As our world has evolved, so has companies’ hiring process across the workforce. Advancements in technology, including artificial intelligence or AI, have changed how employers review applications.
Many employers have become reliant on technology and AI to identify quality candidates, and such a practice has negatively impacted applicants, as the usage of AI technology to review applications has significantly decreased individuals’ chances for employment. With algorithms and AI being used to review submitted applications and evaluate applicant responses in online assessments, qualified individuals who apply for open positions can be rejected. In addition, companies have incorporated advanced technology into their application review process in the form of resume screeners, a tool that can wrongly evaluate applicants’ resumes using biased criteria. In short, employers’ use and reliance upon algorithms, AI, and resume screeners have presented challenges that many were not prepared to encounter.
The algorithms and AI technology used by employers can reject applicants, even if these individuals meet the requirements established in the job posting. As Hilke Schellmann explains in her piece, “Finding it hard to get a new job? Robot recruiters might be to blame,” employers have made digital assessments part of the process of applying for available positions. Schellmann recounts the experience of Martin Burch, who applied for a data analyst position for Bloomberg and felt he was unfairly evaluated and rejected, as upon submission of his application, Burch was asked to complete a digital assessment. Burch’s performance on this online assessment, which asked him to solve a pattern of shapes, proved to be the reason for his rejection. Soon after completion of this assessment, Burch learned he would not be considered for the position he had applied for. Disappointed, confused, and in search of an explanation for his rejection, Burch contacted a Bloomberg recruiter who, as Schellmann shares, confirmed his rejection, responding, “‘…your application was rejected due to not meeting our benchmark in the Plum assessment that you completed. Unfortunately on that basis we are not able to take your application any further.’” (2022). Unfortunately, experiences similar to those Burch had have become more common as an increasing number of employers implement the usage of technology to evaluate applicants. Employers’ reliance upon technology to identify quality candidates has presented challenges for individuals nationwide, as it has become more difficult to become employed. Burch chose to apply for a marketing analyst position for Bloomberg because he believed he would be a qualified applicant for the role. However, as he later learned, even a qualified applicant can be removed from consideration for a role before their application is viewed by a human recruiter.
Furthermore, employers have further utilized technology to identify quality applicants through the use of resume screeners, tools that can biasedly evaluate talent. Today, resumes are a component of applications, as online applications will generally offer an individual the opportunity to upload their resume. Accordingly, as the use of resume screeners to review resumes and identify quality talent has grown, so has the possibility for such tools to evaluate talent using biased criteria. Schellmann documents the existence of the danger of biased evaluation of applicants by resume screeners, articulating, “A few years back, Amazon discovered that its resume screener tool was biased against women” (2022). With Amazon’s resume screening tool favoring males, female applicants experienced greater difficulty becoming employed with Amazon. Additional examples of resume screeners operating with bias have been found. In her article, Schellman shares the findings of John Scott, an industry professional who determined resume screeners used by companies operated with “biased criteria unrelated to work, such as the name Thomas and the keyword church, to ‘predict’ success in a job” (2022). Evidently, tools that are used to determine whether applicants will be considered for an open role have incorrectly evaluated talent in a manner human recruiters simply would not. A human recruiter would likely not identify an applicant as a quality candidate simply because their resume contains a specific name and unrelated term. However, with employers’ growing reliance upon technology, if an individual’s resume does not contain the keywords the system prefers, that applicant is not only at an immediate, unfair disadvantage but is also less likely to be considered for their desired positions.
In closing, while employers support the use of technology to review employment applications because it can expedite the hiring process, applicants encounter multiple challenges, including those that previous generations did not face. To be considered for their desired position, individuals must compose their resumes with the belief that a resume screener, and not a human recruiter, will be the first to review their submissions. In addition, individuals must be prepared to take an online assessment as part of the application or shortly following its submission, knowing their performance will determine whether they will be considered for their desired role. Human resource practices continue to change as employers become increasingly reliant upon tools such as algorithms, AI, and resume screeners to review, evaluate, and identify quality applicants. Therefore, individuals must be aware that to be considered for their desired job, their applications will likely need to get past technology before reaching a human recruiter.
How can individuals adapt to employers’ increased use of technology and improve their chances of being considered for their desired jobs? What measures can employers take to ensure their technology, such as resume screeners, operates without bias?
This article originally published on www.LinchiKwok.com
