For most roles, no. A cover letter has no demonstrated predictive value for job performance and it drives away candidates you actually want to speak to. Requiring one still holds up when writing is part of the job, when you need a documented record of motivation for compliance, or in very small specialist searches.
Key takeaways
A cover letter is meant to prove motivation and explain the CV, but in practice it measures something else. It measures whether someone is willing and able to write within the conventions employers are used to, and for most roles that skill has nothing to do with how well they will do the work.
This is not a new insight in selection psychology. Methods with demonstrated predictive validity for job performance all share one feature, which is that every candidate gets the same task and is assessed in the same way. A free-form text where everyone decides for themselves what to include lacks exactly that comparability, which is why there is little evidence that a cover letter predicts who becomes a good employee.
What does happen is that the letter affects the reader. A fluent letter makes a candidate likeable, and that goodwill carries through the rest of the process without anyone being able to explain which job requirement it tested.
As long as writing a cover letter cost time and effort, you could defend it as a test of commitment. That argument is gone. Researcher Djurre Holtrop of Tilburg University told Dutch broadcaster NOS that candidates who use AI for their cover letter are on average rated more highly than candidates who write it themselves.
That inverts what the letter measures. The candidate with a paid AI subscription and some prompting experience produces a stronger letter than the candidate who spends an evening on it. Anyone still using the letter as a motivation test is mostly testing who has the better tools.
In June 2026 Selection Lab asked 805 candidates who had just been through a hiring process what they do with the cover letter and what they think of it. More than a quarter did not write one for their most recent application, and the link between belief and behaviour was sharp. Candidates who do not believe the letter gives a fair picture leave it out almost three times as often as candidates who do.
That means a required cover letter does not filter neutrally. It filters on how seriously someone still takes the instrument, which is not a selection criterion anyone ever wrote into a job profile.
The full breakdown by age and belief is in the underlying study, Whoever doesn't believe in the cover letter leaves it out too.
Three things change almost every time, and it matters that you are ready for all three before you remove the field.
Your number of completed applications goes up, because the letter is one of the largest barriers in the form. At DPD, where screening runs over WhatsApp instead of a form with free-text fields, completion sits at 89 percent. That is the order of magnitude you move toward when you take barriers out.
Your reading shifts from free text to comparable answers. At Teleperformance, automated screening saves roughly fifteen minutes per applicant, and most of that difference is no longer having to interpret unstructured text.
And your selection quality only changes if you put something objective in its place. At Otto Workforce, where assessments sit early in the process, attrition in the first six months is 21 percent lower. That is the number that counts, because higher conversion without better selection only means you reject more people faster.
This is not an argument for dropping the cover letter everywhere. There are three cases where it still makes sense.
Outside those three cases, a required letter costs you candidates without giving you selection quality in return.
The mistake most organisations make is dropping the letter and putting nothing in its place. That replaces weak information with no information. Here is what can take over, depending on what you were trying to learn from the letter.
What you wanted from itWhat measures it betterWhen it fitsEffort to introduceMotivation for this roleTwo or three structured screening questions with a character limit, identical for everyoneAlwaysAn afternoonWhether someone can handle the workSituational judgement test built on scenarios from the role itselfOperational and customer-facing roles, high volumesSeveral weeks, scenarios must be builtReasoning ability and learning speedCognitive ability or intelligence testRoles where processing new information quickly is decisiveDays, using an existing testFit with the teamPersonality and motives scan alongside a structured interviewRoles with heavy collaboration or high attritionDays, plus alignment with the hiring managerExplanation of CV gapsChat screening that probes exactly what the CV raisesAlways, and it saves an interview roundDays to a weekWriting abilityA short, concrete writing task with a fixed scoring rubricOnly when writing is genuinely part of the jobA day for the rubric
Three numbers before and after the change, per role rather than per organisation.
Are you allowed to require a cover letter?
Yes, there is no legal barrier to asking for one. The question is not whether you may but whether it earns its place, and for most roles the answer is no because the letter has no demonstrated predictive value for job performance.
What replaces a cover letter in a hiring process?
Two or three structured screening questions with a character limit replace the motivation part, and an assessment or situational judgement test replaces the part where you were judging whether someone can handle the work. What matters is that every candidate answers the same question, which is exactly what a free-form letter does not do.
Do you get more applicants if you drop the cover letter?
Usually yes, because the letter is one of the largest barriers in an application form. The thing to watch is that you have to be able to process that extra volume, so always pair removing the letter with an objective screening step.
Can you tell whether a cover letter was written with AI?
Not reliably, and detection tools produce false positives regularly. More to the point, the distinction gains you nothing, because an AI-written letter predicts as little about job performance as a self-written one.
How do you assess cover letters fairly if you do use them?
By writing down in advance what you are scoring, by reading every answer on the same point in sequence rather than candidate after candidate, and by reading the letter only after you have scored the objective steps. That last point stops a fluent letter from colouring the rest of your judgement.
Should you make the cover letter optional or remove it entirely?
Removing it is clearer. An optional field means candidates who submit one still gain an advantage, which keeps the inequality without winning the information.
What do you say to a hiring manager who wants to keep it?
Ask which job requirement it tests and how they would compare two letters on that point. If no concrete answer comes back, the letter is a habit rather than a selection instrument. If a concrete answer does come back, you now have the basis for a structured question that measures the same thing and compares properly.
Written by Joeri Everaers, COO at Selection Lab.
.png)
For most roles, no. A cover letter has no demonstrated predictive value for job performance and it drives away candidates you actually want to speak to. Requiring one still holds up when writing is part of the job, when you need a documented record of motivation for compliance, or in very small specialist searches.
Key takeaways
A cover letter is meant to prove motivation and explain the CV, but in practice it measures something else. It measures whether someone is willing and able to write within the conventions employers are used to, and for most roles that skill has nothing to do with how well they will do the work.
This is not a new insight in selection psychology. Methods with demonstrated predictive validity for job performance all share one feature, which is that every candidate gets the same task and is assessed in the same way. A free-form text where everyone decides for themselves what to include lacks exactly that comparability, which is why there is little evidence that a cover letter predicts who becomes a good employee.
What does happen is that the letter affects the reader. A fluent letter makes a candidate likeable, and that goodwill carries through the rest of the process without anyone being able to explain which job requirement it tested.
As long as writing a cover letter cost time and effort, you could defend it as a test of commitment. That argument is gone. Researcher Djurre Holtrop of Tilburg University told Dutch broadcaster NOS that candidates who use AI for their cover letter are on average rated more highly than candidates who write it themselves.
That inverts what the letter measures. The candidate with a paid AI subscription and some prompting experience produces a stronger letter than the candidate who spends an evening on it. Anyone still using the letter as a motivation test is mostly testing who has the better tools.
In June 2026 Selection Lab asked 805 candidates who had just been through a hiring process what they do with the cover letter and what they think of it. More than a quarter did not write one for their most recent application, and the link between belief and behaviour was sharp. Candidates who do not believe the letter gives a fair picture leave it out almost three times as often as candidates who do.
That means a required cover letter does not filter neutrally. It filters on how seriously someone still takes the instrument, which is not a selection criterion anyone ever wrote into a job profile.
The full breakdown by age and belief is in the underlying study, Whoever doesn't believe in the cover letter leaves it out too.
Three things change almost every time, and it matters that you are ready for all three before you remove the field.
Your number of completed applications goes up, because the letter is one of the largest barriers in the form. At DPD, where screening runs over WhatsApp instead of a form with free-text fields, completion sits at 89 percent. That is the order of magnitude you move toward when you take barriers out.
Your reading shifts from free text to comparable answers. At Teleperformance, automated screening saves roughly fifteen minutes per applicant, and most of that difference is no longer having to interpret unstructured text.
And your selection quality only changes if you put something objective in its place. At Otto Workforce, where assessments sit early in the process, attrition in the first six months is 21 percent lower. That is the number that counts, because higher conversion without better selection only means you reject more people faster.
This is not an argument for dropping the cover letter everywhere. There are three cases where it still makes sense.
Outside those three cases, a required letter costs you candidates without giving you selection quality in return.
The mistake most organisations make is dropping the letter and putting nothing in its place. That replaces weak information with no information. Here is what can take over, depending on what you were trying to learn from the letter.
What you wanted from itWhat measures it betterWhen it fitsEffort to introduceMotivation for this roleTwo or three structured screening questions with a character limit, identical for everyoneAlwaysAn afternoonWhether someone can handle the workSituational judgement test built on scenarios from the role itselfOperational and customer-facing roles, high volumesSeveral weeks, scenarios must be builtReasoning ability and learning speedCognitive ability or intelligence testRoles where processing new information quickly is decisiveDays, using an existing testFit with the teamPersonality and motives scan alongside a structured interviewRoles with heavy collaboration or high attritionDays, plus alignment with the hiring managerExplanation of CV gapsChat screening that probes exactly what the CV raisesAlways, and it saves an interview roundDays to a weekWriting abilityA short, concrete writing task with a fixed scoring rubricOnly when writing is genuinely part of the jobA day for the rubric
Three numbers before and after the change, per role rather than per organisation.
Are you allowed to require a cover letter?
Yes, there is no legal barrier to asking for one. The question is not whether you may but whether it earns its place, and for most roles the answer is no because the letter has no demonstrated predictive value for job performance.
What replaces a cover letter in a hiring process?
Two or three structured screening questions with a character limit replace the motivation part, and an assessment or situational judgement test replaces the part where you were judging whether someone can handle the work. What matters is that every candidate answers the same question, which is exactly what a free-form letter does not do.
Do you get more applicants if you drop the cover letter?
Usually yes, because the letter is one of the largest barriers in an application form. The thing to watch is that you have to be able to process that extra volume, so always pair removing the letter with an objective screening step.
Can you tell whether a cover letter was written with AI?
Not reliably, and detection tools produce false positives regularly. More to the point, the distinction gains you nothing, because an AI-written letter predicts as little about job performance as a self-written one.
How do you assess cover letters fairly if you do use them?
By writing down in advance what you are scoring, by reading every answer on the same point in sequence rather than candidate after candidate, and by reading the letter only after you have scored the objective steps. That last point stops a fluent letter from colouring the rest of your judgement.
Should you make the cover letter optional or remove it entirely?
Removing it is clearer. An optional field means candidates who submit one still gain an advantage, which keeps the inequality without winning the information.
What do you say to a hiring manager who wants to keep it?
Ask which job requirement it tests and how they would compare two letters on that point. If no concrete answer comes back, the letter is a habit rather than a selection instrument. If a concrete answer does come back, you now have the basis for a structured question that measures the same thing and compares properly.
Written by Joeri Everaers, COO at Selection Lab.
