In the recruitment market, various automated processes, systems, channels, databases, etc., are already a routine part of the recruitment process. Artificial intelligence has also long been used in recruitment. Recruitment processes are constantly being developed, streamlined, and automated as technology evolves. It is fair to say that the recruitment market has developed its recruitment technology ecosystem.
For the basic job seeker, it already takes effort to familiarise himself with the systems and processes of the recruitment ecosystem to operate efficiently and correctly. Otherwise, you may be left behind by more technically skilled jobseekers when looking for a new job. Nor can the recruiting employer stand still and do nothing. Otherwise, the “more knowledgeable employers” will get the best employees, not to mention the recruitment service providers, for whom keeping up to date is vital to their business and success.
Nowadays, the Internet has typically been the source of information. The ChatGPT AI (and other similar AI services) will bring a whole new dimension to recruitment. Technology and AI undoubtedly bring benefits, but they also raise interesting questions.
Below, I reflect on one question:
How do technology and AI impact the interview in the recruitment process?
(Even though I here look at this from a recruiter point of view, you can also look at this from a job-seeker view by just turning around the perspective. )
Employers in the future likely want to use AI in their recruitment processes to screen and assess candidates to a growing extent. On the other hand, job seekers will ask AI, “What should I do now in this recruitment process?” when they apply for a new job. In the future, the employer’s AI may compete with the jobseeker’s AI. Who will get better advice from the AI? If the recruitment service providers let AI search for the candidates on their behalf, AI will be involved at every stage of the chain. And if, on top of this, for the sake of efficiency, the interviews (i.e. the candidates whom the AI has passed) will be conducted remotely, the only people who will actually be met in the recruitment process may be the finalists, if even they. “In the old days”, in recruitment, a person always met another person face to face, not so always anymore.
Could it be that AI will even take care of interviews in the future?
We are already pretty close.
This kind of recruitment development feels sad, and I’m not sure it’s as smart in the long run as it might seem at first glance. I interviewed thousands of people in my career. Sitting face-to-face in an interview is very different from a remote interview. When sitting at the same table, the atmosphere and situation differ from sitting “in your own kitchen or office corner” interviewing a candidate on a PC screen. When sitting at a PC in a remote interview, you can have numerous notes outside the field of vision of the PC camera to improve your performance. There’s nothing wrong with this; it’s a smart thing to do, but I prefer to meet the person live to see how they perform under pressure without their notes.
When sitting face to face at the same table, both parties have to prepare, sharpen up and pay attention to each other in a completely different way. Your eye contact, personal chemistry, how excited you are, how you present yourself, how you communicate, and how you sense each other’s feelings, values, motives, and interests equally concern both parties and are completely different in face-to-face contact. A remote interview via a PC screen is never the same as a personal contact. I can only imagine what an “AI interview” would feel like. There is not much “feeling and caring” here.
And let’s not forget that in a face-to-face meeting, you both often learn something from each other, sometimes a lot. At least, that’s what happened to me. (Although this also depends on your attitude, i.e. whether you want to learn from others.) I have even heard a few business leaders say they learned valuable things from me. You often build good relationships and networks, sometimes very important ones. Remote interviews seldom create deep personal relationships (not to mention what happens when AI interviews you). So, I like the person-to-person approach. I wouldn’t trade 1,000 face-to-face meetings with a business leader for 1,000 remote meetings, especially if you’re talking about executive management recruitment. A face-to-face interview serves both parties better, even if it may not win any medals when talking about time efficiency.
Today’s tech generation might wonder how they could recruit people in the “old days” when there were no smartphones, social media, Internet, artificial intelligence, or remote interviews. It must have been inefficient and tedious.
The answer is that we managed very well, possibly sometimes even better than today, and it was not inefficient or tedious. When you couldn’t go online and check every answer, you had to think with your brain and come up with solutions all by yourself. It was not at all as foolish as some might think today. When there were not always ready answers on the table, you had to do a lot of thinking and problem-solving yourself, which at the same time developed your professional skills. When you didn’t spend your working time surfing social media or the Internet as many people do nowadays, you had time to focus on the essentials: the recruitment process, clients, and candidates. And therefore, the result was often quite good.
Below is one example of “our ways of working in the old days”: how I used to interview candidates in 1995 without access to Internets “What are the 50 best interview questions?”. The following is based on my experience at the time and, in particular, on the excellent advice I received from my employer when I started as a search consultant at Boyden in 1995. Neither the tooth of time, the Internet, or ChatGBT have changed anything. I think the advice I got would be just as relevant and good if I were starting as a search consultant today.
Interview guidelines anno 1995
The interviewer must treat the interviewee with courtesy and respect and be aware of any legal obligations and restrictions that may apply to the interview. To the best of their ability, the interviewer should always act in both parties’ interests.
Good preparation is vital for a successful interview. The purpose and aim of the interview must always be defined. Make a “game plan” for each interview. Always allow enough time for the interview. A 15-to-30-minute short interview is not an interview. A good interviewer always has a well-prepared, structured, and well-conducted interview.
Check that all essential documents related to the recruitment in question, such as the company presentation, organisation charts, stakeholders, job description, job requirements and objectives, are up-to-date and reflect reality. Every employment relationship should be based on honesty and trust. Avoid half-truths or trying to make things sound better than they are. Never conceal any “unpleasant information” about the employer or the job that will be revealed to the employee on the first day of employment. Then, the trust will disappear already on day 1.
Assess the applicant and their CV in advance and identify areas that need to be supplemented or strengthened with additional information. If a CV is unavailable, list things you need to clarify at the interview and how you will obtain this information. The interviewer should show an interest in the candidate and the issues discussed in the interview. The interviewee will know if the interviewer is not genuinely interested in them or what they have to say.
The interviewer should strive to make the job seeker feel comfortable and confident. This makes it easier to encourage the interviewee to answer questions more spontaneously than in a rigid question-and-answer interview. In a good atmosphere, the jobseeker’s answers/questions are more likely to reflect their true feelings and thoughts and be more open about their actions, including any shortcomings. It is important to encourage discussion but don’t let the conversation ramble on too much. You need to maintain the initiative throughout and move the interview along steadily.
At the end of the interview, make sure you tell the jobseeker what will happen next and also check if they have any questions before ending the interview.
As soon as possible after the interview, take time to think about the content of the interview (preferably immediately after the interview). Carefully assess the information you have received, interpret the facts, weigh them up and then determine what to do next. Make notes on the points you think are most important, especially personal impressions, which tend to fade more quickly than objective information. Write a summary summarising your findings and your assessment of the candidate and their further relationship.
One good way to understand what makes a good interview is to look at interview mistakes and then avoid them. Below is a list of some common interview mistakes.
Preparation – Poorly done homework. The interview is ineffective because the interviewer is not adequately prepared. Experience is no substitute for good preparation. Do your homework properly before the interview.
Prejudices and stereotypes – If they exist, they are always a barrier and a potential stumbling block in an interview. Examine your prejudices, and don’t let them cloud your judgement. For example, don’t be misled by a candidate’s appearance.
Vagueness in the interview – The interviewer does not focus or stray from the topic. Plan in advance what you want to talk about and how to proceed systematically, and focus on different aspects of your interview agenda.
No notes – The interviewer does not take written notes. Be receptive, accurate and thorough – know what information you seek and take notes.
Leading questions – The interviewer “telegraphs” the desired answer when asking it. Don’t ask the “wrong way” and keep your opinions to yourself.
Difficult questions – Don’t be afraid to ask difficult questions. Ask follow-up questions when appropriate – include important details and don’t ignore them. “Why/how” is a good interview tool.
Theoretical questions – The interviewer asks too many hypothetical “what if…” questions. Questions should be concrete and directed at the specific behaviour, responsibilities, doings, and methods the interviewee candidate uses to achieve results in their work.
Time management in the interview – The interviewer controls the conversation too much. Give enough space to the interviewee. Be a good listener. Also, take advantage of silence. Sometimes, let the applicant be the first to break the silence. This may tell you something useful about the interviewee.
Chemistry – The chemistry between the interviewer and the interviewee does not work or works “too” well. Don’t let bad personal chemistry affect the interview. Be careful also when the chemistry is very good. Make sure you assess the candidate’s qualifications objectively. Focus on the facts.
Psychology – Avoid the role of an amateur psychologist. Leave psychological assessments to professionals.
Halo effect – In psychology, this usually refers to a situation where one positive characteristic of a person is used to infer that they also have other positive characteristics. If you jump to conclusions based on an interviewee’s incomplete answers, you may subconsciously allow a candidate’s positive characteristic to impact your opinion. This can lead to an unfounded, too-positive opinion about the candidate. Again, be careful and pay attention. Ensure that your conclusions and opinions of the candidate are based on objective facts and sufficient information.
Buying vs. selling – When the interviewer does not understand the difference between the concepts. The recruiter must first assess the interviewee from a buyer’s perspective, i.e. the interviewee’s skills, potential and suitability for the job, and then decide how much “selling” may be required to ensure the interviewee has sufficient interest in the job/company.
Some people proudly say, “I don’t want to hire someone who doesn’t want to come here”. However, if the candidate being interviewed is considered a good choice for the job in question and is currently in permanent employment, it is recommended that the recruiter also contribute to attracting sufficient interest in the candidate. This involves a shift from ‘buyer’ to ‘seller’.
Finally, I give credit to AI and all the benefits it may bring, but how far can it replace humans? It would be a shame if “person meets person” would disappear altogether from the recruitment process. I would see this more as a loss than a gain for both employers and employees in the business world.
It is worth remembering that AI that produces text can also “imagine things”, i.e. tell you whatever it wants. Can we, as humans, tell when an AI is telling the truth and when it is not? Also, AI does not know the difference between right and wrong the way humans do. Can this impact its assessments of candidates?
- Such a long time has passed since 1995 that I cannot remember anymore which part of my text above is solely from my “head” and which from the advice I got from Boyden. But I can state for certain that Boyden strongly impacted me and my thinking, so if you find something you like, give credit to Boyden.