to stop investing in your project. Sometimes, companies will completely discontinue a project or move it elsewhere
   1. PREVENTION: sometimes you can identify early signs that the company stops investing in your projects, and find a job in another department. But often there’s nothing you can do about it, and I generally recommend doing a job you’re passionate about, not just any job
   2. CONCERNS: N/A. This is the only favorable scenario for someone laid off

For any of scenarios 1-4, if it already happened, try to think about personal learnings and what you’d change. Then clearly explain the situation and your takeaways at your next interview, to address explicit or implicit concerns.

⚠️Very important: don’t lie – it’s easy to catch inconsistencies and this is a huge 🚩. Personally, I am black listing any candidate caught lying.

If you’re still employed, strive to position yourself in scenario 5. Makes your life fulfilled while doing the job and easier when looking for another job 🙂

Back in 2010, I was the 1st time time in scenario 2, and the next time in scenario 5. 

I recall that explaining scenario 2 during interviews was very difficult, whereas being in situation 5 made landing a new job a lot less painful.

Summary

John demonstrated basic coding abilities and completed the coding exercise, but significant gaps were evident in his understanding of clean code principles, optimization strategies, and system design. His lack of engagement during discussions and inability to provide relevant examples raised concerns about his fit for the senior developer role.

Pros

• Completion of coding exercise:
  • Successfully implemented a functional solution during the coding task.
  • Showed familiarity with basic [insert language] components, such as [this and that].

Cons

• Lack of code quality focus:
  • Did not incorporate clean code principles, such as proper naming, modularity, or readability, into their solution.
  • Unable to provide examples from past experience demonstrating how they optimized codebases or improved maintainability.
• Weak system design skills:
  • Struggled significantly with the design exercise and required substantial guidance to approach the problem.
  • Failed to address key architectural concerns such as scalability, error handling, or database schema design.
• Limited engagement and communication:
  • Did not actively participate in discussions about the tasks or ask insightful questions.
  • Struggled to articulate their thought process during both coding and design phases, making collaboration difficult.
• Knowledge gaps:
  • Responses lacked depth, particularly on advanced language concepts or strategies for maintaining large monolithic systems.
  • Showed limited ability to evaluate trade-offs or propose solutions beyond surface-level implementation details.

Conclusion

While John completed the coding exercise, his performance revealed critical gaps in key areas, including code quality, design thinking, and effective communication. These deficiencies are significant for a senior developer role, which requires leadership in technical discussions and high standards for code quality and architecture.

Summary:
James demonstrated strong technical skills and a solid grasp of [insert language] development, but concerns arose regarding his readiness to operate effectively in a senior role within our team.

Positive observations:

• James was articulate when discussing past technical projects and showed a good ability to diagnose and solve complex coding problems.
• His experience with monolithic applications aligns well with the technical aspects of this role.

Concerns:

• Team dynamics:
  James struggled to provide clear examples of guiding junior developers or fostering collaboration within a team. He appeared more comfortable working independently, which may limit his effectiveness in our team-oriented environment.
• Stakeholder engagement:
  When asked about handling competing priorities or interacting with business stakeholders, James’s responses lacked depth and specificity. This raised doubts about his ability to navigate the cross-functional challenges inherent in our projects.
• Adaptability:
  James seemed hesitant about change management scenarios, especially transitioning legacy systems to modern architectures, which is a key focus for our team’s future roadmap.

Conclusion:
James’s technical qualifications are excellent, but his soft skills and alignment with our cultural and business needs fall short of what’s required for this role.Recommendation:
We recommend exploring candidates with stronger leadership and stakeholder management capabilities for this position. Alternatively, James may be a good fit for a purely technical role if one becomes available.