Almost half of UK jobseekers have found themselves pitching to an AI bot, according to recent research, leading many to give up in frustration. As one despairing applicant lamented in the pages of the Guardian a few months ago: “The hiring process has become so mechanised, both figuratively and literally, that it’s hard to believe that the people who end up getting hired aren’t merely the best at gaming the system.” For young people especially, experiencing repeated rejection without interacting with a single human being is alienating as well as disappointing.
It was encouraging, therefore, to hear Andy Burnham voice concerns about online recruitment processes on a recent employment-focused podcast. Describing the jobseeking environment for young people as “harsh”, the prime minister criticised the widespread use of interviews on Zoom and Microsoft Teams, and questioned whether applicants could properly convey their personal qualities without a face-to-face meeting.
There is another side to the story, as Zoom executives were swift to point out. Online interviewing cuts out travel costs, for example, giving a chance to applicants who may not be able to fund long journeys and possible overnight stays. But Mr Burnham is right to identify a dangerous drift towards selection processes that undervalue the worth of conversations between people in the same room at the same time.
The increasingly used “one-way” video interview – in which applicants are given fixed periods of time to plan and deliver responses to prerecorded questions – seems to offer a particularly disorientating experience. Interviewees, in effect, speak into a void, unable to process feedback or interpret body language.
The sorting processes deployed in AI interviews have been rightly criticised for their opacity, and susceptibility to algorithmic bias. A lack of transparency in relation to the programming of recruitment software means that an unlevel playing field may be suspected but difficult to prove. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled an age discrimination case with a company that came to light only when a failed applicant reapplied, changing just her age, and miraculously passed through to the next round.
It could hardly be claimed that traditional recruitment processes were bias-free. Used in the right way, new technologies can play their part in opening up possibilities for applicants rather than simply screening them out with minimal explanation or feedback. But while it may be convenient for businesses to rely on tech to do the work, the struggle even to present one’s credentials to another human being is adding insult to injuries already inflicted by an exceptionally unforgiving labour market. A recent report from the Institute for Public Policy Research found that young people in England were increasingly “losing faith in their futures”.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has been tasked by parliament with producing a code of practice on AI and automated decision-making. In a recent report it found that when companies claimed that AI-generated hiring recommendations were subjected to human review, that was often only partially true, if at all. Applicants deserve better. The use of digital technologies is already changing the face of the entry-level jobs market. Interviewees should be protected from the downsides of their growing dominance in the recruitment process.
