Good question. It’s our experience (over > 200,000 applicants) that applicants are pretty sanguine about the realities of recruitment, especially if the role is likely to attract lots of people. So they are philosophical about automation, although they do appreciate reassurance that no applicant will be summarily rejected without human consideration.

We have found that it’s very important to communicate with applicants every three days as recruitment progresses (email is sufficient).

And it’s even more important to communicate with unsuccessful applicants and to do so at the earliest opportunity. Again a carefully worded email is acceptable.

Applicants hate a vacuum much more than any amount of automation. It’s only the words, “Only Successful Applicants will be contacted” that they hate more!

And our (Australian) research shows that more than 80% of applicants never receive any communication, not even an acknowledgement email.

Hope this is helpful

In other words, if you automate as much of the process as possible for efficiency purposes, what is the risk of the candidate having a negative experience and/or not feeling valued?

I am naturally a very “personal-touch”, customer service oriented person, so my instinct is to speak and interact with candidates personally as much as possible. However, when you are hiring in the thousands annually, realistically you have to leverage technology to streamline processes as much as possible.

I truly am seeking thoughts and opinions on this–I’m not trying to make any sort of point or argument for one way vs. another!

Thanks,
Shannon

Regardless, though I believe it’s not necessary to posit the Singularity for machine-assisted decision making in recruitment and the broader field of human relations to be a reality.

Your article very properly highlights that it already is, albeit in a limited way. Currently this is largely very limited by its reliance on language (resume, screening question scores, psychometrics).

My thesis is that there will be a qualitative shift in the types of data used for that decision making. It’s already possible to integrate non-verbal data like voice tones, blink rate and skin blood flow into the mix. And to do that in real time without the physical presence of the subject.

I wonder, for example, how long it might be before a PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scanner might be scanning away during a remote interview? And how might we (or the post-singularity machines!) use that data? I hope that it will be wisely.

As remotely collected biometric data becomes ubiquitous and Moore’s “Law” grinds inexorably on, I’d predict the broader trend will mimic the “computers will never play chess” debate of the late sixties.

I remember personally the certainty with which the pundits made the declaration, “That will never happen”. But it did. Grandmaster Gary Kasparov lost to IBM’s “Deep Blue” in the famous Game 1 in 1996.

I’ve developed this notion in “The Final Position” at http://expr3ssion.com/2012/the-final-position if your readers would care to drop by.

We may do it best, but increasingly research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow) indicates that people aren’t “rational actors” and are heavily and inherently prone to all types of cognitive biases that can negatively influence our decision-making. As somebody said, “Don’t waste your intuition on what an algorithm can do better.” IMHO, the key is finding out what is best left to algorithms and what is best decided by trained, experienced, and motivated intuition. (Maybe when I finish “Think Fast, Think Slow”, I’ll find out what those are….)

Cheers,

Keith

The decision to hire will most likely always be an act of personal judgment.  However, better data regarding the variables that impact the quality of the decision is what differentiates down-stream outcomes.  And in the case of hiring, that means on-the-job performance.

Your first and last bullets are the ‘sit up and take notice’ elements to embrace.

All the writing on Big Data is capturing the imagination of business and working its way into the business process called staffing.  To extract value from Big Data requires rigor and discipline.  This is the work of HR Analytics.

Read more here

That is, I think, the key issue that will lead to most failures in this approach to hiring. I think these methods will force more reliable performance measures into use over time. However, I think it will be a rocky adoption process because in my experience bad management starts at the top, as does company culture, and company owners, executives, and financiers are loath to admit their lack of skill in any area, management included. More likely they will avoid the innovations that give them information they don’t want to receive while the more flexible, forward thinking will adopt it and modify their techniques to complement the process.

I also wonder if the era of small business is going to come to an end, at least in the traditional sense. With the workforce trending towards temps and contractors, a future of near total process outsourcing might be possible. That would allow these kind of techniques to be used more efficiently as businesses increasingly specialized in functions as a product. Interesting times ahead in any event.

Your closing line about the value of the human mind in the future reflects what I have observed in the last 20 years: the value of medium intensity brain work has fallen off a cliff in the USA and elsewhere, and in many ways, that is the work getting easier to automate.

We are far, far from automated plumbers and roofers and nurses and painters and police officers.

That means a major shift in who gets paid what in our society. As of now, managers and professionals are 1/3 of the workforce. If that proportion goes to 1/6 or 1/10 because of technology (like what happened with farming in the 19th / 20th century), its going to mean big changes to our economy.

Its not really the skilled working people who have to worry- my plumber is a PhD in Mech E but makes more then twice the money not working as an engineer, and my carpet cleaning guy is near the same story (BS Mech E).

That will change the culture in big, unknown ways. It speaks further to a higher ed bubble for one thing…

As to scale and machine decision making in human affairs: we are yet well away from machines being able to game the emergent complexities of humanity when it comes to symbolism, motivation, politics, sex, power, humor, and style.

All of those can be mapped and manipulated and I think it will happen faster than people think and in creepy ways- including for hiring.

What it really means is more serious problems defining objective reality going forward. When machines can simulate people and scenes at full HD quality, and do so with a directed agenda and the power to influence people, just what is and what is not a fact is going to blur even more- and I find the current pace alarming to say the least….

Is the ultimate luxury good your very own reality? We can count on the free market to deliver….

“iPad interview guides” are available already and bring structure and science to a very important process. There are too many variables to completely foresee replacing an experienced recruiter. Giving recruiters and hiring managers these tools affords the perfect mixture of technology and the human brain which optimises the art and the science.