Do robots beat humans at hiring?
Yunita Ong
![Yunita Ong]()
Yunita Ong
Driving the growth of knowledge content on LinkedIn | GenAI, content strategy and operations
Are robots better than humans at screening job candidates? At Singapore bank DBS, about one-third of the candidates who passed an initial vetting by a chatbot named Jim (short for Job Intelligence Maestro) ended up getting a job, compared with one-seventh using only human recruiters. After Jim conducts cognitive and personality tests and answers applicants’ questions, human recruiters and hiring managers take over the talent acquisition process. DBS says Jim is less biased than humans in assessing resumes based on age, gender or education.
Project Manager, Technical Consultant and Cloud Enthusiast.
I am pretty interested in the idea of having robot as part of the recruitment process. The number of applicants is quite staggering, especially for the first round of screening, so it will be quite taxing and error prone for human to handle such an overwhelming number of applications and still manage to maintain the same screening standard and judgement throughout the whole process. That is not a problem for machine at all. Once you configure the parameters for screening properly, you are set. And that is an art in itself, as there are so many things to screen for, and wrong parameter setting will mean getting the wrong set of candidates for the job. Besides, it will also change how people apply for jobs. Your resume needs to be searchable and machine friendly, laden with applicable keywords and phrases, or you will be screened out automatically no matter how suitable you can be or how experienced and skillful you really are.