Dr John Sullivan Talent Management Thought Leadership
Experience using AI tools will soon be the most needed skill, so targeting users of AI job search tools makes sense. Unfortunately, most in recruiting don’t realize that, even though there is a great deal of talk about hiring AI experts to develop their own internal AI systems.
In reality, AI will instead experience its broadest internal use, because literally, the employee working in every job will soon be required to rely on a variety of AI tools that are specific to their job. And because this capability will literally be needed for every new recruit, it will soon make recruiting candidates with AI tool experience the most common “skill target” for the entire recruiting function. And that will mean that candidates who used AI tools in their job search will suddenly become prime recruiting targets!
Realize Up Front That Critics Of AI Use… Don’t Use Data-Supported Arguments
It’s now a relatively common corporate practice to penalize, downgrade, or outright reject candidates who recruiters suspect of having used AI to aid in their job search. However, in my view, it’s unfair to penalize those who use AI tools.
When the majority of companies don’t specify which AI tools can’t be used, another primary argument against their use is that getting AI help is somehow unethical and unfair. But the reality is that the best candidates have always sought the best help during unfamiliar endeavors like a job search. So there’s nothing unethical about seeking high-level help. Only today, “help” now comes in multiple categories. So, in addition to the traditional help categories (i.e., career coaches, how-to videos, online resume templates, and human mentors), all applicants now have equal access to inexpensive AI job search help tools. So why shouldn’t they use them?
And incidentally, if the criticism of AI use covers transparency, it’s true that few applicants currently disclose their AI use (and, for most companies, there’s no way to do so). But it’s also true that currently no candidate volunteers what human help they got on their resume or interview prep. And on the corporate transparency side, I know of no corporate recruiting function that practices full transparency, by making public the precise ways that the recruiting function uses AI to sort through and assess candidates.
Finally, if the AI concern covers honesty and the possibility that AI use will enhance submitted resumes, it’s a fact that candidates have historically not needed AI in order to embellish what they say. And, of course, there is no data to show that using AI tools results in the addition of inaccurate keywords or more embellishment than would occur naturally among applicants who may be desperate to improve their chances.
Realize That Most New Recruiting Technologies Initially Receive Emotion Based Criticism
It doesn’t take any effort to find literally hundreds of articles on the Internet that almost universally pooh-pooh a candidate’s use of AI tools in their job search, resume development, and even interviewing. But I would remind the reader that many in recruiting who now believe (without data) that AI use in a job search has suddenly become unacceptable.
Unfortunately, I have found that most of these critics turn out to be the same type of “false alarm raisers” that a decade ago pooh-poohed any candidate’s use of “spell check.” This was labeled as unethical because it replaced a practice that was formerly done by humans. So in my view, it’s best not to even listen to any criticism of AI use, unless it only uses data-supported arguments.
How Penalizing Those That Use AI Tools Can Be A Costly Mistake
If you’re curious about how the criticism and resistance to the use of AI tools can cost your company big bucks, below you will find a list of those avoidable cost factors, where the most damaging factors appear early in the list.
- Soon you won’t have a choice, because every candidate will be using AI tools – in a survey last year, nearly 65% of candidates admitted to using AI during the application process. And with the growing awareness, coupled with the increasing availability of AI job search tools, I predict that AI usage will soon approach 90%. So you will literally have no choice but to accept applications that have been built using AI.
- The number of top performer candidates with AI tool experience will be sharply reduced – because the top performers in your candidate pool are the most likely to use new technologies. Penalizing all candidates who have used AI in their job search will likely dramatically reduce the number of top-performing candidates who will even become eligible for an interview.
- You will miss out on extremely valuable “early adopters” – every hiring manager already knows the tremendous value that “early adopters” bring to the team. And in this case, every candidate that uses AI throughout their job search would have to be classified as an “early adopter.” So it would be a huge and costly mistake to downgrade any early adopter’s chances simply because of their AI use.
- The productivity of your teams will eventually suffer as fewer of your new-hires have AI tool experience – there is, of course, currently a severe scarcity of candidates who have AI tool experience. So, preventing any of them from even reaching the interview stage just because of AI use. May cut in half the number of experienced AI tool users your team can hire. And over time, hiring fewer top performers will hurt your team’s productivity. And unfortunately, not having new blood that every current teammate can learn from may increase turnover among your current team members.
- The ROI of your effort to identify AI users will be extremely low – few have calculated the costs of the time that must be invested to identify each individual applicant who has used AI tools improperly. Because your recruiters and hiring managers can literally spend up to 30 minutes determining whether each individual resume has received an AI boost. And of course, there is no data revealing the ROI of this practice or even supporting whether this weeding out actually results in higher performing hires!
- Unfortunately, training new hires isn’t a viable option – you might be wondering why, instead of recruiting those who have experience with AI tools, you don’t instead rely on your Learning and Development group to train all new-hires on the use of the AI tools in their job. Unfortunately, training turns out to be a weak option. First, because new hires in so many jobs will require training, the L&D function simply won’t have the capability to handle it. But also because training is extremely expensive and it’s not always effective. But the primary reason is that training new hires from scratch to use the appropriate AI tools may take months. And that delay will be unacceptable, because most managers will need this capability almost immediately.
- After the negative word spreads, you will experience a dramatic reduction in the number of your new applicants – once the word gets out on social media that your company doesn’t allow candidates to use modern AI tools. This knowledge will force many potential applicants not to submit their already developed cover letter and resume. Instead, the applicant will have to spend a great deal of time creating a completely different resume and cover letter. And the candidate’s natural resistance to doing what they will probably consider to be “unnecessary work” may cause them to change their mind about applying.
- You will damage your candidate experience, and that will hurt your future brand – because most businesses don’t reveal which specific AI tools are prohibited. That makes it extremely hard for a candidate to determine what is allowed. And of course, later on, most recruiters won’t reveal that a candidate’s rejection was partially a result of their use of AI. Taken together, this high level of uncertainty and a lack of transparency will severely degrade your candidate experience. And that negative reputation will cause many of your potential top applicants to apply elsewhere.
- Your frustrated hiring managers may become reluctant to hire – after many of your hiring managers realize that, after the numerous hours of work, they have invested in identifying AI users. They still won’t be getting many hires who have experience with the AI tools that they need. This frustration causes some managers to postpone some hiring or even to freeze it.
Final Thoughts
Other than the fact that it’s a new technology, I haven’t found any valid, data-supported reasons to pay attention when a so-called expert condemns the use of AI job search tools. Because when they suggest that the practice is dishonest, deceptive, unethical, or that takes away the human touch, they literally have no data to back up their feelings.
And in some cases, the resistance seems to come from their inherent fear of technology or the unknown. Because before this new technology existed, it was automatically expected that the very best candidates would, of course, seek out the best sources for making sure that they will be continually showing their best side.
One final tip. I suggest that until the very end, you withhold any indication to your recruiters and interviewers as to whether any of your finalists may have been assisted by AI. And then only use their prohibited AI use as a tiebreaker between otherwise equally qualified candidates.
Thanks for finding the time to read and share this article.
Notes for the reader
This is the latest article from Dr. Sullivan, who was called “the Michael Jordan of Hiring” by Fast Company.
You can subscribe to his Aggressive Talent Management newsletter (which focuses on recruiting tools, current recruiting opportunities and recruiting trends). Either here or by following him on LinkedIn.
