I didn't see any cult like exuberance. I used to hire and the "cover letter" criteria I had was basically looking for some hint they were deliberately applying for this job because it interested them. That's what I get from the OP. It's not about looking for someone who's pretending they've found their life's passion. It's about preferring people who (hopefully honestly) indicate this would be something they'd want to do because of some fit between them and the job. That's not a burdensome, not cultish requirement.
As an aside, I saw a cool job not long ago where they wanted your application email to have the subject line "$demonym reporting for duty", where $demonym is the cutesy name, like metamate that employees were supposed to call themselves. That is cultish, and puts me off applying way more than being asked for an sentence on why I'm a fit for the job.
Couldn't it be a simple test of whether the applicant had read the posting thoroughly? It's a quick filter to remove anyone who didn't manage to fulfill this no-effort criteria in their application.
A lot of applicants simply send their resumes to any position that is vaguely relevant, without diving into the details of the role.
Yes, they definitely helps. I posted some jobs on linkedin and got absolutely garbage applicants. So the next time I wrote "do not apply on LinkedIn, email cv to xxxx". It was unbelievable to see how I had exactly the same wave of useless applications come in via LinkedIn's automated process, which I got to summarily ignore, and got a way higher average quality sent by email.
> they were deliberately applying for this job because it interested them
If they sent the CV, they did deliberate apply for the job.
I always hated writing cover letters, always felt like the employer wanted me to do some groveling before I earned the right to be graced with an interview.
It’s the cult like exuberance that seems to be demands by GP and sibling comments.