Candidates accept AI in hiring process if its use is evident

We recently reached out to a number of recruiters and hiring managers who are using AI in their hiring process to ask for their suggestions for how employers can do so in a way that don’t turn off the very candidates they’re trying to attract.

Edward Tian, CEO of GPTZero, recommended the employers make the use of AI transparent. “When using Artificial Intelligence for recruiting, candidates have responded favorably as long as it is evident where they will see its use. At my place of business, I’ve observed that candidates do not object to the use of AI in recruiting if they are made aware of where it falls within the overall process. Candidates typically find acceptable places for AI, such as screening, scheduling, and assessment, when the location is made clear upfront. When AI reduces any roadblocks in a candidate’s experience, it improves the experience considerably. For example, timely scheduling, timely updates, and clear next step instructions all enhance the overall experience.”

Edward also believes that it is important that employers use AI to assist, not replace, human decision makers. “Many candidates also appreciate knowing that a human being continues to have input. Even though AI may assist with some of the earlier steps, candidates feel a sense of comfort when they know someone will be reviewing the final decision at a later stage. One common theme in the feedback is timing and communication. Candidates have more confidence in your company when the whole process is quick, easy, and communicated well, so it does not matter if they ultimately do not receive an offer for employment.”

Another aspect that employers should consider is that the use of AI at certain points in the hiring process matter more than others to the candidates. They may be perfectly fine with its use at one point, but hate it at another. “In addition to the aforementioned points regarding operational efficiencies in candidate engagement, we also learned that candidates were more concerned about AI usage at certain points in the recruiting process. Candidates showed little to no concern on issues related to automatic evaluation of early stage interviewing processes. However, a significant number of additional concerns were raised at the later stages of the interview process for candidates believed AI was evaluating open ended responses, work samples, and final hiring decisions. Providing information as to what part of the process is evaluated by a human being resulted in eliminating a large portion of candidate uncertainty.”

Finally, Edward’s team found that candidates wanted to know a lot more than just their disposition. Sure, they were disappointed to learn that they weren’t moving forward in the hiring process, but they wanted to know why. “In all instances where candidates were notified of their hiring decisions, candidates who were notified of how the decision was reached tended to respond more positively than those who did not have as much transparency in their decision. The impact on candidate satisfaction from processes that were not evaluated on a human versus AI basis was minimal compared to the efficiencies of AI creating faster means of scheduling and communication with candidates and enhancing the process visibility to candidates.”