I kind of hate to visit LinkedIn these days. All I see are posts from people who have been out of work for far too long; recruiters making recommendations of all the things you should and should not do when applying for jobs, and ongoing frustration/desperation that good people cannot find employment. It’s extremely disheartening.
I’m not an expert on the topic, nor have I done a ton of research on it, but I can’t help but think there is a correlation in the rise of AI and the use of Applicant Tracking Systems. It seems that the substitution of computers over human analysis has been counterproductive for both employers and job seekers alike.
If you’re getting hundreds of resumes, then the assistance to weed out people who do not have the qualifications or experience can be beneficial. I understand that. But when job seekers are tailoring their resumes to “beat the system,” how qualified are they, really? Additionally, if we know that most people are promoted because they perform tasks well, not because they have good people skills, then how can we fully trust the interviewers judgement on hiring qualified and capable candidates?
In a study conducted by BrightHire, it confirms that candidates have a very limited opportunity to present their skills and their odds of advancement in the interview process heavily depends on the effectiveness of the interviewer. Additionally, job descriptions offer details of what employers claim to need for a position, but those skills are too frequently superficially addressed and rarely analyzed in sufficient depth.
Supposedly, AI can and will replace like 90% of people’s jobs (or whatever number depending on the source). However, according to Harvard Business School professor Karim Lakhani, AI won’t replace humans, but humans without AI will get replaced by humans with AI.
I support this – to a certain extent. I think there are many different ways AI can be incorporated into our workplaces to add enormous value. But hiring, recruiting, interviewing – these are human-centered activities that should remain human-centered. We know the damage and consequences that have arisen from lack of human interaction and social connection. Yet, we continuously embrace technologies that further this divide.
Most of the complaints that I hear from job seekers is that they don’t get treated like humans. It’s an automated rejection email, if that. You reach out to someone on LinkedIn to receive no response. You spend hours tailoring a resume and a cover letter, and manually inputting the exact same information into the website, after being required to create another username and password, with absolutely no acknowledgement. In a period of vulnerability and necessity, you provide personal information to faceless companies. It’s no wonder people grow frustrated with the process.
Personally, I believe that there is so much value in doing certain things the “old school” way. Someone’s qualifications, experience, skills, capabilities, and character cannot be adequately summarized in a couple of pages. As an employer, I sympathize with the bombardment of candidates, and the business necessity of simplifying the screening process. At the same time, I think that employers are missing out on great candidates, because they’re actually bringing their authentic selves rather than playing the AI game.
Either way, it feels like a double-edged sword. I don’t know the best way to fix the job market, but I am confident that we’re not making it better by taking the human out of Human Resources.