Video summary

How Hiring Works in 2026. Shared by 4 Top Design Recruiters

Main summary

Key takeaways

Business

AI/ATS in hiring (especially for designers) is limited

  • Panelists agree most ATS “AI features” are not truly capable of identifying design talent from portfolios.
  • ATS impact is mostly in early-stage narrowing/filtering, such as:
    • Reducing a huge application pool
    • Screening by location and work authorization signals
  • Portfolio review is largely manual because ATS systems “have no idea” how to evaluate portfolios/creative work.
  • Key takeaway: ATS doesn’t automatically reject you “as a designer.” It often just provides coarse filtering.

Practical filtering playbooks used by recruiters

LinkedIn job search / recruiter narrowing (iterative)

  • Start broad, then layer filters until the pool is manageable.
  • Example demo scenario: Staff Product Designer role at ClickUp
    • Begin with ~24,000 matching designers using only role + location/level basics
    • Add competitor/company context (e.g., Miro, Airtable, Slack, Asana, Zoom) to reduce the pool
    • Add keyword signals (e.g., “collaboration,” “communication tools,” “productivity”) to get to ~215
    • Add sharper boolean/tooling signals (e.g., “cursor,” “claude code”) to reduce further to ~17
  • Recruiter workflow framing: don’t aim for perfect—aim for a “warm lead list,” then validate using portfolios.

Use LinkedIn settings for administrative screening

  • If a company doesn’t sponsor visas, application questions (e.g., work authorization) can automatically filter out ineligible candidates.

Use pipeline/CRM tagging to “tuck away” candidates

  • Example tool: Ashby (via Chrome extension to import profiles)
  • Tactics shown:
    • Tag candidates (e.g., “design recruiter,” “great,” “relocation intent”)
    • Track relationship context (e.g., “referred by X,” “confidentially referred”)
    • Add to pipeline stages (e.g., “new lead”) even when it isn’t a perfect role match

Direct outreach accelerates speed

  • When LinkedIn is noisy, recruiters may reach candidates via:
    • Email on LinkedIn or via their portfolio
    • Calendar links (if available)

Recruiting sources beyond LinkedIn

Panelists stress LinkedIn is a useful tool, but not the only one:

  • ATS database / prior conversations are “gold” for future roles
  • Company websites & communities, such as goodmaven.com communities (e.g., disabled and Black designers)
  • Public sharing platforms (e.g., X/Twitter, Cosmos, Dribbble-like ecosystems) where designers’ projects can be discovery channels
  • Boolean searching outside LinkedIn: copy the search logic into Google to find portfolio/profile pages

Keyword strategy & discoverability (but don’t overstuff)

Recruiters like correct, relevant titles/keywords for discovery, but warn against:

  • Inflating profiles with dense “self-description”
  • Using misleading/fake job titles
  • Overwhelming “About” sections with biographies

Sweet spot guidance:

  • Provide enough signal to get filtered in
  • Avoid turning the profile into a wall of text (recruiters need quick scanning)
  • Seniority titles should be truthful and aligned to real work; overly convoluted titles can reduce matching

What recruiters look for in portfolios (how they evaluate quickly)

  • Portfolios are treated as conversation starters, not automatic “hire/no-hire” proof.
  • Feedback themes from portfolio walkthroughs:
    • Too much reading/scrolling reduces effectiveness
    • Lead with clear context + functional prototype/interface early
    • Templates are OK, but recruiters look for “stitching”/evidence of customization and build choices
    • Visual hierarchy and typography should support rapid understanding
    • Stats/impact are useful, but recruiters may discount them without context (e.g., what a “40% increase” means)

Candidate guidance for seniority (senior vs staff differentiation)

Panelists describe seniority as more than titles:

  • Quality of craft: more senior work shows greater depth, detail, and more iteration (including motion/interaction)
  • Zooming out: staff/principal designers connect work across teams, disciplines, and business impact, not just execute a feature
  • Self-awareness: senior candidates present breadth + depth honestly and clearly
  • Business impact articulation: senior designers must explain how their work affected business/strategy

Important nuance: “staff” can mean different things across companies—scope and impact are the real criteria.

Interview expectations (recruiter screen behavior)

Recruiters want candidates to:

  • Be direct and specific, with 2–3 stories prepared
  • Avoid long personal memoirs; they want impact and context
  • Expect targeted questions—especially for senior roles where problem-solving scope is broader

Candidates are encouraged to use recruiters for prep:

  • Ask what the hiring manager is looking for
  • Get inside guidance on the role’s priorities before the hiring manager call

Role targeting & application volume

  • Avoid applying across mismatched levels (e.g., creative head/director vs junior).
  • Applying to many roles increases volume but reduces fit clarity—recruiters/hiring managers may not see strong match signals.
  • Root-cause mindset: if rejections are consistent, experiment:
    • Get feedback
    • Iterate portfolio messaging
    • Target the right level/region

Visa/work authorization question handling (UK/relocation example)

  • No one-size rule, but commonly:
    • If a company can’t sponsor (no certificate of sponsorship), it may filter out candidates who select “yes” to needing sponsorship
    • Candidates should target companies that do sponsor
  • Don’t lie about sponsorship/location:
    • Even if you pass the recruiter screen, missing documents can still cause later rejection
  • Stronger position comes from being specific and prepared (eligibility, timeline, feasibility)

Key metrics / KPIs mentioned

  • ATS/AI metrics: No quantitative KPIs were provided for ATS performance; the discussion was qualitative.
  • LinkedIn pool sizing (example demo):
    • Broad pool: ~24,000 designers (after initial basic filters)
    • After role + product context keywords: ~215
    • After stricter boolean/tooling signals (“cursor,” “Claude code”): ~17
  • Screening volume (profiles reviewed):
    • Ranges mentioned: 10–15, 30–50, 75, sometimes 100, depending on how specific/rare the skill is
  • Portfolio impact statistics:
    • One portfolio included quantified impact (e.g., “40% increase”), but the panel did not validate business meaning—only noted measurable impact is useful.

Actionable recommendations (from panel)

For candidates

  • Make the portfolio scannable:
    • Clear header
    • Early interface/prototype
    • Minimal initial reading
  • Use keywords strategically, avoiding keyword stuffing and dense self-narratives
  • Prepare 2–3 stories with business-impact clarity for senior roles
  • Target specific roles/levels; don’t apply to mismatched seniority simultaneously
  • For visa needs: don’t lie; target employers that sponsor and be prepared with eligibility/timeline details
  • In “About,” include enough identity/context about what you want to do and what you don’t—avoid a generic biography

For recruiters/employers

  • Treat ATS as coarse filtering, not talent identification, for design roles
  • Use layered searches (filters → keywords → boolean/tool signals) to build warm lists
  • Maintain prospect pools/pipelines to “tuck away” strong candidates for future matching roles
  • Ask specific, structured questions aligned to must-haves (tools/domain), while assessing problem-solving approach through discussion

Presenters / sources

Presenters (panelists)

  • Mac; Jared; Megan; Lena (candidate/host in example); “Glenn” (host/moderator referenced)

Tools/companies mentioned

  • ATS tools (notably Ashby)
  • LinkedIn / LinkedIn Recruiter
  • Claude (Claude agents mentioned)
  • Cursor
  • Google (boolean search usage)
  • Good Maven (goodmaven.com)
  • Twitter/X
  • Cosmos
  • Dribbble-like ecosystem

Original video