Lately I’ve noticed something. More and more applicants answer “no”, but still apply, when asked if they’re okay coming on-site a few days a week, even though the job ad clearly says “hybrid.” It’s not even hidden in fine print.

It made me think about how life was before we could ask these things upfront. How did we ever survive without pre-screening questions? Because honestly, I can’t imagine going back.

I recently went down a Reddit rabbit hole. You cannot expect me to see a thread called recruitinghell and not be curious. It gave me a real look into how candidates feel about screening questions. Some are fine with them, others see them as unnecessary hassle, and a few get frustrated.

The more I read, the more I realised that the problem is not that we ask questions. It’s what and how we ask. Nobody enjoys answering long, repetitive, or irrelevant forms. But a few clear and purposeful questions create something very different. They create understanding. These days I work with the ATS supported by JOIN (as I should, since I get to help find the people who take this product to the next level). But even before that, I’d been using it in other projects – mostly because it allows adding screening questions, even in the free version. In most cases, I tend to use questions like these:

• Are you open to a hybrid setup?
• What’s your expected salary range?
• When could you start?

That’s it. And I’m not trying to trip anyone up. I just want to avoid wasting time, because if we don’t do fully remote and that is what you want, how could we possibly make that work with a hybrid setup? And before anyone raises an eyebrow and says it’s not cool to ask about salary, let me say this: we’re transparent about the range we provide for each role (yet you’d be surprised by how many candidates add their phone numbers in this section).

Recent studies show that companies using pre-screening questions cut their average time to hire by up to a third. But beyond the data, what matters is that they protect both sides from disappointment.

The Point of Screening Questions Isn’t to Reject People

Let’s get one thing straight: screening questions aren’t obstacles. They’re a tool for alignment.

For recruiters, they save time and help focus on people who genuinely match the setup. For candidates, they prevent the frustration of investing energy into a process that was never going to work in the first place.

I understand why some candidates find them impersonal or unnecessary. Nobody wants to fill in a second CV in the form of a questionnaire. But when used well, they actually make the process more respectful. Because clarity is part of respect.

As said, adding screening questions not only shortens hiring time but, in my experience also increases capacity and, most importantly, improves conversion rates. That’s no surprise. The moment you move basic topics such as availability, work location, and compensation expectations to the start of the process, both sides save themselves a round of guessing games.

Where Frustration Actually Comes From

The frustration doesn’t come from being asked questions. It comes from how they’re asked.

The problem starts when screening questions become lazy – when they ask for long motivational essays before the first contact, repeat what’s already in the CV, or feel like an automated test of patience instead of a genuine attempt to understand fit.

Transparency Makes All the Difference

Let me emphasise again: As recruiters, we have the duty to be consistent. If we ask about salary, we should also make sure our range is visible in the ad. If we ask about hybrid work, we should clearly describe what that means in practice.

Candidates can handle clear expectations, but they have the right to be frustrated when the information feels hidden or the process feels one sided.

In my experience, screening questions can take a you a long way, but work best when they’re built on transparency.

They Make the Process More Human, Not Less

I know that sounds counterintuitive. Automation often gets blamed for removing the “human” from recruiting, but I think this is one of the cases where it does the opposite.

By asking a few honest questions early, we create space for more meaningful human conversations later. We avoid mismatches that waste energy and give candidates the chance to self-select based on real facts.

It’s should not be about filtering people out. It’s about helping the right ones get seen faster.