Organizations are facing a massive conundrum.
They’re committed to thoughtful, cautious hiring, scarred by over-hiring and blinded by economic volatility and AI's job-disruption potential. To gain capacity, TA is now widely deploying AI to screen candidates and manage volume.
On the other side, applicants recognize they are applying to automated systems. Our teams are seeing rising demand for tools that allow a candidate to use AI to autonomously apply for jobs and instantly tailor their resume for each role. This is not about falsifying experience; it’s a strategic move to ensure their actual skills and capabilities are optimally aligned with what the role requires.
This brings us to the Perplex Point: the near-future moment when a candidate’s AI Agent applies and tailors their profile, only to be screened and scored by the company's AI Screening Agent.
The entire start of the hiring funnel becomes an AI-to-AI activity.
The critical question is: Does this activity save both sides time, allowing us to invest in the human-led stages that truly assess cultural fit and career context? Or is this the first step toward an over-indexation on efficiency, where the vital human connection of the initial process is lost?
One organization we work with has developed a powerful solution: they decided to mirror the investment in candidate feedback based on the investment a candidate is required to make in applying for a job.
- If you are screened out at the AI screening stage, you receive an AI personalized report detailing where and how you could improve next time.
- If you make it to the human interview stage but are unsuccessful, the organization provides recommendations for specific skills development courses that will improve your ability to come back next time.
- What I like about this is that it isn’t a nicer rejection email - it's an effort to actually make the candidate better in their future job searches.
I’d welcome your thoughts on this complex topic as we continue to navigate on behalf of candidates and clients.
They’re committed to thoughtful, cautious hiring, scarred by over-hiring and blinded by economic volatility and AI's job-disruption potential. To gain capacity, TA is now widely deploying AI to screen candidates and manage volume.
On the other side, applicants recognize they are applying to automated systems. Our teams are seeing rising demand for tools that allow a candidate to use AI to autonomously apply for jobs and instantly tailor their resume for each role. This is not about falsifying experience; it’s a strategic move to ensure their actual skills and capabilities are optimally aligned with what the role requires.
This brings us to the Perplex Point: the near-future moment when a candidate’s AI Agent applies and tailors their profile, only to be screened and scored by the company's AI Screening Agent.
The entire start of the hiring funnel becomes an AI-to-AI activity.
The critical question is: Does this activity save both sides time, allowing us to invest in the human-led stages that truly assess cultural fit and career context? Or is this the first step toward an over-indexation on efficiency, where the vital human connection of the initial process is lost?
One organization we work with has developed a powerful solution: they decided to mirror the investment in candidate feedback based on the investment a candidate is required to make in applying for a job.
- If you are screened out at the AI screening stage, you receive an AI personalized report detailing where and how you could improve next time.
- If you make it to the human interview stage but are unsuccessful, the organization provides recommendations for specific skills development courses that will improve your ability to come back next time.
- What I like about this is that it isn’t a nicer rejection email - it's an effort to actually make the candidate better in their future job searches.
I’d welcome your thoughts on this complex topic as we continue to navigate on behalf of candidates and clients.