Uncover the realities behind prevalent recruitment trends through the lens of industry experts. This article strips away the hype to reveal why some of the most talked-about practices fail to deliver results. Gain a deeper understanding of what truly works in talent acquisition from those who know best.
- Hiring for Fit: A Mutual Charade
- AI’s Limited Impact on Recruitment
- Automated Screening Overlooks Human Qualities
- Shift Risk to Recruitment Marketing Vendors
- AI Screening: Useful Tool, Not Sole Solution
- AI Resume Screening: Efficiency vs. Effectiveness
- Reference Checks: An Outdated Formality
Hiring for Fit: A Mutual Charade
Hiring Based on Fit
Everyone knows that when job seekers are being interviewed, they are on their best behavior, presenting themselves and their expertise in the best light. However, employers are also on their best behavior, presenting themselves, their opportunity, and their work environment in the best light.
After all, no employer tells a job seeker, “I’ve taken over a team that is institutionally considered to be made up of losers. I’ve been brought in to change things here. My predecessor was fired, and so was hers. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out my job is on the line, and I need to hire someone to help me do that.”
Instead, they put on happy, smiling faces and talk about a great opportunity with a terrific team of people instead of outlining the existing problems.
Given that both parties are on their best behavior, how can an employer or job seeker evaluate for fit given that both are putting on an act?
AI’s Limited Impact on Recruitment
I think AI’s impact on recruitment is massively overstated.
Of course there are some time-saving elements to using AI tools – whether that’s using ChatGPT to help you write, AI note-taking tools for meetings and AI image creation software for creating social media posts.
However, these tools are useful to pretty much any profession. I’m yet to see an AI tool that can curate candidates in a sophisticated way. That’s the real value add of recruiters in my view; saving clients time by finding and attracting the best candidates quickly.
AI represents an opportunity to save time but doesn’t fundamentally change the nature of recruitment in my view.
Automated Screening Overlooks Human Qualities
One recruitment trend I believe is overrated is relying too heavily on automated resume screening tools. While these tools can certainly save time in filtering large volumes of applications, they often miss out on the human qualities that make candidates stand out, such as passion, creativity, and cultural fit! In a highly competitive job market, it’s important to consider the broader picture and not just keywords or phrases that might be picked up by algorithms.
Relying too much on automation can result in overlooking talented candidates who don’t perfectly match the automated criteria but could be a great fit for the role! Personal connections and in-depth interviews are still essential for getting a true sense of a candidate’s potential.
Shift Risk to Recruitment Marketing Vendors
One of the emerging trends that I see as the Founder of College Recruiter job search site is the shifting of risk from the employer to its recruitment marketing vendors, including its job board vendors.
For hundreds of years, employers used recruitment advertising to increase their applicant pool, but those employers rarely measured the effectiveness of those ads in terms of whether they actually generated a positive return on investment as measured by the effective cost per application, per quality application, per interviewed candidate, or even per hire. Instead, employers would post jobs in a wide variety of places and pray that at least some of them worked. This methodology, if you can call it that, is often referred to as “post and pray”. I’m not a fan.
Employers should work hard to align their actual interests with those of their recruitment marketing vendors. Employers have no interest in posting ads for the sake of posting ads. So, paying a media partner like a job board simply to run an ad is not alignment. But when candidates see the ad, click to your career site, apply, are interviewed, and maybe even hired, well, that’s alignment. Candidates who respond and whose applications show them to be qualified are what you want, and therefore you should pay your recruitment marketing vendors only when they generate those candidates for you.
AI Screening: Useful Tool, Not Sole Solution
While AI can be a useful tool for recruiters, its effectiveness in candidate screening is often overrated. Over-reliance on AI is ineffective because even the most advanced tools struggle to assess soft skills, cultural fit, and potential beyond what’s listed on a resume. AI systems tend to prioritize degrees, certifications, and job titles when identifying strong matches, which can unfairly filter out candidates with nontraditional career paths. Additionally, minor differences in resume formatting or wording can cause qualified applicants to be overlooked.
AI-powered screening should be just one part of the recruitment process, always supplemented by human oversight. This is especially critical when an AI tool is first implemented, as the algorithm needs refinement to accurately recognize the qualities of top candidates. When used in combination with human judgment, AI can speed up the hiring process and improve efficiency. However, relying on it too heavily can weaken hiring quality and even introduce unintended biases, ultimately limiting access to diverse and high-potential talent.
AI Resume Screening: Efficiency vs. Effectiveness
AI-powered resume screening tools sound efficient, but they often eliminate strong candidates due to rigid keyword matching and algorithmic bias. Many talented job seekers–especially career changers, those with non-traditional backgrounds, or those who use unique phrasing–get filtered out before a human even sees their application.
Why is it ineffective? It prioritizes buzzwords over real skills and potential. Great hires aren’t just a list of keywords; they have adaptability, problem-solving abilities, and leadership qualities that an AI can’t fully assess. Companies relying too much on AI miss out on diverse, high-potential talent who don’t fit the algorithm’s narrow criteria.
A better approach? Combine human insight with AI tools–use tech to assist, not replace, a recruiter’s judgment. The best candidates are often the ones who bring something beyond what’s written on a resume.
Reference Checks: An Outdated Formality
Reference checks are one of the most overrated steps in hiring. Let’s be real–no candidate is going to hand over a reference who will say anything negative about them. It’s basically a formality, not an actual insight into how they perform. Relying too much on references is just a way to outsource decision-making instead of evaluating a candidate yourself. Besides, asking another person how good of a worker someone is doesn’t take into account differences in culture, work styles, management styles, and overall fit. Someone might have thrived under a different manager but struggle in your environment, or vice versa. A better approach is to focus on practical assessments, work samples, or real conversations that give you a clearer picture of their skills and potential.
