AI Is Now Part of Hiring. But Do HR Leaders Like It?

You’ve probably heard of how AI has changed hiring. Candidates are using AI to generate and fine-tune resumes. Simultaneously, HR leaders are using it to screen those resumes. However, sentiment from leaders on the technology appears to be mixed, according to a recent study.

On the one hand, AI is helping candidates beyond resume construction. Some AI tools offer real-time interview support, allowing candidates to respond to interview questions with generated answers, or even manipulate video and voice footage.

Ultimately, human contact remains the surest way to decide whether a candidate is suited to a role. Where the role suggests, leaders should aim to meet in-person with candidates, to see whether there is a culture fit as well as a capability perspective.

HR Leaders are Unsure About Candidates Using AI

In a recent study from HireVue, HR leaders appeared mixed on candidates using AI. While 62% of leaders considered the use of AI smart, 31% viewed it as cheating. 

However, the report concluded 71% of candidates use AI to write resumes, indicating the technology is becoming a common tool for those seeking roles.

Some might say it’s contradictory for HR leaders to discourage the use of AI among candidates. Especially since HireVue also found 77% of HR leaders use AI weekly or daily. Most likely, AI is now commonplace on both sides.

AI Is Allowing Candidates to Cheat at Interviews

Before AI, candidates were still exaggerating applications. AI has enabled them to do this faster, and even generate entire resumes without writing a single word. Beyond this, AI has led to the development of new tools that help candidates in a new way.

In one extreme example, recounted by Miki Blasko on LinkedIn, a candidate was suspected of using AI to generate real-time answers to interview questions. Suspicions were confirmed after the candidate’s AI notetaker, on accident, shared the meeting notes with the recruiter at the end of the meeting.

Then, Blasko explained, the candidate forgot to leave the call, and was heard speaking in Hindi and laughing with their colleagues about being caught. The candidate had originally stated they were Polish. At this point, Blasko suspected the candidate was using a voice/accent changer and visual filter to make themselves appear more European.

Following an analysis of over 19,000 AI interviews conducted on its platform, Fabric found 38.5% of candidates were flagged for cheating behavior. Fabric describes cheating as using invisible overlays on screens and using ChatGPT or Gemini’s voice mode and reading the answers it generates.

The report suggests candidates see AI assistance as a standard interviewing tool. This argument does carry some weight, especially if there’s evidence the person interviewing you is also using AI.

In fact, HireVue found 35% of hiring teams use AI for candidate screening, and 43% use it for resume screening. Although, whether AI should be used in interviews, where culture fit and professionalism is also tested, is up for debate.

Likewise, candidates in the Fabric study said they believed their competition was using AI anyway, so they needed to use it in order to stay competitive in today’s bleak hiring landscape.

How to Adapt to AI in Hiring

HR leaders need to adapt to AI being part of the hiring process, according to Alon Pearl, founder and CEO of recruitment agency VA Masters.

Pearl advises leaders to treat the resume as a guide. Leaders should ask follow-up questions to validate achievements, and use a short, role-relevant work sample to decide whether a candidate is capable of doing the job.

Similarly, Pearl says leaders should set clear rules from the start about AI use within their hiring processes.

“Tell candidates in advance whether AI is allowed during applications and assessments. If it is, ask them to explain what they accepted, changed, or fact-checked in the output.” – Alon Pearl, founder and CEO at VA Masters

Asking candidates how they used AI, and why they used it a certain way, could be a good way to generate trust between hiring teams and potential hires.

Plus, AI skills are now an attractive quality to potential employers. Understanding how a candidate has used AI could indicate their overall fluency. Obviously, there are limits to this, which will depend on your company’s own AI policy.

Human Understanding Still Provides the Best Judgement

Additionally, Pearl says HR leaders shouldn’t be focused on trying to detect whether a candidate has used AI. He describes a kind of nuance when it comes to AI use, especially as individuals can use the technology in different ways.

“A candidate may use it to tidy up their wording and still be excellent at the job. Another person may write every word themselves and exaggerate their experience. The better question is whether they can explain what they have done and show that they can do the work.” – Alon Pearl

Pearl ultimately suggests hiring should focus on whether candidates can do the work and explain their experience. While AI has enabled candidates to appear competent, “presenting yourself well has never been the same thing as doing the job well,” he explains.

Instead, “employers now need a clearer line between what candidates claim and what they can demonstrate.”

For roles that are hybrid or in-person, this should mean getting to know someone beyond a video interview and resume screening. Often, hiring leaders should be looking at how candidates fit in to their company culture and goals, as well as whether they can do the job they’ve applied for. This is where in-person, human understanding is most valuable.