In an era dominated by artificial intelligence, the hiring landscape has (like most other sectors) changed completely. The majority of companies now use AI for some parts of the recruitment process, while candidates use AI both for CV-creation and job applications. Intended to be a revolutionary move towards efficiency and finding the perfect candidate for every role quickly, this new paradigm has instead delivered less-than-ideal, unintended consequences for applicants and companies alike, a leadership expert says.
“While AI initially came with the promise of streamlining hiring, in the real world, it instead unleashed a flood of challenges, often burying exceptional talent under a deluge of polished but increasingly generic applications,” says Advaita Naidoo, Africa MD at Jack Hammer, Africa’s largest executive search firm.
Some of the major challenges around AI in recruitment were highlighted in a recent New York Times article, which noted a 45% increase in applications on LinkedIn over the past year, with the platform seeing 11 000 applications per minute. Tools like ChatGPT allow candidates to tailor résumés with job-specific keywords, while some use AI agents to autonomously find and apply for jobs.
“With increased automation on both sides of the process, employers receive a deluge of applications for most vacancies, which makes it difficult to identify genuinely qualified and outstanding candidates. Great candidates, for their part, struggle to get out from behind the AI veil to get noticed,” Naidoo says.
Volume and trust
The difficulty arises as a result of the sheer volume of applications hiring managers have to contend with, as well as a loss of trust in the integrity and authenticity of applications.
“The drastically increased volume of applications, often thousands per role, overwhelms hiring teams, rendering traditional CV screening ineffective. All this while AI-enhanced CVs, often polished to perfection with job-specific keywords, have eroded the CV’s value as a reliable signal of suitability,” Naidoo says.
“The CV is no longer the differentiator it used to be in the past. Today, they all look good, but that doesn’t mean they’re authentic. And the flood of applications hasn’t expanded the talent pool, it’s simply made applying easier. The result? A trust collapse.”
Employers can no longer rely on CVs, suspecting embellishment or outright fabrication. Even remote interview responses are suspect, as candidates can use AI tools to craft answers in real time.
The irony is stark: technology designed to streamline hiring has created a bottleneck, burying exceptional candidates in a sea of uniformity.
Towards best practice
Naidoo says the response to this efficiency paradox in AI-driven hiring is not to get rid of technological advancements wholesale, but to ensure that its limitations are acknowledged and addressed.
“If your company processes effectively have bots talking to bots, you are going to be missing the human nuances that define great hires. South African employers, facing unique economic and cultural dynamics, are particularly affected. To cut through the noise, businesses must seek a correction towards ensuring human-centric strategies in conjunction with leveraging AI,” she says.
These strategies could include:
- Proactive sourcing: Posting ads on job boards like LinkedIn yields moderate-quality results. Instead, internal teams should adopt outbound headhunting tactics, leveraging tools to identify passive talent of those not actively applying but open to opportunities. Alternatively, partnering with talent agencies offers access to vetted, high-quality candidates.
- Leveraging advanced screening tools with caution: Invest in applicant tracking systems (ATS) that go beyond keyword matching. Look for platforms that assess skills, experience, and cultural fit while flagging overly generic or AI-crafted résumés. However, don’t rely solely on automation. Combine ATS with human oversight to avoid missing unique talent.
- Innovative screening: Companies are moving beyond CVs, requiring candidates to submit video responses or answer role-specific questions. These methods reveal authenticity and communication skills, which AI struggles to replicate. For example, an organisation can ask candidates to submit a short video explaining a local industry challenge, which will weed out generic AI applications. Also, incorporate video or in-person interviews early. AI can generate flawless written responses, but human interaction is harder to fake.
“The AI application avalanche underscores a critical reality, that we still, at least for now, need humans at the helm. While AI tools can process thousands of CVs, they lack the intuition to identify exceptional talent or verify authenticity, and even the bots rarely agree with each other on who is the best fit for a role.
“So in the current environment, while we do believe in the value of AI, we also urge companies to understand its limitations (for now). The solution lies in tapping into the efficiency benefits of technology, while still ensuring a healthy dose of competent human involvement in the process.”
