Job applications - AI's fait accompli?

Don't get him wrong. Michael Doolin – former HR Director at PwC and British Airways – is a big fan of AI. “I use it on a daily basis here at Clover HR,” he says. “We use it for ideation and to get insights on a variety of issues.” But don’t get him started on its increasing use as a crutch for crafting CVs or writing job applicants’ covering letters. “I have to admit, I would put an AI-drafted job application – for they are still very easy to spot – right to the bottom of the pile.”

Doolin’s criticism of AI-embellished applications is that – to him at least – they not only smack of laziness, but either hide or misrepresent peoples’ actual abilities. “As a consultancy, we need people who can present, by themselves, in a cogent and competent manner,” he says. “It was the same at PwC. We wanted to see people’s personality; we wanted people’s individuality to shine. But how can AI demonstrate what people’s insights are, or it reveal their true creativity. It can’t.”

But while these criticisms may not be new, and certainly still hold water for many in HR – there’s every indication AI isn’t going away. In fact, only last month, new research revealed that use of AI in job applications had broken the all-important 50% barrier – with more applicants incorporating it than not. And with this comes one inexorable question: whether HR opposition to it is meaningful anymore, if it’s just something that’s here and destined to stay.

AI should be asking questions of recruitment

“There’s something very interesting happening now,” admits Sheila Atwood, HR Insights & Data Lead at Brightmine. “All the power employers once had – using AI of their own to sift applications, and possibly sifting out really good people – is now being met with AI that aims to beat this and get people’s foot in the door.” She continues: "I sometimes think the real reason AI is being used so much, is so good people can get through an existing sorting process that isn’t letting them in.”

The not-so-subtle inference from Atwood, is that even if HR practitioners still feel AI means they can’t see a person’s true capabilities, it’s kind of tough, and it’s payback time from candidates. It definitely a point of view that’s shared.

“I think what this debate really uncovers is the need for HR to redefine exactly what it is that it is seeking to assess applicants on,” says Pauline Taylor, who is Head of People at AI learning and skills platform provider, HowNow. “Even the best person can write a poor CV – and vice versa,” she says. “If you’re primarily looking at ascertaining someone’s skills and experience, then an AI-written cover letter isn’t going to be useful anyway. But what HR really ought to be doing is asking what it thinks ‘is’ most important to assess."

Critics of artificial intelligence argue AI-bolstered applications make it difficult for HR to determine a person’s actual traits and characteristics – something that could mean they progress someone to interview that wildly different from their true self. But counter critics simply retort this by saying this problem has always existed, ever since applicants could get advice on writing CVs from friends or other providers.

Moreover, they suggest AI could actually have very positive benefits: “The accessibility aspect – in terms of leveling the playing field for those who historically haven’t had access to CV-coaching – is one fantastic benefit of AI,” says Andrew Neal, Chief People Officer at Nash Squared. “The time for HR being for or against AI is over,” he adds. “Whether they are or not, it’s just something HR practitioners have to operate within now. Would you stop someone using a spell-checker? No, of course not. If HR folk are worried that they can’t adequately screen people, I would suggest maybe they’ve never been able to adequately screen people.”