BY ARISTOS PATSALIDIS

16 June 2026

For us young professionals entering our careers and striving towards our envisioned manifested futures, the repetitive task of applying for openings in our desired—or undesired—job market has transformed into a recurring exercise in dealing with a gut-wrenching rejection. That is, whether you are simply trying to financially survive in the cities that so brutally rejects their youth, or once again attempting to chase a dream that, with every rejection, appears further away than before. 

This is the soul-wrecking ritual of job hunting, that is currently eroding the spirit of Gen Z professionals who are so eagerly attempting to enter their chosen industries. A process that gradually transforming you into a stricter version of yourself that does not necessarily shield itself from disappointment, but rather makes you numb to it. 

The difference with previous generations?  Gen Z is increasingly aware that CVs are often deleted or ignored within seconds, aware that there is a lack of constructive feedback that could actually help candidates in future interviews, and, finally aware, that there is a growing sense that some role listings in circulation—often supported or enabled by broader institutional structures—are never truly intended to be filled. 

So doesn’t this growing awareness begin to resemble a process that feels largely predetermined, where individuals move through a structured system they cannot meaningfully influence, following each step with the hope of a different outcome, even as the results often feel unchanged?

What intensifies this sense of predetermination is the way the process is actually experienced in practice: applications are first filtered by automated systems that reduce a person to simple keywords; then the applicants are narrowed further through layers of standardised scoring, timed assessments, and scripted interviews that reward familiarity with format over originality of thought. By the time a human decision is finally made, much of the individuality of the candidate has already been stripped away, leaving only a pre-shaped version of them that fits within the system’s narrow evaluative frame. You have now passed the first step of the the interview process.

This is our generational ritual, a repetitive draining process of humiliation that flattens you. A degradation of oneself in an application-like ceremonial process, that destroys and replaces the high-hopers and dreamers of this generation, into mass-generated versions of their selves, that closely mimic one-another. Smaller and somewhat numb navigating through our hopes in-between a fictional reality, narrated to us by previous generations, and financial survival.

But what benefit does this process ultimately bring to any industry’s future, when it has effectively selected the “survivors” of a Hunger Games-like system, while potentially filtering out those who might have been capable of shaping it to survive its future challenges?

It is worth questioning the extent to which individuals who do not necessarily conform to, or cater to, the linear structure of the interviewing process are ever given the opportunity to shape the future of the very industries being built for them. As to what value is there in attempting to understand a young professional through their conversational narration of themselves when applying for roles that are ultimately data-driven, word-shaped, or design-based? But also, how can a young professional be expected to demonstrate their future capacity to impact an industry based on a version of themselves that they are required to “sell” to a recruiter—whether that is a truthful narration of who they are, or a more fictional, optimised version shaped to fit what is considered acceptable?