You know what's worse than getting rejected by an ATS for a job you're qualified for? Getting rejected by your own company's ATS for a promotion you're already doing.

This week, a senior software engineer named Maria experienced the ultimate recruiting technology irony: after successfully performing the duties of a team lead for six months, she applied for the official promotion through her company's Applicant Tracking System.

The ATS rejected her application within 24 hours.

Reason: Insufficient qualifications.

The Setup

Maria works at a mid-sized tech company that recently implemented a "new and improved" ATS with AI-powered candidate screening. The pitch from the vendor: "Our machine learning algorithms identify top talent 10x faster than manual resume review."

The HR team was excited. Finally, automation would eliminate bias and speed up hiring!

The system went live three months ago. It integrated with the company's career portal, meaning all job applications—including internal promotions—now went through the ATS.

Nobody thought this through.

Maria's Application

When Maria's manager posted the Team Lead position (the role Maria had been informally doing for months), HR told everyone they needed to "formally apply through the system for compliance purposes."

Maria spent two hours updating her resume, crafting a thoughtful cover letter explaining her six months of team lead experience, and clicking through the company's 47-question application form.

She submitted her application on a Tuesday morning.

By Wednesday afternoon, she received an automated email:

"Thank you for your interest in the Team Lead position. After careful review, we have decided to move forward with other candidates whose qualifications more closely match our requirements."

Maria's reaction: "I AM THE OTHER CANDIDATE. I'M LITERALLY DOING THIS JOB RIGHT NOW."

What The ATS Didn't Like

Maria did what any reasonable person would do: she marched down to HR and asked what the hell happened.

HR pulled up her application in the ATS. The system had assigned her a candidate score of 34 out of 100.

The ATS flagged multiple "concerns":

"Resume keyword match: 42%"

The job description mentioned "Scrum Master certification" as preferred. Maria had Scrum experience but wasn't formally certified. The ATS interpreted this as a critical gap.

Never mind that Maria had been successfully running daily standups and sprint planning for the past six months.

"Experience gap detected: Required 5 years team leadership experience"

Maria had 5.5 years of engineering experience, including six months as acting team lead. But because her previous job titles didn't include the word "lead," the ATS marked her as underqualified.

The algorithm couldn't parse "six months acting team lead at current company" as relevant leadership experience.

"Education requirement not met"

The job description said "Bachelor's degree in Computer Science or equivalent experience."

Maria has a Bachelor's in Computer Engineering. The ATS didn't recognize Computer Engineering as "equivalent" to Computer Science.

Despite the fact that she'd been working as a software engineer at this company for three years.

"Red flag: Short tenure in current role"

Maria had been in her current Software Engineer II role for 14 months. The ATS flagged this as potential job-hopping.

The system apparently didn't understand the concept of internal promotion.

The Manager's Reaction

Maria's manager, Steve, was the one who had asked her to apply for the promotion. He'd already told his boss that Maria was his top choice. The application was supposed to be a formality.

When Steve found out the ATS rejected Maria, he sent what can only be described as a very strongly worded email to HR.

Key excerpt: "Maria is ALREADY DOING THIS JOB. She runs our standups. She mentors junior engineers. She does performance reviews. She is literally the team lead in everything but title. How does our system not understand this?"

HR's response: "Unfortunately, the system requires all candidates to meet the minimum screening criteria before applications can be reviewed by hiring managers."

Steve: "I'M THE HIRING MANAGER. I WANT TO REVIEW HER APPLICATION."

HR: "The system doesn't have an override function for candidates who score below 40."

Steve's follow-up email consisted entirely of capital letters and is not suitable for publication.

The Workaround

After two days of back-and-forth, HR found a "solution":

Maria could reapply, but this time she needed to:

1. Add keywords from the job description to her resume (even if they felt repetitive)
2. List her acting team lead responsibilities as a separate entry with dates
3. Get a Scrum Master certification (the company would pay for the $150 online course)
4. Write a cover letter specifically addressing each requirement from the job description

In other words, Maria needed to game her own company's ATS to get a promotion for a role she was already performing.

Maria's response: "This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'll do it, but this is absolutely ridiculous."

The Second Application

Maria spent another three hours reformatting her resume to beat the ATS:

• She added "Scrum Master" in parentheses next to her current role (she'd just passed the online certification)
• She created a separate entry titled "Acting Team Lead, [Company Name]" with bullet points listing everything she'd been doing
• She changed "Computer Engineering degree" to "Bachelor of Science in Computer Engineering (equivalent to Computer Science)"
• She stuffed the resume with keywords from the job description until it read like a recruiting mad lib

She resubmitted the application.

This time, the ATS gave her a score of 87.

She was invited to interview.

For the job she was already doing.

With the manager who had already told her she was his first choice.

The "Interview"

The interview was scheduled for the following week. It was technically required by the system.

Steve sat down across from Maria in a conference room. Both of them looked exhausted.

Steve: "So, Maria, tell me about your experience with team leadership."

Maria: "You mean the thing I've been doing for you for six months?"

Steve: "Yes, but I have to ask the standard questions because HR said we need documentation that you were formally evaluated."

They proceeded to have the world's most awkward interview, where Maria described her accomplishments to the person who had directly observed all of them.

At the end, Steve said: "I'm pleased to offer you the Team Lead position. Congratulations."

Maria: "I would like to formally request that we burn this ATS to the ground."

Steve: "That's not technically within the scope of your new role, but I support your vision."

The Bigger Picture

This story is absurd, but it's not unique. Internal mobility programs increasingly run through the same ATS systems designed for external candidates, creating bizarre situations where:

High-performing employees get rejected for promotions because their resumes don't have the right keywords

Managers can't override system decisions, even when they have direct knowledge of the candidate's capabilities

Internal candidates face the same screening as complete strangers, despite the company already knowing their work quality

The process becomes more important than the actual decision-making

What Companies Get Wrong About Internal Promotions

Using an ATS for internal promotions makes sense in theory—it creates documentation, ensures fairness, tracks applicants.

But treating internal candidates exactly like external candidates is insane because:

The Company Already Has Performance Data

Maria's company had three years of performance reviews, project outcomes, and manager feedback. The ATS ignored all of this in favor of keyword matching.

Managers Should Have More Control

For internal promotions, the hiring manager usually already knows who they want. The process should facilitate that decision, not obstruct it.

Resume Formatting Shouldn't Matter

External candidates need to format resumes to get noticed. Internal candidates shouldn't need to play the same games—the company should already know their qualifications.

Internal Mobility Is Critical For Retention

Making internal promotions difficult doesn't improve quality. It encourages good employees to leave for external opportunities where they don't have to fight their own company's ATS.

The Irony Nobody Missed

The ATS vendor's marketing materials promised to "eliminate bias and identify top talent faster."

In Maria's case, the system:

• Created new bias by rejecting a qualified candidate based on keyword matching
• Missed top talent that was literally already working at the company
• Slowed down the process by requiring a pointless reapplication and interview

The automation didn't eliminate bias. It just automated different bias.

The Company's Response

After this incident went viral internally (Maria shared it on the company Slack, where it got 200+ reactions), HR announced they were "reviewing the internal application process."

Changes they implemented:

• Internal candidates now bypass automated screening and go directly to hiring managers
• Managers can override ATS decisions for internal promotions
• The system still requires applications "for documentation," but scores are advisory only

Changes they should have implemented from the start:

All of the above.

Maria's Current Status

Maria got her promotion. She's now officially the Team Lead she'd been unofficially doing for six months.

When asked about the experience, she said: "If I'd known internal promotions required gaming our ATS and doing a fake interview, I would've just applied to other companies. At least then I'd get a market-rate salary bump instead of the standard 5% promotion increase."

She's not wrong.

The Bottom Line

Applicant Tracking Systems are tools. When used thoughtfully, they can streamline recruiting and improve fairness.

But when companies:

• Implement ATS systems without thinking through edge cases
• Trust algorithms more than human judgment
• Apply the same screening to internal and external candidates without differentiation
• Forget that technology should serve people, not the other way around

You get situations where high-performing employees have to trick their own company's system to get promotions they've already earned.

Maria's story is funny. It's also a warning: automation without human judgment creates new problems while solving old ones.

Your ATS should help you identify great candidates. It shouldn't prevent you from promoting the great employees you already have.

Sources:

• Maria's justified frustration
• SHRM: Internal Mobility and ATS Challenges
• Harvard Business Review: The Hidden Costs of Automated Screening
• Every internal candidate who's ever had to game their own company's recruiting system