Neurosight

?? We are delighted to have been shortlisted in two categories at the National Graduate Recruitment Awards 2025 with targetjobs UK ?? ?? Best Innovation in Assessment and Selection ?? This is for our partnership with Neurosight and implementing our new online candidate assessment. ?? The Most Popular Graduate Recruiter in Accounting and Financial Management ?? A huge thank you to our dedicated team involved with early careers, we look forward to sharing the outcomes of the awards over the next few months. #WeAreForvisMazars #Innovation #EarlyCareers #NGRAAwards

The impact of generative AI on hiring is now impossible to ignore. Here are some eye-opening recent examples of the impact, and the very real struggle employers are now grappling with: One-way video interviews are becoming a sea of script-reading, as candidates recite ChatGPT-generated answers. For example, one major professional services firm saw its one-way video interview pass rate plunge from 50% to 13% year-on-year because so many applicants submitted identical ChatGPT responses - with significant resource implications on their hiring process. Many employers are also seeing application numbers surge by over 100% year-on-year, which in itself creates challenges - but it's more complicated than that. The vast majority of this increase coming from male applicants. This has led in some cases to shifts from a previous 50/50 gender split in applications, to a split as high as 75/25 (in favour of males). Candidate survey data explains this trend, revealing that men are significantly more likely to use AI to make mass job applications - and to ignore instructions not to use Gen AI. Female-to-male offer ratios are now taking a hit, undermining gender equality. Meanwhile, near-perfect application form responses are flooding in, rendering traditional application questions almost worthless for screening. GPT-o1 and o3 can produce sophisticated replies on any topic - technical, motivational, or otherwise - making it difficult to assess genuine job fit. Yes, I fully support the idea that smart use of AI can boost productivity. But when generative AI dominates the hiring process, it masks genuine talent and potential. Assessing behavioural strengths such as resilience, empathy, and learning agility becomes increasingly difficult if using application forms, video interviews, or conventional psychometric tests. Back in 2023, I stood on stage at the Institute of Student Employers conference and talked about generative AI’s likely impact on hiring. I also shared survey data demonstrating how EDI outcomes were at risk. Some assessment providers called it “scaremongering,” but it was a straightforward logical deduction - AI is rapidly becoming both easier to use and more powerful, so the impact we now see in hiring processes was entirely predictable. That reality is no longer in question. The consequences go beyond the integrity of assessments. There are now quantifiable, negative EDI outcomes driven by demographic differences in AI usage. This was entirely foreseeable, but much of the assessment industry chose to ignore the warning signs, accused others of scaremongering, and left employers to pick up the pieces. The simple truth is that conventional hiring processes - including one-way video interviews and most standard psychometric tests - are not designed for the age of advanced generative AI. That has been true since I first highlighted it two years ago, and it remains just as true today. The time for meaningful change is now.

Today’s Apple News front page shines a much-needed light on a serious issue - many conventional online assessments discriminate against autistic candidates. This is a significant barrier to fair hiring, and it truly needs to change. While the article touches on personality tests (which, in reality, no one should be screened out of a hiring process for!), the challenges extend far beyond that. Many widely used online assessments, intended to be objective, can unintentionally disadvantage neurodivergent candidates. Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs) are a key example. These assessments rely on interpreting nuanced, hypothetical scenarios, something that can be particularly challenging for some autistic candidates. And this isn’t just a matter of fairness; there is already a High Court ruling (BT v Meier, 2019) stating that candidates with ASD should not be screened out using SJTs. Yet, five years on, many assessment providers continue to promote them as a standard screening tool, deployed at scale in hiring processes, often without acknowledging this legal precedent. This raises important questions - are these providers unaware of the ruling, or are they choosing to ignore it? Either way, it’s a serious issue that needs addressing. Then there’s the issue with cognitive ability tests (numerical, verbal, etc.). These tests use norm groups to score, meaning candidates are evaluated in comparison to a “typical” test-taking population. The challenge? That norm group is overwhelmingly neurotypical. So what happens to candidates who think and process information differently, and proudly sit outside that 'norm' - neurodivergent individuals who bring unique strengths that workplaces need. It’s understandable that many employers rely on these tools in good faith, believing they are fair and effective. But the responsibility now lies with assessment providers to evolve, and ensure employers have the right information to make informed choices. This is an opportunity for meaningful change. Greater awareness of neurodiversity means we can build hiring processes that work for all candidates. Headlines like today’s are a helpful step in raising awareness, so we can take meaningful steps to improve the fairness of hiring, empowering neurodivergent talent to shine.

New Year, new insights! A few months ago, we had the privilege of delivering a keynote at the Institute of Student Employers EDI conference, where we shared our vision for creating hiring processes that are neuro-inclusive by design. This means a hiring process that doesn’t require manual 'reasonable adjustments', or uncomfortable disclosures of disability, for neurodivergent talent to truly shine. The positive feedback we received was genuinely touching and inspiring. It’s clear that the concept of embedding neuro-inclusivity into recruitment practices resonates deeply with so many. That’s why I’m really happy to share that we’ll be hosting a free webinar on this vital topic on 23rd January at 1pm. The uncomfortable truth? Many hiring processes unintentionally disadvantage (or even directly discriminate against) neurodiverse talent. It's time for meaningful change. This webinar will uncover those hidden barriers across the end-to-end hiring process, and share practical, proven strategies to empower neurodiverse talent, from application to offer. Let's start the new year by taking real steps toward more inclusive hiring for neurodiverse talent! ?? Register via the link in the comments

Jamie Betts from Neurosight delivered the opening keynote session ‘Creating a neuro-inclusive early careers hiring process: empowering neurodiverse talent from application to offer’ at #ISEedi24 leaving delegates with these takaways: ‘Review end-to-end process from the perspective of neurodiverse candidates’ ‘Aim for an inherently neuro-inclusive process that doesn’t require disclosure of neurodivergence’ #StudentRecruitment #NeuroInclusivity #EarlyCareers

We don’t talk enough about candidate anxiety - a silent challenge that disproportionately affects female, disabled, BAME candidates, and job seekers from lower socio-economic backgrounds. A lack of confidence, negative stereotypes, limited access to resources and support, and the high-stakes nature of job applications all contribute to heightened anxiety. Research has shown that this anxiety can significantly hinder performance during interviews, online tests, and assessment centres, limiting these individuals ability to showcase their true potential. This, in turn, deprives talented individuals of life-changing employment opportunities, and perpetuates a cycle of inequality. Why are so few people talking about this issue in the talent acquisition space? ?? The data is clear - conventional psychometric tests are among the worst culprits, with adverse impact frequently aligned to gender, socio-economic status, disability, and ethnicity. The use in these tests of 'one size fits all' scoring algorithms fails to account for varying levels of candidate anxiety. Far from being accommodated, those experiencing anxiety are penalised by this approach, limiting their real-world employment opportunities. This is both a personal challenge for the individuals impacted, and a systemic problem that affects the diversity and inclusivity of our workplaces. This issue has persisted for decades, and it’s one of the reasons Neurosight was founded. We developed dynamically adaptive scoring algorithms in our psychometric assessments to accommodate different levels of candidate anxiety. A long overdue innovation that helps level the playing field in psychometric testing. Advocating for practices that enable all candidates to compete on a level playing field, and striving to accommodate and mitigate heightened anxiety throughout the hiring process, goes beyond fairness. It also impacts business performance - since diverse teams drive innovation and success. It's long past time we recognised the scale of the anxiety challenge across end-to-end hiring processes, and responded meaningfully to resolve it!