An unexpected legacy of Covid is that it has made workers reluctant to change jobs. They are cautious about relinquishing the security they have and they’re concerned about being “last one in, first one out” in sectors experiencing downsizing. And flexible working has taken the pressure off to relocate to avoid the dreaded commute.
“People are very happy with hybrid and remote working and are what’s known as ‘passive candidates’ – as in not actively looking for a change although they might consider one for a better salary or work-life balance,” says Breda Dooley, regional recruitment manager at Matrix recruitment. She adds that one of anomalies of the market is fewer candidates at more junior levels due to the exodus of younger workers denied the opportunity to travel during the pandemic.
Reluctant candidates mean recruiters have to work harder to fill roles but to some extent their job has been made easier by solutions such as applicant recruitment and tracking software. Now with AI assuming a more significant role in recruitment, there is even more scope for tech-led interventions although, as with most things AI at the moment, the jury is still out on whether this is a good or a bad thing.
“With the advent of AI, a number of issues arise such as software bias,” says Dooley. “Machines might seem impervious to bias but latent prejudices can permeate AI systems. AI is typically trained on historical data and if this data includes biases against particular demographics or groups, the AI could inadvertently pick up these cues and perpetuate disparities with discriminatory recruitment outcomes.
“More worrying, however, is the potential for exceptional candidates to be overlooked by automated recruitment tools due to nuances within their applications. These candidates may have qualities and attributes that only human recruiters can recognise, such as cultural fit, soft skills and potential for growth.”
We need to ensure that the personal nature of recruitment does not disappear to the detriment of candidates and employers alike and that AI is introduced with thought and oversight
Dooley says that when she started in recruitment more than 20 years ago, most job vacancies were advertised in print as platforms such as LinkedIn and Indeed didn’t exist. LinkedIn wasn’t formed until 2003 and Indeed followed a year later. Today, LinkedIn (now owned by Microsoft) has 930 million members in more than 200 countries while Japanese-owned Indeed’s official figure for monthly visitors is more than 350 million.
“Pre job boards and recruitment sites, hiring was very much in-person and that’s changed significantly,” says Dooley. “Technology has become integral to the recruitment process but we need to ensure that the personal nature of recruitment does not disappear to the detriment of candidates and employers alike and that AI is introduced with thought and oversight.”
On the other side of the fence are the companies developing the technologies the recruiters are using. This includes software company Greenhouse, which was founded in the US in 2012 and has been operating in Ireland for the past four years. Colm O’Cuinneain is the company’s general manager for EMEA and he says international research carried out by his organisation mirrors Dooley’s concerns about AI and bias in hiring in particular.
“The majority of HR professionals consulted believe there should be more education and training around AI tools while over 60 per cent felt there should be laws specifically governing AI tools to prevent bias,” says O’Cuinneain. The data, which also included results from 2,700 potential candidates, shows that HR professionals and candidates are equally undecided as to whether AI will lead to more or less bias in hiring.
“HR professionals definitely see AI as the future but there’s work to be done to ensure it is used ethically. One issue at the moment is that roughly 50 per cent of companies are not monitoring or evaluating the performance of AI tools in hiring,” O’Cuinneain says.
There are also lessons to be learned from the switch to hybrid and remote working. Nobody wrote down their strategy or guiding principles and now they’re struggling to figure them out
Echoing these concerns is Greenhouse’s VP for product and design, Henry Tsai, who says: “While AI is a beneficial tool for automating tasks and increasing efficiency, it shouldn’t be used in its present form to make human-based decisions like hiring ... As companies begin using AI, it’s critical that they are clear and transparent about how they are using it while being able to monitor and identify applications that could have a biased impact on a hiring decision.”
AI isn’t all one way, however. It can also make life easier for candidates. The Greenhouse survey shows that candidates are mostly using AI tools to save time on searches, identifying relevant roles and when applying for multiple jobs. Other main use cases are to help with or write CVs and covering letters, answer job adverts and prepare for interviews and skills testing.
O’Cuinneain expects the drive for greater efficiency in the hiring process to prompt both recruitment companies and in-house hiring managers to embrace AI more widely, especially for mundane tasks such as scheduling as well for broader aspects of the hiring process and to improve the candidate experience.
“AI managed in tandem with human involvement can make things faster, simpler and quicker but it has to be designed in a way that reduces the risk of exclusion,” he says.
“There are also lessons to be learned from the switch to hybrid and remote working. At the time, the urgent need was to become distributed, but in the main nobody wrote down their strategy or guiding principles and now they’re struggling to figure them out. I think the same holds for AI. Companies need to build their guiding principles around its use before they are overtaken by events.”
