Jooble: Between Talent and Employers
Kateryna Cherniaieva is responsible for the DACH region at Jooble and views the job market from a rather fascinating perspective: On the one hand, Jooble sees what jobs employers are offering—and on the other, what talent is actually looking for.
And this is precisely where it becomes clear: In recruiting, there really isn’t “THE” German job market. While there’s a great deal of candidate interest in some occupational groups, employers in other fields are competing for a comparatively small pool of active attention.
In this interview, we discuss why sweeping statements about the skilled labor shortage fall short, the three completely different reasons behind a low number of applications, and why a larger recruiting budget sometimes simply solves the wrong problem. Let’s get started:
SAATKORN: Kateryna, please introduce yourself briefly to SAATKORN readers. And what does Jooble do?
I’m responsible for the DACH region at Jooble and have been working closely for several years with recruitment agencies, HR teams, ATS providers, and employers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Jooble is a global job search engine active in more than 65 countries. Every day, millions of people use our platform to search for jobs, and at the same time, we receive job postings from thousands of different partners. This allows us to combine two perspectives: We see what employers are looking for—and how talent actually searches for jobs.
Skills Shortage? Why Averages Don’t Explain the Job Market
SAATKORN: Why do some companies struggle for months to fill a position, while others receive a large number of applications for seemingly similar roles? Isn’t the skills shortage the simple answer?
It’s part of the answer, but it’s not the whole picture. If the job market were that simple, recruiting results wouldn’t vary so greatly across different industries, occupational groups, or even neighboring regions. But that’s exactly what happens.
We currently have less hiring momentum overall in Germany. At the same time, employers continue to face major difficulties filling certain key positions. Both realities can exist simultaneously.
SAATKORN: You say something quite insightful in your presentation: “The average is not the market.” What do you mean by that?
If we combine all open positions and all available candidates in Germany into a single metric, we get an average. But recruiters don’t hire based on this average. They’re looking for a specific person for a specific job, at a specific location, and with specific requirements. And when we dig a little deeper, we see completely different labor markets.
SAATKORN: Do you have an example of that?
Yes. For unskilled and semi-skilled jobs, for example, we see a very high level of job-seeker interest relative to the number of job openings. Here, the challenge for employers isn’t necessarily to generate even more reach. Rather, it’s about precision, targeting, and efficiently managing what could be a high volume of applications. For skilled trades and technical professions, we see almost the opposite: a comparatively large number of job openings, but significantly less active job-seeking demand. In these fields, employers compete much more intensely for a limited pool of candidate attention. Therefore, using the same recruitment strategy for both types of positions makes little sense.
SAATKORN: So a company can simultaneously face a shortage of skilled workers—and receive too many applications in other areas?
Absolutely. A company can have a very large pool of candidates for an entry-level operational position while generating hardly any relevant search activity for a specialized technical position. Lumping both together under the blanket term “skilled labor shortage” doesn’t help us understand where the actual recruiting problem lies.
That’s why the question shouldn’t just be: How many candidates are generally available? What’s far more important is: How high is the actual candidate demand for this exact position?
When Employers and Talent Speak Different Languages
SAATKORN: And even then, candidates apparently don’t necessarily search the way recruiters structure their job postings?
Exactly. That’s another very important point. More than two-thirds of search queries on Jooble can’t be directly assigned to a traditional occupational group. Employers often think first in terms of job titles, departments, seniority levels, and requirements. But job seekers may start their search from a completely different angle—for example, by asking: How do I actually want to work?
For example, we’re seeing a strong trend in search queries for employment types such as part-time or mini-jobs. Work models and employment types are themselves becoming criteria that people use to begin their job search.
SAATKORN: That’s why you talk about three different “languages” that need to be brought together in recruiting. What are they?
The language of occupational classification, the language candidates use in their search queries, and the language employers use in their job postings. All three can describe the same position—but in completely different ways. And that’s exactly where a matching problem can arise. A person may have a clear search intent, and a job might be a very good fit. Nevertheless, the two don’t find each other because the job posting doesn’t provide the right signals—or signals that are clear enough.
More Applications Through a Larger Budget? Why the Right Diagnosis Matters
SAATKORN: So if a job posting receives hardly any applications, does that mean there are no candidates at all?
Exactly. And that’s why we need to distinguish between three possible causes: availability, visibility, and relevance. Availability is about the question: Are there even enough people with the required profile? Visibility is about: Do these people even find my job posting? And relevance is about: They see my job posting—but does the offer meet their expectations?
This distinction is crucial because every problem requires a different solution.
SAATKORN: So the classic reflex—“too few applications = more media budget”—can actually be way off the mark?
Yes. If I have a visibility problem, increasing reach can certainly make sense. But if candidates are already seeing my job posting and still decide against applying, increasing reach will only help me to a limited extent.
In our DACH survey of nearly 1,000 active job seekers, for example, 43 percent said they stop reading if a job description is too vague. 30 percent drop out if the requirements seem unrealistic or overwhelming. And nearly one in three people drop out if salary details are missing. These aren’t problems I can simply solve with a larger media budget.
SAATKORN: What should recruiters do instead before deciding on the next step?
First, diagnose the problem. In many companies, the discussion starts with a potential solution: more budget, additional platforms, or more active sourcing. But before we choose measures, we should understand whether we have a problem with availability, visibility, or relevance. The diagnosis should determine the recruiting strategy—not the other way around.
From Recruiting KPIs to Better Decisions: What Market Data Really Achieves
SAATKORN: Does that also apply to recruiting KPIs?
Yes. Because KPIs also need market context. Many companies evaluate very different positions using the same metrics: number of applications, cost per application, or time to fill. But 20 qualified applications for a position in a field with a genuine labor shortage can be an excellent result. Conversely, 200 applications for a position with a very large pool of candidates may indicate a targeting problem if only a small portion of them are actually relevant. Without market context, KPIs can therefore quickly paint a misleading picture.
SAATKORN: What does this mean in practical terms for the job posting?
If we understand how people actually search for jobs, we should also incorporate this information into the job posting. Employment type, working hours, flexibility, salary, and other relevant conditions should be clearly identifiable and communicated in a structured manner. The job posting itself thus becomes part of the matching strategy.
The question isn’t just: Where do I post my job? But also: Can talent quickly tell whether this position is even relevant to them?
SAATKORN: And what benefits does market data offer beyond day-to-day recruiting?
It can significantly improve communication between recruiters, hiring managers, and company leadership. With data, for example, I can explain why a position remains unfilled for a longer period, why an additional media budget doesn’t solve a structural candidate shortage, or why a change in salary or flexibility might have a greater impact than increased reach. That’s when market data evolves from a reporting tool into a decision-making tool.
SAATKORN: If recruiters were to take away just one thing from our conversation—what should it be?
Understand your own market. The German labor market cannot be explained by a single metric or diagnosis. Behind national averages lie many different labor markets—depending on occupation, region, and industry. Market data should therefore not be used simply to collect even more statistics. It should help us make better decisions.
SAATKORN: Kateryna, thank you very much for the interview!