Job seekers are walking away from AI interviews as transparency issues fuel candidate pushback

Recruiters turn to AI in quest to find the perfect connection

Speak to recruiters about what makes their job truly worthwhile, and many talk about the satisfaction of knowing they have paired the right candidate with the right job, leaving everyone happy. But in the AI era, finding that perfect connection is proving challenging. Against the backdrop of a cooling labour market, the ease of making applications -- from putting together a CV to optimising a cover letter to meet specific criteria -- has fuelled what Daniel Chait, chief executive of hiring platform Greenhouse, calls an "AI doom loop". Companies are being inundated with applications -- recent research from Greenhouse found applications per job have more than doubled since 2022 -- but are constrained in their ability to distinguish between high-quality candidates and AI slop. "There's less and less signal," he says. Candidates, meanwhile, face the challenge of trying to tailor their applications to meet the (often opaque) requirements of the AI-driven filtering tools being used by the recruiters. Despite the difficulties, recruiters say the use of AI has several advantages. Bryan Ackermann, head of AI strategy at recruitment firm Korn Ferry, says automating the mechanics of recruitment is essential to "clear the decks for those human moments" -- when the recruiter lands on the most promising candidate. However he adds that "we are not believers that AI is going to take [the whole process] from first touch to the first day". Scott McGuckin, vice-president of global talent acquisition at US tech group Cisco, claims AI has had a "transformative effect" on his team, "free[ing] up time for more strategic and creative work, and enabl[ing] recruiters to better support the business." While large language models have been used to match candidates with job openings for several years, generative AI has further enhanced the process for some recruiters. Korn Ferry uses the technology to gather industry information and create long lists of candidates. Recruitment agency Robert Half has developed its own tool called AI Recommended Talent to produce shortlists, which it says are very successful at highlighting promising candidates. Its other generative AI tool, AI Recommended Clients, is used to bring newly registered candidates to market. Many organisations are using AI from the very start of the hiring process, often to write job descriptions or create assessments, according to a survey from BCG. Recruiters at Cisco, for instance, use the company's internal AI tool CircuIT to generate first drafts of job descriptions and receive recommendations on assessment processes based on the requirements of the role for which they are hiring. We are not believers that AI is going to take [the whole process] from first touch to the first day Once the applications are in, hiring teams are using AI to filter the candidates. British supercar maker McLaren, for example, introduced Microsoft tools in September to support screening for its graduate scheme. "With more than 21,000 applications received, it was essential to adopt an efficient and consistent approach to streamline the initial selection," the company says. And after the initial application stage, AI is increasingly being used in interviews. Eightfold, which develops AI tools for recruiters, rolled out AI Interviewer last year, an agent that conducts technical interviews to supplement knockout-stage interviews conducted by humans. Staffing company Randstad launched its own AI chatbots to conduct screening interviews last year -- it runs one in India that can communicate with local talent in the country's 30-plus languages. There is a limit to the extent to which AI can feature in the recruitment process -- the EU AI Act ensures the technology cannot be used to make hiring decisions, for example. But legislation aside, many believe in the fundamental value of human judgement. "No AI model can find personality," says Matt Weston, senior managing director for the UK and Ireland at Robert Half. "You've got to take the skill sets and qualifications and marry [them] up with the human aspect. That's what defines a truly successful placement." No AI model can find personality Indeed, executive-level recruiters, who are less likely to face issues of volume, maintain a largely human process. Paul Blant, chief executive of London-based Finatal, which specialises in C-suite hiring across private equity-backed industries, describes recruitment for them as "a 95 per cent human judgement kind of process". Martin de Weerdt, chief information officer at Randstad, believes AI is an opportunity to "re-personalise" recruitment. The company uses AI to stay in touch with people on its database and facilitate meaningful conversation between recruiters and candidates. "Staffing companies can now show an interest again at a scale that would have been humanly impossible." Chait of Greenhouse, however, thinks the impact of AI over the long term could be far more radical. "With AI, [hiring] is open for total re-imagination," he says. "What shows up at the front door of a company doesn't have to be a résumé . . . but your job-seeking agent that knows you, where you've worked and what you're interested in doing next." Likewise, on the company side, "it's an agent . . . it'll know for this opening, what are the important criteria? Who'd be great at this job?" He adds: "You've got this future where you have agentic candidates and agentic hiring managers trying to find each other and tell each other a story with human beings at the centre of it."

'Most AI in hiring today is making a bad system worse': Candidates are hitting back at employers using AI interviews - with many prepared to walk out

* Candidates are increasingly pushing back on AI interviews * Greenhouse study finds workers happy to walk away if they see AI being used * Employers need to be more open and honest about the tools they are using New research has exposed how many businesses are now using AI in job interviews, but often not declaring the fact the technology is used - leading to candidates increasingly choosing to walk away. A study from Greenhouse surveying nearly 3,000 candidates in the UK found half (47%) of UK job seekers have now been interviewed by an AI as part of the recruitment process. However the vast majority of candidates (82%) say they were never clearly told upfront that AI would be evaluating them, and one in four (24%) said they only found this out once the interview had started. AI interviews are not for us All this dishonesty has led to candidates increasingly rejecting companies using AI in their interviews - with Greenhouse finding 30% of UK candidates saying they have already walked away from a hiring process because it included an AI interview, and another 19% say they would. The biggest triggers for UK candidates walking away from the process include: pre-recorded video interviews scored by AI with no human present (25%), companies failing to disclose how AI would be used (24%), and AI monitoring during the process (24%). More than one in four (27%) also reported they felt some form of age bias from AI evaluations, with 17% flagged race or ethnicity bias. "Most AI in hiring today is making a bad system worse: more applications, less signal, and less transparency," says Daniel Chait, CEO and Co-Founder of Greenhouse. Overall, the survey found just one in 10 candidates said employers had clear AI policies - despite nearly two-thirds (59%) believing such a disclosure should be a legal requirement. However this isn't always leading to blanket opposition when it comes to using AI in the hiring process - in fact, only 19% of those surveyed said they want less AI in hiring. Many called for greater guardrails, such as companies being upfront about their usage (40%), providing a clear explanation of what AI is measuring (36%), and the option to request a human interview instead (45%). "...The process AI is being built on top of was already broken," Chait added. "Nobody likes writing CVs and filling out clunky job applications. Candidates want a better way to get seen, and companies want a better way to find the right people. A 15-minute conversation with an AI where a candidate can show who they are is a better front door than a keyword-stuffed CV. That's not going to come from layering AI on top of a broken process. It's going to come from building a better one." Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.

'Completely horrible': UK job hunters share frustration with AI interviews

People describe awkward and unnatural process as survey finds nearly half of job seekers have been interviewed by AI Nearly half (47%) of UK job seekers have had an AI interview, research from the hiring platform Greenhouse has found. In its survey of 2,950 active job seekers, including 1,132 UK-based workers, with additional respondents from the US, Germany, Australia and Ireland, it found that 30% of UK candidates had walked away from a hiring process because it included an AI interview. We asked people about their experiences of AI interviews. The responses included those who found it "awkward" and "humiliating". Others spoke of wanting a human element in the interviews, and said they were not sure if their interview had even been reviewed. Here are some of the responses. Thomas*, 21, who is at university in the north of England, says he found the AI interview component of his job applications "frustrating". He has applied for 15 jobs, and around 10 of them have involved AI interviews. In addition to these, they often have personality assessments and numerical and skills tests, all of which are completed online. Once he passed those, he was invited for an AI interview. "Most companies do faceless interviews, where you are given a prerecorded video of someone asking a question, followed by up to two minutes to plan a response, followed by three minutes to give your answer," he says. "These are the worst of the three tests, as it feels strange talking into a camera, and it can be difficult to speak naturally. You can't see anyone other than yourself. "It doesn't feel real, it's like you're looking into a mirror and speaking to yourself. There's no human interaction. If you had an in-person interview, you'd be able to see how someone's reacting and that they're acknowledging what you say." Most of these interviews lasted about 10 minutes, but the longest one Thomas had was half an hour. He says that once he got through to the later rounds in the job application process, he would then have a face-to-face interview, which he described as "really good". Thomas has secured a job and will start in September. In the meantime, he wishes companies could improve the AI interview experience. Susannah*, 44, a scientist living in Cambridge, says she found her AI interview "awkward and humiliating". After completing an online form last year for a "senior" scientific role, she sent off her CV and covering letter as requested and was then invited for an AI interview. Before the interview, she was asked for permission to let them use an AI interviewing system. Susannah says there "wasn't any option not to accept, if I wanted to proceed with the application". "The interview comprised five questions, and the whole thing lasted only 10 minutes or so," she says. "I found it awkward and the whole process humiliating." The interview took the form of a series of questions displayed on her computer screen, each of which she had to answer within three minutes. She would hit the record button when she began to speak, and a countdown clock would start on the screen. She says the "questions were very general, focused on behaviour at the workplace and could be applied to many other roles". About a week later, she "received very general feedback and a rejection". "I'm not even sure anybody watched the interview," she adds. Susannah says she understands why companies use AI interviews. "There are just so many applications for these jobs that an HR department would not be able to go through them all." Susannah, who is now contracting, says people do the AI interviews "because we are so desperate" for work. David*, 47, a marketing consultant living in Spain, says his AI interview was "completely horrible for the autistic brain". "What followed was awkward to say the least," he says of the 20-minute process. "I struggled immediately. I spoke in bullet points and keywords. The real me, who would take his time to understand the actual challenge and constraints of a project, would never deliver like that. In my line of work, there are always questions to ask before any solution can have merit. It's a two-way thing and always will be." Despite feeling he had not done well, he was invited to an interview with the chief executive of the company, who told David that he had put the AI interview transcripts through ChatGPT to see what it made of the candidates. Although David understands AI's usefulness in some circumstances, he was not impressed with his first AI interview. "AI interviews are one-way. They minimise the investment for the hiring party and maximise the strain on the potential supplier. They're also completely horrible for the autistic brain, and I presume not much nicer for others. "For me, it's the worst thing possible, a countdown, answering a blank screen, no context. I can't ask the question. But also, I don't know if that's autism or everyone, but I can't pause, so you're going to get some generic garbage out of me if you put me on the spot in a panic like that. I guess my garbage was strong enough, but it wasn't true." Tom, a project manager living in Scotland, applied for a "side hustle" job - and said this probably made him view the AI interview with intrigue rather than ire. "If this had been a day job I was going for, I think I would have been far more grumpy about it," says Tom, who is in his late 40s. After he submitted his CV, he was invited for an interview with an AI agent, which conducted a "reasonable" conversation with Tom via his computer screen. He likened it to a phone conversation, albeit one with the odd glitch. "When I would pause, ready to continue my answer, the AI agent had decided I'd finished, so repeatedly interrupted and moved on to the next question despite the answer not being complete," he says. "The agent also picked up and reinforced the most minor points. I found it mildly amusing and intriguing, but then I am not depending on getting this job, so I could be a bit more relaxed about it." He said an AI interview "can't yet pick up on the subtleties of body language". "Also, an interview should be a two-way thing: the potential employer interviewing you, but also I am interviewing them to see if I want the job." The job was an AI-related project, so he says he can understand why the interview took the format it did. "I don't think the technology is ready for a full-blown interview yet - I guess maybe it depends on what sort of job you'll end up doing. But I think the human touch is probably a good thing, and I hope that lasts as long as possible."

Nearly 4 in 10 job candidates have bailed on a hiring round because it required an AI interview | Fortune

Even if they go through with an AI interview, many job-seekers are met with radio silence afterwards.Vadym Pastukh -- Getty Images Workers are worried about AI taking their jobs -- and it turns out they hate it when AI is involved in their screenings for roles, too. Now, virtual avatars and chatbots have made their way into interview rounds, and it's triggering some candidates to drop out of the running altogether. Around 63% of U.S. job-seekers have been interviewed by AI, according to a recent report from Greenhouse -- a 13% increase from just six months ago. Sharawn Tipton, chief people officer of Greenhouse, tells Fortune HR professionals are deploying AI interviewers to "filter the flood" of applications trying to stand out in an intensely competitive labor market. "Recruiters are inundated and they're worried about being replaced. There's a trust gap on both sides, and technology is outpacing change management. Nobody's explaining to candidates that the process looks different now," Tipton says. "The cost of all of this falls hardest on candidates." But it's a serious professional turn-off: Around 38% of candidates have already withdrawn from a hiring process because it included an AI interview, and another 12% say they would drop out if they were required to do an AI interview. Even when they go through with it, the outcome doesn't tend to be fruitful -- about 51% of candidates who completed an AI interview were either ghosted entirely, or are still waiting to hear back. However, it should be noted the report didn't provide data to compare against human interviewers, who have also been known to go dark on applicants. Tipton says poor AI interviewer experiences could backfire on employers; job-hunters will talk to their friends about the bad encounter, or post about it on social media. "Candidates aren't walking away from AI. They're walking from bad experiences caused by bad AI. They're reacting to a feeling of being processed rather than considered," the Greenhouse executive explains. "I talked to someone recently who'd just gotten a rejection email, and the wording of it made her feel like she was nothing." Tipton says that the AI-enabled interviewing process has become an "arms race, not a hiring process." Job candidates feel that they have to play the numbers game just to be seen, while hiring managers deploy the technology to filter through thousands of applicants faster. In planning how to move forward with AI interviewing, the Greenhouse CPO advises employers to take a step back and assess their hiring process. She advises hiring managers to show that a person with judgment is reviewing AI assessments, alongside providing the option of a human interviewer. "There's a lot of focus on [AI] efficiency and productivity, but not enough on who benefits from that and who doesn't," Tipton says, also noting it could exacerbate the gap between talent who are coached on the tools, and those who don't have that access. "If employers aren't intentional about this now, AI hiring will scale the same inequities the industry has been trying to break, just faster." KPMG issued a slew of layoffs affecting its U.S. audit partners and advisory workers after its voluntary retirement push fell short in convincing enough employees to leave. Wall Street Journal Entry-level jobs requiring AI skills have doubled over the past year -- and roles in government, health care, and education are seeing the "sharpest growth." CNBC The labor market's cloudy skies are briefly clearing up, as U.S. jobless aid applications fell to 189,000 at the end of April -- the lowest number in more than five decades. ABC News Everything you need to know from Fortune. Lemons into lemonade. America's biggest Black-owned lender, OneUnited Bank, launched a podcast series interviewing high-profile guests on reframing a shameful experience as a success story. -- Nick Lichtenberg Meeting faux pas. Wrapping up a work meeting with high praise of its efficiency is actually a sign of a "bad" meeting, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says. Here's his favorite way to end them. -- Preston Fore

Employers are blindsiding candidates with AI interviews -- and scaring them off

The AI interview has grown so ubiquitous, in fact, that a new report from the hiring platform Greenhouse found that nearly two-thirds of job seekers have been interviewed by AI during the hiring process -- an increase of 13 percentage points from just six months ago. But that doesn't mean they are happy about it. In a Greenhouse survey of almost 1,200 job seekers across the U.S., 38% said they had dropped out of a hiring process that involved being interviewed by AI, while another 12% said they would do so if presented with an AI interview. That's quite notable when workers are faced with a low-hire, low-fire job market, which has kept unemployment low while also making it difficult to find new jobs -- especially as companies continue cutting jobs over AI. It's not that workers are surprised that they might encounter AI during the hiring process. After all, job seekers now regularly use AI to spruce up their resumes and apply to jobs en masse, forcing employers to wade through a glut of applications -- some of which hiring managers argue can misrepresent or overstate workers' qualifications.