The agentic future of workplace recruitment
Something really weird is happening in the recruitment market. It’s kind of strange, and in an odd sort of way almost certainly retrogressive. It’s the growing reliance on artificial intelligence that’s impacting across the sector.
Look, think of it like this.
Back in the pre-AI days, recruiters would post jobs in a format they thought would most appeal to the kind of people they were looking for; Job seekers would search for jobs they liked the sound of; they would then write their own take on an application letter, including an authentic CV; recruiters would look at this to short list their candidates.
The process wasn’t perfect, not every recruiter knew what they were doing and not every applicant chose the right job, or the right approach to get the job.
In praise of authentic connection
But what made this work, at least some of the time, was that the process had space for human error, which also created space for authenticity. Sometimes you got the right hire.
Now things have changed. Look at the cycle…
Recruiters post jobs with the help of an AI designed to optimize the job listing.
People search for jobs with the help of an AI designed to find them the jobs they might like.
Applicants use AI to help write their job applications.
Both applicants and recruiters use AI to review and optimize CVs.
Recruiters use AI to vet the applications to short list the candidates.
Then there’s a human interview at some point, which may also have an AI component.
All of these breeds of AI are made by different people, they deploy slightly different rules, but the worst of it is that together they make it harder to shine out during the application process.
After all, everyone is machine-optimized, which inevitably means everyone seems to be more or less the same.
AI isn’t terribly forgiving, so if you try to take a different approach in your application chances are high you will just be rejected before you begin. At the same time, AI deploys rules such as limitations around age, experience, and other criteria far more aggressively than a human sorter might, meaning some excellent candidates may also get rejected at the beginning.
(That’s always been a problem with recruitment, but the removal of any human touch removes even the slight chance of a different outcome. Machines don’t ‘do‘ gut feeling.)
The ultimate result?
We’re not hiring humans anymore, we’re hiring the AI-boosted impression of a human. Ultimately that removes the human connection, obviates authenticity, and puts a machine-made barrier between people during the recruitment process.
All of this could be fine, all of this could be normal, perhaps if everyone does it, it kind of balances out, but with 48% of applicants using GenAI for their applications according to a recent Hays poll, we’re going to see more, not less, of this.
Is it appropriate?
Or does it really mean that governments and so-called welfare advisors need to take a different approach with those seeking work. Does it also mean that companies must continue to invest in people to go through these applications too, pulling out those wild cards AI will miss?
(I think it does, and think it is one of those sectors that exemplifies the so-called ‘soft skills’ AI proponents pretend the future job market will be all about. It won’t be. It will be tens of millions without work, because that’s how capital works).
After all, if everything is AI-automated, why does a potential recruit need to spend hours searching when they can simply setup an AI agent and go? But having established that the entire recruitment process is becoming some kind of weird digital twin of reality, in which AI-augmented resumes fly between AI-augmented recruitment teams, it’s hard to see the human in the future of human resources.
Plus, if there’s so much machinery involved, how do you cheat the system?
You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky, LinkedIn, and Mastodon.
