Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Fed up of lazy AI use in recruitment

154 replies

DerelictWreck · 09/02/2024 10:46

AIBU? Are others finding this?

We use an online recruitment system at work which is designed to reduce bias - we can only see how candidates have answered work based questions which are designed to assess their ability to do the job. We don't see any personal information or CVs.

As part of the process the candidates are told that use of AI will not help them and when they submit, they have to sign a declaration that it is their own work, not generative AI. Any AI work found will mean they are automatically dismissed from the process.

But over the last year this has so rapidly scaled that I'm now looking at over 50% of applications copying and pasting from AI chatbots. It's blatantly obvious, gives poor answers, massively slows down my recruitment processes, and is a complete waste of the candidates time as they get auto-rejected! I'm at the point where I'm also going to start blacklisting their names from future recruitment, and sharing said list with our sister companies (part of a large network).

I don't understand why they do it - using it to get ideas and editing it I get. But copying and pasting - how stupid do they think we are?!

OP posts:
PutMyFootIn · 10/02/2024 16:21

Brilliant post @NeptunaOfTheMermaidBattleSquadron

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 10/02/2024 16:31

NeptunaOfTheMermaidBattleSquadron · 10/02/2024 15:51

The poster didn't say it was unreasonable in the post you quoted though, you had a go at her for comprehension problems then conceded that she was right.

I get that you love your recruitment system, it leaps out of your (many) posts, but you're not taking on board the feedback from humans (human resources... finite non-renewable human resources) that this isn't working for them. And OP has the same problem. You're all too busy getting defensive to examine why your resources are upset that you're treating them like robots then wondering why they use robotic application systems.

Recruitment is a two way street. You're asking someone to commit a large portion of their life to the furtherment of your own corporate goals. They should be treated accordingly. I filter out companies with shit application processes because I don't want to work for people who value mindless, pointless bureaucracy. If your company values include those things, then I'm sure you're getting the right people with this approach.

And OP feedback from candidates on the system should be weighed against the fact they're being polite so they don't burn bridges in the future, if it's a professional role/environment. Few people are stupid enough to tell HR what they really think about anything they don't like, whether they got the job or not. And you're not improving EDI if you're making the application process completely inaccessible to people with ADHD by making it too ridiculous and pointless, those of us with ADHD have no truck with such things.

Thank god I work in an environment where employees are valued and listened to and where they are very open to ideas on simplifying everything and putting humans at the heart of all we do. I like our HR lady a lot, but I like her even more after reading this thread's HR "perspectives".

The process absolutely isn't inaccessible to people with ADHD, which I happen to have myself, currently unmedicated. You can't make such ridiculous generalisations. Yes, it can be bloody hard to make yourself do stuff like complex job applications, but many people with adhd are capable of doing this, how ininsulting to suggest that they wouldn't be?! And honestly speaking, if people are affected by their ADHD in such a way that they are genuinely unable to manage relatively minor written tasks to secure a job that they really want, it's highly likely that they will not be able to cope with the written requirements of the job, because we work in an environment where timely and accurate written records are essential - we cannot make reasonable adjustments to eleliminate such tasks.

There are lots of aspects of traditional recruitment processes that might be harder for some people than others. For example, interviews might be more difficult for people with ASD or social anxiety etc. Should we do away with them as well? What approach to recruitment do you think would be just and fair for everyone?

As for our "resources" (I prefer to call them people!) being upset... they're not!! They're a happy, positive and engaged bunch, and they do feel valued and listened to. The ones who don't like our approach to recruitment will obviously go elsewhere, and that's fine...we are still getting plenty of interest in our roles and our staff retention rates are excellent. So I don't actually have a "problem" at all.

You might see our application process as mindless, pointless bureaucracy. That's your shout. Our data suggests that it's helping us to improve diversity and recruit better people. It isn't a perfect system, but we believe that it's fairer than the CV screening that we used previously. The feedback is all anonymous anyway, so nobody would be burning any bridges if they told us what they actually felt. Plus it's a competitive recruitment market at the moment, so if people really don't like it, they will just go elsewhere.

As long as they stay within the law, employers can run recruitment processes in whatever way they choose. If they make it too difficult or treat people like shit, then yes, applicants will vote with their feet and go elsewhere, but that is not a problen that we are facing right now. If we struggle to recruit high quality people in the future, then obviously we'll have to re-evaluate.

Nobody is forcing anyone to apply for jobs with complex application processes, so I don't really understand the aggrieved tones. If you don't like the way we operate, and you don't think that working for us is worth the effort that we're asking you to put in, then you're more than welcome to go and work elsewhere. There are plenty of jobs out there right now.

KnittedCardi · 10/02/2024 17:59

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 10/02/2024 15:21

This is exactly the type of issue that blind recruitment systems are attempting to tackle.

But it doesn't though does it? If, for example, their filter is degree, then DH is out regardless of thirty industry years of experience. No-one even bothers to look further.

MrsBennetsPoorNerves · 10/02/2024 19:56

KnittedCardi · 10/02/2024 17:59

But it doesn't though does it? If, for example, their filter is degree, then DH is out regardless of thirty industry years of experience. No-one even bothers to look further.

Well, it depends on how the employer sets things up. We don't see qualifications when shortlisting, unless there is an absolute requirement for a specific professional qualification in order to do the role (e.g. if we needed a qualified doctor, for example).

We don't see the career history either, so we wouldn't be able to guess ages etc. The shortlisting is done on the basis of the quality of the answers provided to specific questions set by us, so your DH's skills and experience should show through the process without us having any awareness of his qualifications or his age etc.

It isn't perfect. No system is, but it is at least trying to address exactly the type of issues that you reference.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page