Streamlining Job Application Processes on LinkedIn

Where It All Started 

At first, we thought people were frustrated by rejection, but they were actually frustrated by being ignored

It began with a single quote that kept coming up: “I apply and never hear anything back.”

We wanted to know if this was rare or widespread. What we found was a clear pattern: people were not frustrated by rejection, but by the lack of response, clarity, or progress.

What People Were Saying 

And as we listened closer, we found that most complaints weren’t about missing features but about broken expectations 

We reviewed over 100 public posts from real LinkedIn users. The frustration wasn’t loud, it was quiet and steady. People weren’t asking for radical new tools. They wanted the platform to meet expectations it had already set.

Things like accurate filters, meaningful alerts, and a sense that their actions—like applying—had weight. But instead, they felt misaligned with the system that was supposed to guide them. 

What We Heard Firsthand 

The more people we spoke to, the clearer it became job seekers weren’t confused. They were emotionally exhausted 

Everyone we interviewed knew how to use the platform. That was never the issue. What wore them down was the silence. The time spent applying with care, only to feel like nothing landed. The tools were functional, but the experience left them drained. 

Understanding the Two Journeys

Some were applying every day. Others were just exploring. But both felt like the system wasn’t built for them. 

Two different stories kept coming up. One group was actively applying. The other was quietly testing the waters. But they were using the same tools, with no way to adjust for their intent or privacy. Both felt unseen in their own way.

Where the Experience Breaks

We realized the real drop-off didn’t happen before apply. It happened after, when the platform said nothing back. 

The moment of friction was not the search. It was what followed. No confirmation. No timeline. No feedback. And when effort leads to silence, people stop putting in the effort. 

What Other Platforms Get Right 

LinkedIn had the reach. But others offered something users quietly craved. 

We compared LinkedIn to other platforms like Indeed, StepStone, and Glassdoor. While LinkedIn led in visibility and volume, it fell short on user control. Competitors offered features like clearer application status, smarter filters, and more tailored alerts. These may seem small, but to a job seeker, they create a sense of progress and clarity. It became clear that LinkedIn’s opportunity wasn’t in doing more—it was in doing the right things better.

Ideas That Mattered Most

We didn’t chase trends. We looked for the moments where trust fell apart.

We narrowed our focus to the ideas that addressed the emotional gaps. These were not about reinventing the platform. They were about regaining the user's confidence at key moments, after they apply, when they wait, when they want to stay private, and when they need smarter suggestions. Our goal wasn’t to add complexity, but to remove uncertainty. 

What We Decided to Build 

We built six focused improvements to reduce doubt and bring people back into the process. 

Every feature we designed aimed to make job seekers feel more supported. 

Measuring What Matters 

How would we know if our LinkedIn redesign truly worked? 

To prove our design does more than look good, we imagined how LinkedIn could measure real change. 

What did we improve in the next round of iterations? 

Where the Real Gap Exists 

Users blame the market. But maybe the tools are the real problem. 

Our research showed how job seekers judge the market based on their own experience, while hiring managers struggle to fill roles despite open positions. This disconnect is not about a lack of jobs or talent, it is about tools that no longer match how both sides work today.

By focusing on the seeker’s journey, our solution addresses one part of this broken link and hints at how the entire market could be redefined to bring both sides closer. 

What We Learned 

What started with silence became a case for designing with empathy, not urgency. 

This project reminded us that people don’t disengage because the process is broken. They disengage because it feels like no one is listening. By listening closely and solving for trust—not just function—we saw how small, intentional changes could bring clarity to an emotionally heavy experience. That’s where good UX lives. Not in clever ideas, but in quiet confidence.