The rise of AI-driven hiring processes has undoubtedly transformed the recruitment landscape, and we know it. But is it fair that AI defines if you deserve a job? Ultimately, the answer to this question is not just a technical or logistical issue, it is a profoundly ethical one. AI (artificial intelligence) has revolutionised the way we interact with technology, increasingly permeating various aspects of our lives, from virtual assistants to complex algorithms shaping our online experiences.
As AI continues to push the boundaries of what is possible, impacting not just personal endeavours but also professional pursuits, one important question emerges: is it fair that AI defines if you deserve a job?
According to research from Aptitude, 55 percent of the companies are increasing their investment in recruitment automation. At the same time, according to research from workday, 93 percent of business leaders believe humans should be involved in AI decision-making.
The problem about match making is that the rise of AI-driven hiring processes has undoubtedly transformed the recruitment landscape, and we know it. The reality is: algorithms sift through resumes, analyse candidates’ online profiles, and even conduct initial interviews, all in search of the potential employee match.
In addition to optimising time, dealing with a high volume of applications, proponents argue that AI streamlines the hiring process, reducing bias and increasing assertiveness. However, according to Aptitude’s research, most companies that invest in technology usually tend to dismiss the human aspects of the process, having as impact:
- relying on resumes for candidate data
- failing to reduce and interrupt bias early in the talent acquisition process
- leveraging systems that do not provide a status update for candidates
- failing to create a standardised interview process for every candidate
- providing the same automated feedback and messaging to every candidate
- ignoring candidates once they are rejected
It’s a fact that as much as we do now have a lot of improvement in technology, AI still lacks the nuanced understanding of human experiences and context that human recruiters possess. Practically speaking, this means that they may overlook valuable aspects that cannot be quantified, such as creativity, emotional intelligence and last, but very important, cultural fit to the company or mission.
AI-driven hiring processes may even widen existing disparities in access to employment opportunities
Are processes truly assessing a candidate’s potential to excel in a role or merely select individuals who conform to a predetermined set of criteria then?
Rather than levelling the chances of getting the job, AI-driven hiring processes may even widen existing disparities in access to employment opportunities. And this is because those with access to resources and education to optimise their online profiles or tailor their resumes to align with AI preferences may gain an unfair advantage over others who lack such privileges. In this sense, there is a lack of equity in the process. As HRs, the goal of the recruitment process would be to increase the level of equity in a recruitment process, not the opposite.
Unfortunately, for most companies this use of automation will probably ignore the impact on the candidate. Human recruiters can be empathetic, intuitive, and understand context, qualities, experiences and behaviour that are indispensable in evaluating candidates. Ultimately, the question of whether AI should define if someone deserves a job is not just a technical or logical issue, it is a profoundly ethical one.
Humanising AI
On the other hand, it is true that technology can help recruiters, companies and candidates, when used in a responsible way. How would it be an effective and more human use of the AI-recruitment tool? Here are some practical tips:
- Personalise the connection: candidates that receive communication should include personalised messaging that can help inform where they are on their journey.
- Provide consistent communication: candidates should be communicated with at various points throughout their journey. Automation can guarantee ongoing engagement with every candidate, even if they are not progressing in the process.
- Give feedback and action items: simply providing candidates with general feedback can demotivate them. However, if companies utilise assessment data to offer tailored feedback and actionable insights, candidates may feel empowered despite rejection.
- Create a continuous test for bias: to reduce bias, AI solutions must have a hypothesis in place, by continually testing hypotheses as they collect new data, such as developing algorithms that can detect biased patterns or outcomes in the AI’s decision-making process, among many others.
When writing about this subject, I couldn’t help but wonder how David Ogilvy would fare in today’s AI-based recruitment processes. Ogilvy had a diverse background, having worked as a chef, a door-to-door salesman, and even a farmer. At 38, with no prior experience in advertising, he entered the industry and quickly made a name for himself. Just a few years later, his firm, Ogilvy & Mather, became one of the most prestigious advertising agencies globally. Often hailed as the “Father of Advertising,” Ogilvy’s innovative, data-driven approach transformed the industry, and his influence continues to be felt today.
This leads to a thought-provoking question: In an AI-driven hiring landscape, would someone like David Ogilvy be given a chance? Would his unconventional resume have led to an automatic rejection? Would he have been allowed to share his unique insights, his profound understanding of people, and his visionary outlook? As we ponder these questions, we must remember the essence of what drives success: it’s all about people. Let’s ensure we don’t overlook the potential in unconventional paths and diverse experiences.
Images: Microsoft Copilot generated images based on David Ogilvy’s legendary campaign for The Man in the Hathaway Shirt
July 17, 2024
Is it fair that AI defines if you deserve a job?
by Paul Anderson-Walsh • AI, Comment, Workplace
As AI continues to push the boundaries of what is possible, impacting not just personal endeavours but also professional pursuits, one important question emerges: is it fair that AI defines if you deserve a job?
According to research from Aptitude, 55 percent of the companies are increasing their investment in recruitment automation. At the same time, according to research from workday, 93 percent of business leaders believe humans should be involved in AI decision-making.
The problem about match making is that the rise of AI-driven hiring processes has undoubtedly transformed the recruitment landscape, and we know it. The reality is: algorithms sift through resumes, analyse candidates’ online profiles, and even conduct initial interviews, all in search of the potential employee match.
In addition to optimising time, dealing with a high volume of applications, proponents argue that AI streamlines the hiring process, reducing bias and increasing assertiveness. However, according to Aptitude’s research, most companies that invest in technology usually tend to dismiss the human aspects of the process, having as impact:
It’s a fact that as much as we do now have a lot of improvement in technology, AI still lacks the nuanced understanding of human experiences and context that human recruiters possess. Practically speaking, this means that they may overlook valuable aspects that cannot be quantified, such as creativity, emotional intelligence and last, but very important, cultural fit to the company or mission.
Are processes truly assessing a candidate’s potential to excel in a role or merely select individuals who conform to a predetermined set of criteria then?
Rather than levelling the chances of getting the job, AI-driven hiring processes may even widen existing disparities in access to employment opportunities. And this is because those with access to resources and education to optimise their online profiles or tailor their resumes to align with AI preferences may gain an unfair advantage over others who lack such privileges. In this sense, there is a lack of equity in the process. As HRs, the goal of the recruitment process would be to increase the level of equity in a recruitment process, not the opposite.
Unfortunately, for most companies this use of automation will probably ignore the impact on the candidate. Human recruiters can be empathetic, intuitive, and understand context, qualities, experiences and behaviour that are indispensable in evaluating candidates. Ultimately, the question of whether AI should define if someone deserves a job is not just a technical or logical issue, it is a profoundly ethical one.
Humanising AI
On the other hand, it is true that technology can help recruiters, companies and candidates, when used in a responsible way. How would it be an effective and more human use of the AI-recruitment tool? Here are some practical tips:
When writing about this subject, I couldn’t help but wonder how David Ogilvy would fare in today’s AI-based recruitment processes. Ogilvy had a diverse background, having worked as a chef, a door-to-door salesman, and even a farmer. At 38, with no prior experience in advertising, he entered the industry and quickly made a name for himself. Just a few years later, his firm, Ogilvy & Mather, became one of the most prestigious advertising agencies globally. Often hailed as the “Father of Advertising,” Ogilvy’s innovative, data-driven approach transformed the industry, and his influence continues to be felt today.
This leads to a thought-provoking question: In an AI-driven hiring landscape, would someone like David Ogilvy be given a chance? Would his unconventional resume have led to an automatic rejection? Would he have been allowed to share his unique insights, his profound understanding of people, and his visionary outlook? As we ponder these questions, we must remember the essence of what drives success: it’s all about people. Let’s ensure we don’t overlook the potential in unconventional paths and diverse experiences.
Paul Anderson-Walsh is CEO of ENOLLA Consulting, a specialised consultancy with focus on human inclusion
Images: Microsoft Copilot generated images based on David Ogilvy’s legendary campaign for The Man in the Hathaway Shirt