Resume

Artificial Intelligence can theoretically improve hiring through data-driven decision making, predictive analytics, skills-gap analysis, and cost-effective recruitment. However, the keyword here is “theoretical.” In practice, an alarming unintended consequence is that AI could lead to worse hiring outcomes.

HireVue, a prominent player in HR technology, has become well-known for its platform that enables companies to receive short video submissions from job candidates. Like many in the hiring industry, HireVue is now exploring how Artificial Intelligence (AI) might enhance the hiring process. The potential is exciting, but as with any innovation, there are risks. AI is indeed helping companies streamline hiring processes, but the bad news? It’s also making it easier for companies to continue mis-hiring at scale.

No matter how many job interviews you’ve conducted, unless you’ve been trained in Topgrading hiring methods, this “most revealing” question will surprise – no, shock — you. It’s not a hypothetical question and not a trick question. It’s a question that surprises interviewees, and they welcome it, get into answering it, and oftentimes remark that their answer gave them new self-insights. Though it’s a question in a job interview, it’s NOT about any job they held.

While creating our seventh book on hiring, Foolproof Hiring, Chris Mursau and I presented research results indicating the AVERAGE rate of lying on resumes to be more than 70%. Sommer notes that 35% of applicants in one study admitted lying on their resumes and – get this – “75% said they have secured a job using an application that misrepresented their education, years of experience, skills, or other attributes.”

As we all know, AI (especially the ChatGPT versions) offers both significant promises (such as in medical diagnosis and treatment) and substantial potential problems (including the destruction of all humanity). In the meantime, there are widely published annoyances—like a tendency for ChatGPT to “hallucinate” and fabricate what appears to be scientific justification for something when the “scientists” and their research are entirely fictional.