Automated interviews are toxic

Equations are imbalanced when only one side is improved, being true when AI or automation benefits one party at the expense of another.

Such is the trend of AI for interviews in the hiring process, with two emerging examples acutely reflecting this:

• One-sided AI-phone interviews, and
• One-sided video interviews

One-sided interviews are toxic to the hiring process for the Candidate, and – as a result – for the employer. Where short term gain is offset by adverse consequences, we should reconsider if such an approach is worth pursuing. 

Software companies are seducing employers into a “one-sided” approach by selling these short-term benefits. Having Candidates interact only with technology during their interview may allow hiring managers to sit back and review recommendations, but are the consequences of removing the human beneficial to the organisation as a whole? 

Solutions see Candidates forced to engage in time-bound audio or video recordings, and provide pressured, rapid-fire responses without any way to interact with a person. This results in rushed answers, which bear little relevance to actual roles applied for as few jobs are conducted as a continual-rapid-fire of questions. Are answers under these conditions materially helpful in deciding whom goes to the next interview round? No. The ability to deal with ‘pressure’ interviews with technology is artificially testing the wrong things.

Having Candidates respond to AI phone calls is akin to them sitting in a darkened room, or for recorded-video questions not dissimilar to delivering answers to a brick wall. Not only is the process impersonal, it treats future employees as ‘unworthy’ – until they pass technology-rounds. And let’s not forget, Candidates are equally interviewing employers, as the ‘fit’ needs to be mutual, for mutual benefit. Though this terrible experience denies the ability to clarify or ask questions, which is surely part of the process to ‘test’ Candidate fit.

Look at Google’s approach to hiring. The firm – renowned for its focus on culture – states on its website that a large chunk of the interview is about “self-reflection”. This is a human trait, and something explored through human interaction. For Google, the fit is about culture, and culture is about brand. Though employers seduced with the alleged simplicity of automated interviews are unwittingly damaging their brand, as the interview experience for Candidates becomes a reflection of the company itself. Sure, some desperate Candidates will plough ahead with the interview with little choice, but good Candidates – those with job options – will progressively decline automated-interviews in favour of ones where they are treated as a human, being interviewed by a human.

Is this really where the recruitment industry is going, to skew the interview process so heavily to the benefit of employers at the expense of Candidate experience? 

Misrepresenting the importance of simplicity over and above building mutual relationships with future employees, such software offerings aren’t automating drive-thru ordering, they’re de-humanising the entry point of future employees into your company.

Simplicity? Sure, but not to the detriment of brand or risk of hiring the wrong employee.

Derek Waterhouse

People At The Centre