Question for the hiring managers out there: When reviewing applications for an open role, what specifically stands out to you about an applicant? (Assuming that the ATS gods don't just automatically filter the application out.)

Is it their achievements at previous companies? (Ex. Boosted ARR by 200% or decreased monthly churn by 30%)
Is it their career trajectory?
Is it their resume writing abilities?
Is it their education/certification credentials?
Is there some degree of "brand shopping" involved? For example, does seeing an average resume from a former Google employee with 2 YOE get you more excited than a well-written resume from a candidate with 7 YOE who worked at a lesser-known company?

I suppose much of this depends on the role and its needs.

Just given the market right now, I'm curious how hiring managers are making selections from their undoubtedly vast pool of candidates. I've heard that almost any job positing now is getting 500+ applicants within the hour, but with the caveat that 490 of those 500 applicants are completely unqualified (Like a Shift Manager at Chipotle who worked an IT help desk summer internship applying for a Senior Software Engineer role.)

Ultimately, what aspects of an applicant combined with their background and resume makes you say "Wow, this might be the one" while reviewing applications for a role?

This is how I work with our HR Manager/Director to filter the applicants. Sad to say, I would love to give opportunities to newbies but we're a small company and we really need to select properly.

They have to pass a practical exam. I look at their CV and tailor their exam based on what they know. No use giving them questions to what they don't know. I'll see if they can back up what they say they can do. I strongly believe some skills can be learned. As long as majority of the skills required are there, I can give that person a chance.

Bigger companies, I think are different. They give examinations on what is required in the job description. You don't know puppet or ansible? You will fail. You don't know git and how to branch out and merge? You will fail.

Finally, we require a psych test. You may be talented, but we don't want psychos. We don't want a newbie starting a holy war that says spaces is better than tabs.

@fruitfcker the psych test. Sick. What's it's output? I did do personality tests. Is that what you mean?

@retoor I believe it was part personality, part bio. The bio part tests the candidate's potential to be leader.

I'm usually looking out for red flags.

If someone changes company every 1 - 2 years... There is something wrong. Very wrong.

If someone seems to have no focused skill set, and -/ or the skill set seems to be completely unrelated to the work experiences listed, nope - smells too much like "Fake it till you make it".

Writing style. Make every word count. Seriously, I have no fuckin interest in knowing what your school clubs are or that you like solving puzzles for a hobby.
Nor do I want a thesaurus of filler words.

Interest. It's common now that there is no introduction letter.... Which is kinda good, but like I said in the previous statement: Make every word count. If you apply for a database engineer role, then do not write for example 10 paragraphs about what you did for half a year as a frontend developer. Frontend developer is enough. Yeah... That will filter a lot of generic spam job applications, but there is just so much time and so much to do. Showing interest by making a custom CV is imho the greatest plus.

Credentials / school / education are mostly useless to me... if they can write / read the language the company expects fluently, ok.
I just know too many devs who are utterly incompetent despite having a rainbow of certificates and stuff - while some devs with a "bad education" are not only competent, but are also less snobby and much less arrogant.

Brand / Company's the same. In the end even a FAANG company can hire total trash, so why should they get any bonus?

Achievements... Well this is always an interesting topic. IMHO if theres proof, yes. If there's no proof or you plead "I cannot answer that due to an NDA" well... Then no. So make sure that the achievement has a real background story with technical facts which are plausible. "Made 200 % better much wow" isn't a great story.

Career trajectory. That would need a longer explanation...

One who does always the same is likely unable to adapt to any change. You might get someone who tries the hardest but achieves nothing, cause they just cannot let go of what they used to do. So if someone lists for more than 5 years the same project, it's likely a red flag... "Likely" as the question remains what the project was ;)

When someone switches fields, like frontend - backend - devops and there is really no consistency, it's very likely they don't know what they want. So team / project hoppers, big no.

Last but not least... Overachiever vs lazy bum.

If someone seemingly has every year a new job title in the company, going from junior to senior to project lead to senior project lead to ...

That's a red flag... Even if the person is really talented, an overachiever is a tough nut. They're hard to keep and even harder to please.

Lazy bum... Well. I think it speaks for itself. If someone in for example 2 companies and 10 years plus work experience didn't manage to get a senior role or similar promotion in job title I find it highly suspicious. Red flag for me.