People in tech are constantly talking about its potential to change every aspect of our lives. From the way we work to the way we eat, shop, and even sleep, it seems like technology is constantly rewriting our every activity.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some of the most exciting changes are the ones that stem from the application of cognitive technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). Aided by these smart tools, we can not only live differently but think differently: better and faster than we could possibly think on our own.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But what happens when we trust judgements and experiences that used to be fundamentally human to machines? What if computers had to make decisions about people\u2019s value and potential? Would that be ethical\u2014or desirable?
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Today, companies are wrestling with this question as they look for better ways to find and attract talent. One of the most recent trends\u2014using AI to conduct initial screening interviews\u2014has provoked nothing short of full-blown controversy. Employers say it\u2019s a much-needed cost-cutting tool, but job-seekers are skeptical. Are their concerns justified?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To understand why companies would consider using AI to interview candidates to begin with, you first have to understand two crucial facts about the job market:
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Today, the unemployment rate in the US has hit an historic low. At 3.7%, joblessness is at its lowest point in 50 years.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the same time, companies are looking for new talent more than ever. In 2017, for example, LinkedIn projected that hiring volume would increase by 58% in the US.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because there are fewer job-seekers and more jobs that need filling, talent now comes at a premium. Companies need to hunt harder and longer to find the right candidate, and they need to make themselves more attractive in order to woo prospective employees away from other opportunities.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
All of this adds up, both in terms of actual cost\u2014offering great compensation and cool perks isn\u2019t cheap\u2014and in terms of opportunity costs, like the amount of time HR staff spend screening resumes. According to Glassdoor, the average company in the US spends about $4,000 to hire a new employee, and it takes about 52 days to fill an open position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Related: How automation can streamline resume screening<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s understandable, then, that companies would turn to AI as a way of minimizing the damage that this war for talent inflicts on their bottom lines. After all, no organization wants their HR team to waste valuable time on low-level tasks (like 15-minute screening calls) that could be accomplished automatically. Cognitive technology offers these businesses a way of systematizing and scaling a process that, until now, has been pretty labor-intensive. In the face of rapid growth, that\u2019s an inherently attractive concept. It\u2019s also not a particularly new concept. Companies are already using software to streamline the first steps of the recruitment process<\/a>, often with mixed results. For example, Amazon\u2019s experimental in-house hiring tool\u2014which incorporated AI\u2014overwhelmingly preferenced male candidates. It scored resumes that included modifiers like \u201cwomen\u2019s\u201d less favorably, penalized candidates who had attended all-women\u2019s colleges, and privileged verbs that are more likely to be found on men\u2019s resumes. As vendors begin testing more sophisticated AI recruitment tools, this sort of bias becomes more of a concern. Talentify, an Orlando company that offers an automated phone-interviewing tool, is testing technology that claims to judge an applicant\u2019s tone of voice and confidence. Though Talentify\u2019s CEO says the goal is to simply provide more information about a candidate (and not make any final decisions about their fitness for the role), it\u2019s easy to see how AI could potentially discriminate against candidates with certain speech patterns. That\u2019s troubling, because the consequences of AI discrimination can be devastating<\/a> on both a personal and social level. There\u2019s also more than a few legal concerns; in the US (and in most countries), the law prohibits discriminatory hiring practices\u2014so businesses are right to be cautious. A more practical concern for many companies, however, is the perception<\/em> of AI amongst potential hires. Darlene Racinelli, a financial controller with 30 years of experience, recently sat through <\/a>an automated phone interview for a Texas manufacturer. Overall, she said, she finds automated interviews frustrating because she can\u2019t ask the interviewer any questions of her own. Racinelli\u2019s experience reflects a common attitude among modern job-seekers, who see initial interviews as equally important to them as they are to the employer. Screening calls are an opportunity for a candidate to determine whether a position will be a good fit for them. When you can\u2019t ask questions of the screener, it\u2019s harder to find out whether you really want the job. She also shares another common criticism of AI interviews: they\u2019re, well, boring<\/em>. In her most recent automated interview, the system asked her to describe the most difficult challenge she\u2019s faced. This stock question was the last straw. \u201cAt that point, I hit 9 and just ended it,\u201d she says. Similarly, CEO of Salient Medical Solutions Michael Pizzorno says he\u2019s never had an AI interview\u2014and he wouldn\u2019t ever agree to one. \u201cI think hiring is a human process, so I think it sends a real questionable message in my mind of how you\u2019re evaluating people,\u201d he comments. \u201cIt\u2019s one of those things you can do, but I don\u2019t necessarily think you should do.\u201d In a tough labor market, opinions like Pizzorno\u2019s matter more than ever. Candidates have unprecedented leverage, insofar as companies have to aggressively compete with one another for talent due to low unemployment. So if potential employees are turned off by having to interview with an AI tool, it could actually work against an organization\u2019s recruitment goals. Not all job-seekers are averse to the idea of interviewing with AI, however.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Leslie Nienaber, a digital marketing specialist from Cleveland, took an automated phone interview last year. She says that it afforded her more flexibility than a traditional phone screening. \u201cIt was convenient for the time and the fact that I got to prepare a little,\u201d she says. \u201cI knew they could still hear my voice, and hopefully recognize my intent and expertise based on how I spoke.\u201d For some, the convenience Nienaber describes could be a game-changer. If a candidate works full-time\u2014or perhaps holds down more than one job\u2014scheduling an interview with a human being can be burdensome. Automated tools give them the flexibility to choose times that work with their schedule, even if it\u2019s after-hours or on the weekend. This can be particularly valuable to lower-income workers, who may not have the luxury of taking 30 minutes during the day for a personal call.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Related: 3 automation trends that are shaping how organizations recruit<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Overall, using AI as an interview tool could potentially make the hiring process more flexible and friendly from a logistics perspective. Candidates can schedule interviews at a time that works for them, and HR managers don\u2019t have to sit through hundreds of initial interviews. But if employers want to use AI to make recruitment more efficient, they\u2019ll have to contend with its shortcomings. From an ethical perspective, there are a lot of potential problems, particularly with bias. Of course, there\u2019s no guarantee that human interviewers will be fair, either\u2014but there are at least mechanisms for controlling human prejudice in the workplace. Discriminatory recruiters can be reprimanded or even fired. You can\u2019t, however, punish a machine. It can also be a lot harder to tell when a machine is spitting out biased recommendations. AI is still largely a \u201cblack box,\u201d but many simply trust that its outcomes are correct because they are based on data\u2014without considering whether the data itself is flawed (which is often is). The reality is that recruitment will never be an easy task. Even at the earliest stages, many aspects of the process demand a set of soft skills (like empathy and the ability to make others feel at ease) that AI currently cannot provide. Though some prospective employees may feel okay with that, many don\u2019t. Employers need to actively consider that as they look for ways to hire more intelligently. That\u2019s not to say that AI is never helpful in today\u2019s competitive labor market. New technologies can make a big impact That’s why the world\u2019s largest retailer, for example, uses OCR technology <\/a>to ensure they retain employees by continuously assessing what pay and benefits would be most competitive, based on the location and position they\u2019re in. Applications of AI like this can still cut out a lot of manual work and make employers more efficient\u2014but they also aren\u2019t too risky, because they don\u2019t use cognitive technology to make judgments about people.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAI Interviews: The Next Big Thing?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Opinion that Matters Most: The Candidate\u2019s<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\nHow Can You Win In Today\u2019s Tight Labor Market?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n