Why I read 597 applications for one job—no AI involved

Last month I posted a job description on our blog for a chief of staff role at my venture capital firm, Graham & Walker. Turns out, that job description really hit a nerve. Within an hour, more than a hundred candidates had put their hat in the ring and filled out the long Google form that served as our only form of application.

Quickly overwhelmed by the interest, I asked everyone I knew for tips on how to review all those applications most efficiently. They recommended several tools, from LLMs to custom built. I was deep in research when something happened that made me change my mind.

Our Google form included an optional field for “anything else you’d like to share.” And that’s where I saw what one applicant wrote: “Applying for jobs is so dehumanizing.”

In that moment, I decided that if someone was going to take the time to thoughtfully fill out my Google form, I was going to do my best to read it. I don’t hire often. I decided that this time, I would take no shortcuts.

And that is how I ended up spending an entire week reading 597 job applications for one open role at Graham & Walker. Not scrolling. Not AI-prompting. Not keyword searching. Actual reading.

I do realize this is not normal.

Most people—most general partners, most hiring managers—do not do this. They can’t, and they probably shouldn’t. To be honest, I don’t think I will be able to do anything like this ever again. But for me, and for this moment in time, it felt like time well spent. It was an experience I will never forget.

A very manual hiring process

To be clear, I didn’t review 597 resumés. I reviewed 597 candidates’ answers to four open-ended questions:

1. Why do you want to work in venture capital?

2. Why do you want to work at Graham & Walker?

3. Why are you the best person for this role?

4. Anything else you want us to know?

I read as fast as I could, slowing down whenever something really grabbed my attention. And based on those, I decided whether to look at the resumé.

Out of 597 applicants, I clicked on 174 resumes. Two of my colleagues also reviewed around 200 applicants each. We gave a score to each one, selected the top scorers, and narrowed the field down to 15 finalists.

Those candidates did a first interview. Seven moved on to a second interview. Three moved on to a third, and final, round. By which point, I could see us working with any of them. They were truly that amazing—so much so that I was sad I couldn’t hire all three.

In the end, we made an offer to a stellar candidate and she accepted.

What job seekers should know

Let’s be real—this process isn’t sustainable, let alone scalable. Most hiring managers won’t do what I did, especially in the age of AI. Job seekers should be aware of that.

That being said, one crucial tip I would share is to know your audience. Just like we tell founders to research investors before they pitch, job seekers should research companies before they apply. If you’re applying to high headcount organizations, your resumé needs the right keywords. But for smaller organizations, you can’t rely on that same resumé to tell your story.

Some of the best answers came from people with the least polished or traditional resumés. And others packed both resumé power and answers that jumped off the page. There’s a big difference between someone who wants a job and someone who wants this job. That may not matter as much to employers hiring hundreds or thousands of people every year. But for a high-impact, high-trust role at a pre-seed VC fund like mine, it makes a world of difference.

Another lesson? Hundreds of you bring to the table a “unique combination of strategy and execution.” I lost count of how many times I read that. Perhaps not quite so unique after all?

What hiring managers should know

AI is changing how we work, fund, and build. But some decisions still require a human touch—and hiring is one of them. Behind every application is a real person, with a real story. And if we want to build real companies, we can’t afford to lose sight of that.

I could only hire one person this time. But reading 597 applications reminded me that talent is everywhere. It forced me to slow down and pay attention. To read between the lines. To notice the difference between qualified on paper and eager to contribute. To consider the people who have the right attitude, not just the right experience. And to remember that raw talent, enthusiasm, grit, effort, and authenticity are just as valuable as credentials—sometimes more.

In venture, we talk about backing people, not companies. This was the hiring version of that. It wasn’t the most efficient process. But it’s one I’ll never forget.

This story originally appeared on Leslie Feinzaig’s Blind Spots Substack. Subscribe to it here.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91307642/why-i-read-597-applications-for-one-chief-of-staff-role-no-ai-involved?partner=rss&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss+fastcompany&utm_content=rss