Real life or even more hype?
The controversy of AI in HR and more particularly, Recruitment rambles on. Just this morning, I received an email from CIPD (CIPD Update, 29th May 2024) with the headline, “Should AI-use be banned for recruitment?” Hasn’t that horse already bolted? It’s unlike me to be so negative, but really? Where would we begin? ChatGTP was first launched almost 10 years ago and has been encouraging job seekers as well as recruiting organisations to take advantage of its offer. Clearly other brands are available.
So, where would be start? How would we ban AI for recruitment? This is a conundrum I’m not certain any human is able to solve. I wouldn’t like to bet on how many students leaving full-time education this term have a CV that’s all their own work and why should they? Aren’t Spellchecker and Grammarly (other products are available) essential aids to learning and writing?
Did I hear someone say, “Ah, but … you don’t understand”? Well, this is your opportunity to convince me. I doubt we’ve arrived early enough at this party! Are we going to prevent job seekers from using any form of tech in the recruitment process? Should we go back to the dark ages of handwritten vacancy chalkboards advertising jobs encouraging people to “apply within” and handwritten job applications in black ink? Oh no, I hear some of you yell at the screen. Apologies if I’m being irritating, but how can we ban AI from recruitment?
And now for what I’d planned to write about today before I saw that headline. A few of my individual clients seem to be increasingly worried about including as many key (buzz) words in their CVs and applications as possible. I’m a fan of comprehensive CVs (of course I am) although I’m worried that some brilliantly crafted examples (not doubt aided by AI) are becoming robotic. They lack the human side of the individual they’re about. Similarly, applications or supporting statements.
And that takes me onto another key headline in recent weeks, the wonders of published interview questions! Yet another catastrophe in the making. Candidates staying up all night trying to learn their scripted answers, rather than being themselves. Isn’t that what DE&I should be all about? Ah me, am I really so far behind the times? Definitely not. Put simply, recruitment should be about all parties understanding more about each other. Matching expectations and values to realities (potential employee and employer). Recruitment shouldn’t be a test of memory, should it? I really thought we’d moved on from hearing candidates wanting to, “get their competencies right.”
It's hardly surprising that throughout my HR career I’ve sought to simplify recruitment and make it more human, even though sometimes that means employing technology! Writing job adverts which speak to the audience in terms they’ll understand may be helped by bots, although a few I’ve encountered recently seem to add more (rather than less) unnecessary words and phrases. A recent assignment in the “land locked” Midlands found me hiding under my desk screaming as I read phrases like, “navigating uncharted waters” or “steadying the corporate ship.” Written by humans or bots? I’ll leave you to decide.
Before I sign off for today, here’s another controversial question for you. Would you rather have your CV (job application) considered by an exhausted and stressed recruiter or a state-of-the-art bot with time on their tech hands? Now here’s a conversation (debate) we should continue! Let’s chat.
