If recruiters feel like they’re being pulled in two directions right now, that’s because they are. On one hand, hiring slowdowns and rising application volumes are pushing organisations to adopt AI at speed. On the other, we also must be ever-cognizant of fairness, compliance and ultimately, good hiring processes and decisions.
Reading recent coverage from the US, I recognise the same pressures we’re hearing from employers globally: more candidates, fewer qualified applicants, and an urgent need to streamline processes. It’s no surprise that AI is present on all sides and is both a part of the problem and the solution. Job candidates are using AI for minor edits and review of their resume to creating a resume in its entirety with little to no review by the candidate for accuracy and even so far as video interviews where the candidate is not the candidate at all, but rather an AI created robot. When candidates can use AI to create and submit resumes at increased speed and volume so too must employers and their screening partners must adapt their processes to account for higher volumes and potential inaccuracies.
Across the US, legislation is rapidly evolving to address the use of AI in hiring, especially where it replaces or heavily influences decisions, with a focus on ensuring human judgement remains central to assessing a candidate’s full background, experience and potential. This isn’t about rejecting technology. It’s about recognising its limits.
In many ways, this moment feels reminiscent of the “ban the box” movement in the US. For years, employers used a simple checkbox on application forms asking candidates to check the box if they had criminal history. The concern with this process was that some employers may see a “√” in the box and move on to the next application. . Legislators stepped in, to make sure all employers understand the importance of reviewing the application and candidate in totality including when there is criminal history that it is considered in relation to the nature/gravity of the offense, time that has passed since the offense (evidence of rehabilitation), and the nature of the position being applied for.
We are now seeing a similar dynamic play out with AI. When algorithms are used to screen CVs, score candidates or even conduct initial interviews, there is a risk that individuals could be excluded before they have had a meaningful opportunity to present themselves. And just like the checkbox approach, these systems can create unintended biases, particularly if they are trained on flawed or incomplete data.
While the UK regulatory landscape is not yet as developed, the direction is unmistakable. As AI adoption in recruitment accelerates, so too will expectations around transparency, accountability and fairness, and employers relying on automated decision-making need to make sure they keep the candidate at the forefront with compliance and fairness a priority. Legal and regulatory implications may soon come to UK employers.
So, what should HR leaders be considering? First, keep humans firmly in the loop. AI may be a supporting tool in the process, but it’s not intended to be the decision-maker. Second, audit and understand the tools you are using – how they work, what data they rely on, and where risks may arise. And finally, remember that hiring is not just about efficiency. It’s about potential, judgement and opportunity. Technology can help us manage volume, but it cannot replace human insight. If anything, the experience in the US is a timely reminder that the more advanced our tools become, the more intentional we need to be about how we use them.
