As artificial intelligence transforms recruitment, organizations face a more important question than what they can automate: What should they preserve?
I am an unabashed AI enthusiast. I love exploring what the technology can do, and we’ve incorporated it into increasingly sophisticated parts of our recruiting business. We’ve developed custom tools that help us organize information, streamline workflows, prepare candidate presentations, and eliminate hours of administrative work. Every improvement gives our team more time to concentrate on the work that actually requires our experience.
Yet the more I work with artificial intelligence, the more convinced I become that some of the most valuable aspects of recruiting are precisely the ones we should be careful not to automate away.
Much of the conversation surrounding AI in recruitment centers on efficiency. How quickly can applications be reviewed? Can candidate screening be automated? Can an AI agent conduct an interview? How much of the hiring process can be completed without involving a recruiter or hiring manager?
These are reasonable questions, particularly for organizations managing large applicant volumes or struggling with limited recruiting resources. But they overlook a more consequential consideration: Does automating a particular activity improve the quality of the hiring decision, the experience of the people involved, and ultimately the outcome for the business?
Efficiency and effectiveness are not necessarily the same thing.
Understanding Experience Requires Context
I’ve spent more than two decades recruiting, primarily for manufacturers in specialized industries. During that time, I’ve reviewed thousands upon thousands of resumes and professional profiles, and one lesson has remained remarkably consistent: some exceptional candidates have terrible resumes, while some beautifully constructed resumes tell a professional story that doesn’t hold up nearly as well under examination.
A resume is a representation of someone’s experience, not a complete account of their capabilities. Understanding what a person has accomplished requires knowing the environment in which that experience was gained, the resources available, the challenges encountered, and the individual’s actual contribution.
Consider two sales executives with nearly identical titles and similar revenue responsibilities. One may have inherited an established territory with longstanding customer relationships and a highly recognizable product. The other may have entered an unfamiliar market, developed a distribution strategy, and built demand for a product customers didn’t yet understand.
Both may be successful, but their experience represents different capabilities. Which one is more valuable depends entirely on what the hiring organization needs to accomplish.
The same distinction applies to operations, supply chain, and executive leadership. An individual who thrives in a large, highly structured organization may not be equally effective in a smaller manufacturer that needs someone to build processes, establish accountability, and operate without extensive infrastructure.
AI is becoming increasingly capable of identifying patterns in professional backgrounds, and we’re actively teaching our own tools to recognize the distinctions that matter in our markets. Nevertheless, much of what makes an experienced recruiter effective comes from years of conversations, industry knowledge, and observing how different people perform in different business environments.
That experience informs what we investigate, which questions we ask, and how we interpret the answers. It also helps us recognize potential in candidates whose backgrounds may not conform neatly to conventional search criteria.
Recruitment is not simply an exercise in identifying qualified people. It is the process of determining whether a particular person can succeed in a particular organization, under a particular set of circumstances. The distinction is subtle, but it has enormous implications for how we evaluate talent.
What a Conversation Reveals
I keep a list of questions on my screen during candidate interviews. Consistency matters, particularly when several people are being evaluated for the same position, and I want to ensure that the important areas are explored with everyone.
My guess, however, is that most candidates never realize I’m working from a list.
That’s because I don’t follow it mechanically. If someone introduces a subject I intended to discuss later, we explore it. When an answer raises an interesting question, I follow that thread. Sometimes the most valuable part of a conversation emerges from something neither of us anticipated discussing.
I’m interested in what candidates have accomplished, but I’m equally interested in understanding how they think about those accomplishments. What decisions did they make? What alternatives did they consider? How did they respond when circumstances changed? What would they do differently today?
Their questions are often just as revealing as their answers, particularly when those questions demonstrate an understanding of the business challenges associated with the opportunity.
A meaningful conversation also creates opportunities to explore hesitation, enthusiasm, uncertainty, and reflection. Tone, pacing, and body language can provide additional context, although none should be mistaken for reliable evidence of competence or character on their own. People communicate differently, and effective interviewers must remain conscious of the assumptions they bring into the discussion.
The value lies in recognizing when something deserves further exploration and having the flexibility to pursue it.
AI interview systems can ask questions, record responses, generate summaries, and increasingly conduct follow-up exchanges. Those capabilities may prove useful in certain recruiting environments, particularly when the objective is to gather standardized information.
But collecting information and developing an understanding of another person are not necessarily equivalent activities.
The Difference Between Communication and Connection
I encounter a version of this distinction in my own life almost every morning.
I regularly drive to pick up my adult son, and during those drives I often turn on ChatGPT’s voice feature. We discuss sports, scientific discoveries, business ideas, or whatever happens to be on my mind. It’s an excellent way to get my brain moving early in the day, and I genuinely enjoy the interaction.
On mornings when my son rides with me, however, I’ll choose our conversation every time.
Our discussions have the spontaneity, humor, shared history, and unpredictable direction that come from knowing another person. We interrupt each other, react to what’s happening around us, and occasionally end up discussing something entirely different from where we started.
The difference isn’t simply the information being exchanged. It’s the relationship behind the conversation.
That distinction becomes particularly important when we consider recruiting as more than a selection process. Hiring is also the beginning of a professional relationship, and the interactions candidates have with an organization influence how they perceive its leadership, culture, and values.
For those of us who remember the transition from speaking with customer service representatives to navigating automated telephone systems, there’s a familiar parallel.
How many times have you worked your way through a computerized menu, repeatedly requesting a representative because your situation didn’t fit the available options?
From the company’s perspective, the system may have reduced costs and handled routine requests efficiently. From the customer’s perspective, it could feel like an obstacle standing between them and the assistance they needed.
Today’s AI technology is considerably more sophisticated, but organizations still need to ask whether they’re improving the experience or simply reducing the amount of human involvement required to deliver it.
In recruiting, that distinction can influence whether a desirable candidate remains interested in the opportunity at all.
Recruiting Is Also an Exercise in Building Interest
Imagine two organizations pursuing the same experienced professional.
The first sends a standardized outreach message, directs the individual through an automated screening process, and schedules an AI-led interview. The candidate completes the required steps, provides the requested information, and waits for further communication.
The second organization makes a personal introduction. Someone explains why the individual’s experience may be relevant, describes the business challenge behind the position, and takes the time to understand what might make a career change worthwhile.
Through that conversation, the candidate begins to understand the organization, its leadership, and the opportunity to contribute. They can ask questions, explore concerns, and evaluate whether the position represents a meaningful next step.
Both organizations may gather enough information to determine whether the individual meets their qualifications. But they have not necessarily created the same level of interest.
For an experienced professional who is performing well in their current position and wasn’t actively looking for another job, that difference can be substantial.
Organizations sometimes approach recruiting as though candidates are simply applicants moving through a selection process. In reality, recruiting often resembles business development. You’re introducing your organization, communicating its value, and persuading someone to consider a relationship that could last for years.
That is particularly important when recruiting professionals who already have attractive career options.
The experience itself communicates something about the organization. A company that describes itself as collaborative, relationship-driven, and committed to its employees should consider what candidates conclude when their earliest interactions consist almost entirely of automated communications.
This doesn’t mean every applicant requires a lengthy personal interview. High-volume hiring presents different operational challenges from specialized professional or executive search, and organizations must balance candidate experience with available resources.
But they should understand what they’re potentially sacrificing before deciding that greater automation represents an improvement.
For leaders considering AI-led interviews, I would suggest a simple exercise: experience the process yourself.
Complete the same screening candidates will encounter. Explain a complicated professional accomplishment, describe an unconventional career transition, or ask a question that doesn’t fit neatly into the expected sequence. Evaluate whether the system provides the opportunity to communicate what you believe is important.
Then consider whether that experience would increase your interest in joining the organization.
It’s a worthwhile perspective to have before implementing a process that may become a candidate’s first meaningful impression of your company.
Technology Should Strengthen the Human Work
None of this diminishes my enthusiasm for AI. Some of the most meaningful improvements we’ve made in our business have come directly from the technology.
Transcription is a particularly good example.
Before reliable transcription tools, interviews required dividing attention between the person speaking and the notes needed to document the conversation. Today, I can concentrate on listening, asking questions, and exploring the details that matter, knowing the discussion is being captured.
Afterward, AI can help organize the information, identify areas requiring clarification, and structure a candidate assessment around the business requirements of the position.
The technology hasn’t replaced the conversation. It has made the conversation more productive.
We’ve applied similar principles to research, market mapping, candidate information management, and administrative workflows. Our custom tools help process and organize information that previously consumed significant amounts of time, allowing us to invest more of that time in conversations with candidates and clients.
This is where I see tremendous opportunity for recruiting organizations. AI can improve consistency, reduce administrative burdens, and help professionals work with information more effectively, provided the underlying processes are well designed and the results are reviewed appropriately.
The objective