To think companies should totally overhaul how they hire?

[SayLaveee]

I'm not job hunting atm, but a friend was telling me that because of AI, a lot of people are putting together "passable" cover letters so its getting way harder to get to interviews.
Just been on a thread about ridiculous application forms.

Isn't it weird that employers are still using these archaic hiring tools?

Why cant they be a bit more creative about it?
As a starting point, they could say eg: "please record a 2 minute video of yourself telling us about your experience to date" and then "please send us a 3 min video of you doing something you love".

They could meet candidates outside the office for interviews.

I dont know, i just feel like maybe recruitment needs a shake up.

Firms mostly use recruiters so won’t really know what processes are used. It’s smaller firms who recruit themselves that still more likely to use old fashioned processes of a simple application form, cv and covering letter.

But watching potentially dozens of short videos isn’t an answer as it would take far too much time - automatic sorting of online application forms creates a short list in seconds and skim reading cvs is also quick.

Some companies do this already as a first round. I did one for a law firm over 10 years ago.

Remember AI will be used to sift through applications and that has its downsides. I spoke to someone at a law firm recently. She said they the piles of generic applications they receive don’t help anyone.

Agree with the basic premise, not sure what the best way to go about it is. Just reading all the threads about managers who should never be in charge of people shows how the recruitment process is not working as it should.

As a starting point, they could say eg: "please record a 2 minute video of yourself telling us about your experience to date" and then "please send us a 3 min video of you doing something you love".

How on earth would that be an improvement?

This kind of thing has already been tried/exists - IMO (my job includes overseeing recruiting) the more random hoops to jump through like videos or multiple questions unrelated to the job, the less genuine candidates you get, and you end up with unqualified people who just have the time/inclination to jump through hoops. The best candidates don’t bother and will move on to applications that are more traditional.

And realistically AI goes both ways - people, even good candidates, need to use AI to help generate cover letters (and if they have good sense, then rewrite them) because of the sheer scale and state of recruitment. If you need to apply for 100 jobs to get an offer, do you really want to be writing 100 personalised cover letters/CV editions that highlight every key word of the job description (because otherwise the recruiters AI will screen it out automatically).

I can tell you’ve not done a job search lately - all the interviews I’ve had this year required a CV, cover letter / questions, then video recording before being invited to an in person interview.

AI may sift the first part, but there’s no hiding from the video recordings

I think that video recording is all well and good for a job that involves lots of presentations but it's not in everyone's skill set or relevant to all jobs.

I'd like to see the faff of an application be more proportionate to the job being applied for. I think long time consuming forms and multiple interviews for jobs that are barely above minimum wage are ridiculous. Just stick with a cover letter and a CV.

My son is currently job hunting at the moment. He has filled in numerous applications, other supplementary forms, sent cover letters and CV’s if requested, done many online psychometric tests, recorded himself doing several presentations and emailed them over, he has had many TEAMS interviews, telephone interviews and even did an online group task day for one company.

He has only face to face interview to date for a graduate role. He has received little to no feedback from employers its a futile, disheartening, soulless depressing task.

Application forms can be useful because they are standardised for all candidates whereas cvs will vary more. Our application form is specific to my work so has the safeguarding and specific requirements on it that most jobs do not require. The cover letter is just a courtesy and doesn’t form part of recruitment. I would hate videos to be used because I’m rubbish with tech plus it could increase bias in recruitment (even if it’s unconscious) eg based on accent, looks etc.

I’ve been through a variety of processes. Lots of people won’t apply for jobs if the application process is through Workday. My experience is that I don’t want to work for a company that has shit recruiting because this is indicative of what it’s like to work there.

Size doesn’t seem to matter either. Some of the best processes have been big companies and the worst small companies.
And companies pushing for freebies- I’m out.

No way the 3 minute video. Life is too short! It's a good idea for a round-2 task.

Application forms and letters are no read linearly. If I have a pile of 100 applications Initially spend 5 seconds per application verifying which ones are at or close to the required qualification level (=500 seconds so 10 mins ish) then will do a second pass through the 30ish that pass the first gate, skim-reading their experience detail with 15-20 seconds each to pull out 10 that seem worth interviewing (10 mins total). I will only bother witha detailed readthrough including the cover letter for those 10 to select the 5 I will invite to interview - perhaps 4 minutes each so 40 minutes. Total 1 hour.

Watching 100 3 minute videos would be 5 hours! Who has that kind of time!

I can't even begin to tell you how much I would hate having to video myself. If tgat became the norn I would have to accept unemployment.

It's true the process is not great. We're nearly at the stage where applications are being written by AI, then read and screened by AI, with rejection letters probably written by AI as well. It's like something out of Ray Bradbury.

Yep, it's ridiculous. An article about exactly this.

https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/the-resume-is-dying-and-ai-is-holding-the-smoking-gun/

It would help if candidates read the job spec and filled in the application form accordingly, providing personal examples of how requirements for the role were met.

A sharp focus on spag rather than AI would be helpful.

I regularly review application forms. Recently, one struck me as the graduate begged for a chance as they had made 200 applications. It resonated. I contemplated asking them in to give some advice and coaching. Their application did not address the criteria and was littered with spelling and grammatical errors.

The candidate had a 2:1 in a degree relevant to the job I was advertising.

Too many candidates do not demonstrate they have the foundation skills to perform to an acceptable standard if offered a role.

AI is not the answer.

Just to give you an example of really "stone age" recruiting, a relatuve of mine was looking for SLT staff. There was an application form that needed to be filled in by hand.
The first sift was rejecting all those forms with poor, i.e. illegible, handwriting!
This was in the 1970s.
I have also been involved in the recruitment process for a couple of projects on which I worked. It was in interesting experience. A brief, well-structured CV was the key to getting an interview, where candidates were asked a series of questions relating to their experience and how they would approach certain aspects of the job. Nothing tricky or intended to catch people out, just establishing a "fit" with the tasks and existing team. This worked.

Plenty of employers already doing what you suggest re videos for the second round of the application process. It's beyond tedious when you've got a few on the go at the same time to have to waste time recording a bunch of different videos to different requirements, edit them and then find a way to send the massive files to the employer (who never provide platforms to do so).
They're also using AI to sift applications which is likely the real reason people aren't putting as much effort into applications anymore. What's the point in doing something to the best of your ability only for a robot to bin it before anyone even sees it because you used "data analysis" instead of "analytics" and it wasn't primed for that keyword so decided you didn't match the person spec where any reasonable person wouldn't expect you to parrot the exact wording of the person spec?

My current employer (been there 7 months) was the easiest process I've been through - CV then one 1 hour interview. It was enough to establish I have the technical skills they need and that I am more or less passable as a decent human being. I don't know if it's more involved for our apprentices and graduate trainees.

Most jobs, I get a first interview by phone, then a face-to-face and technical test. I work in a technical field. We have a lot of neurodiverse people. I expect insisting on a video would mean they just wouldn't apply.

Also I think it depends on the role. Inln my job, technical knowledge and skills is the most important thing - you could be a brilliant team player, great at diffusing conflict, write wonderfully clearly - but if you can't do the technical side of it, you won't be useful. There are other roles where being able to present well to screen/video might be a key part of the role, and then it's definitely worth including for recruitment.

Different roles have different requirements- having one single recruitment process with no flexibility would probably mean that for some roles, you miss ideal candidates.

Thanks Soother Sue, really interesting piece! I liked the conclusion:

"For now, employers and job seekers remain locked in an escalating technological arms race where machines screen the output of other machines, while the humans they're meant to serve struggle to make authentic connections in an increasingly inauthentic world.

Perhaps the endgame is robots interviewing other robots for jobs performed by robots, while humans sit on the beach drinking daiquiris and playing vintage video games. Well, one can dream."

It reminds me of the joke about how we should really train robots to be able to identify cars and traffic lights in those recaptcha grid tests, because isn't that just the sort of tedious task we invented them for?

please record a 2 minute video of yourself telling us about your experience to date

How on earth would this help? If someone would use generative AI to help them produce a CV/written summary of their experience, then they’ll use it to create a script for a 2 minute video. Plus, you’ll just put off loads of people who aren’t comfortable being on camera.

please send us a 3 min video of you doing something you love".

What on earth? As an employer, I want to know whether a candidate is capable of performing the job I need done. Watching 3 minutes of someone pottering around their garden watering their plants, or knitting some socks, isn’t going to help me make that judgement. You’re not at school anymore. Employers don’t care about your extra-curricular activities.

This! We use recruiters to filter applicants and the last thing they or we need is gazillions of videos to watch rather than being able to skim through written applications for key requirements.

I’m not remotely interested in someone’s legal hobbies if they are experienced, I’m only interested in those of new graduates if they can draw some job relevant experience from them or simply demonstrate the ability to communicate and engage.

Some organisations do use videos at later stages, you have to be extremely careful using them in early stages if you have any aspiration to “blind” recruitment.

The main issues arising are poorly written applications (both SPAG and failure to address the role) and poorly drafted CVs even from supposedly highly educated applicants.

If I can summarise a full career on one side of targeted powerpoint or two side of A4 for the detail version then someone with zero - five years does not need to fill ten sides of A4 with a page on their (predictable) hobbies.

@MeringueOutang

What's the point in doing something to the best of your ability only for a robot to bin it before anyone even sees it because you used "data analysis" instead of "analytics" and it wasn't primed for that keyword so decided you didn't match the person spec where any reasonable person wouldn't expect you to parrot the exact wording of the person spec?

Isn't that demonstrating a lack of attention to detail though? I thought it was widely known that you have to "match" your experience/qualifications to the job specification, and part of that has to be identifying key-words. We know that "computers" are widely used for screening of job applications, so it's common sense that if you don't use the same wording as the job spec, there's a high likelihood of the computer rejecting you. It may not be "right", but if you want a job, you have to play the game. And data analysis is a very detail-heavy profession where attention to detail is of paramount importance.

I love watching paint dry. My video is in the post OP.