Do you manage to go a single day without being bombarded by AI buzzwords? Personally, I can’t. Corporate blogs and LinkedIn posts are bursting with endless praise for how AI is revolutionizing the workplace, especially in recruitment. Apparently, we’ve all agreed that hiring is the perfect playground for algorithms. Automated hiring, they say, is the shiny new frontier. Supposedly, “by leveraging AI technologies, companies can streamline the recruitment process, reduce biases, and enhance the candidate experience.” Oh, really? How thoughtful! Let’s dig a little deeper into this utopia of job searching in the age of automated hiring. Brace yourself – it’s not quite the fairy tale they’re selling.
Talking about an enhancement revolution
According to Market.us, the global AI recruitment market is projected to grow from USD 0.8 billion in 2023 to an impressive USD 2.6 billion by 2033. Clearly, there’s no shortage of optimism – or investment – for this AI revolution – particularly in the pre-employment testing software market. New players and shiny tools seem to emerge almost daily: AI systems that screen résumés, chatbots that “pre-screen” candidates, advanced matching algorithms, and video interview tools that claim to analyze your posture, vocal tone, word choices and facial “micro-expressions” to produce vocal and facial movement analytics. Sounds delightful, doesn’t it?
Of course, we’re told these marvels are designed to “optimize the hiring process,” covering everything from candidate sourcing and resume screening to initial assessments and interview scheduling. But here’s the kicker: they’re supposed to “enhance the candidate experience”. Enhance? Really?
Let’s pause and consider how much “enhancement” real people feel as they navigate this AI-driven labyrinth of rejection emails, ghosting chatbots, and algorithms that sort résumés like spam filters on steroids. Still feeling warm and fuzzy? Yeah, me neither.
The one-woman job-hunting machine
Let’s take the example of Marie. With two decades of experience in marketing, innovation, and business development at some of the largest international companies in Central Europe, her professional background speaks for itself. But since February of this year, she’s been on a mission: finding a new role after her position was abruptly eliminated. And when Marie looks for a job, trust me, she really looks for a job.
Picture this: Marie spends six hours a day, broken into four focused 90-minute sessions, scouring job boards, tailoring her CV to match job descriptions, completing online tests, and preparing business case presentations. Her approach is meticulous – she keeps a detailed record of every application, response, and follow-up. She’s a one-woman job-hunting machine.
Between February and the end of November, Marie submitted a staggering 937 applications. Out of those, only 255 replies came back – a response rate of roughly 27%. That means three out of four companies didn’t even bother to acknowledge her. Radio silence. Over these ten months, Marie was invited to 45 interviews, with just 3 conducted face-to-face. The rest? Online screenings, questionnaires, or assessments. From those interviews, 19 progressed to a second round, 8 reached a third, and 2 advanced to a fourth and final round. One rejection came after a head-to-head final decision, where the other candidate edged her out due to a stronger technical university background. The second case? No response at all – after four rounds. Not even a courtesy email.
Then there are the extras. Of those 19 second-round interviews, 6 required her to create business case studies. On top of that, 10 companies asked her to complete evaluations, including personality tests, cognitive ability assessments, aptitude exams, and situational judgment tests – each one consuming about an hour of her time.
So, how does Marie feel about this whole incredible journey? Interestingly, she doesn’t blame AI. In fact, she says AI helped her survive this process. She used AI to write personalized cover letters and tailor her CV to match each and every single job description. Without these tools, she admits, her search would have been even much harder.
No, Marie’s frustration is with the humans in the process – especially the talent acquisition managers, recruiters and headhunters who ghosted her over and over. To say she calls out their lack of professionalism and junior-level skills would be an understatement. Marie suggests that every CEO should spend a day observing their recruitment department. They might be surprised by what they see – and not in a good way. She also recommends that executive committee members try going through the “applicant journey” themselves, much like they claim to do with the “customer journey.” At the end of the day, Marie hints that this might lead to a simple yet powerful realization: applicants deserve to be treated like customers. After all, if the same “zero response” approach many companies use with applicants were applied to customer communication, it’s safe to say a lot of businesses wouldn’t last very long.
The mental toll of job hunting
Other professionals I interviewed for this exploration of job-search agony were not as optimistic as Marie. Instead, they highlighted the troubling psychological impact automated hiring processes are having on senior executives.
Viktor Houška witnesses it almost daily. Viktor spent the first twenty years of his career climbing the corporate ladder at international banks, soaking up the inner workings of the executive world. But in a twist of fate, he decided to change course. Today he works as a consultant and coach, “guiding professionals looking to reinvent themselves and transition into new ventures.” In other words, he helps those stuck at a career crossroads figure out their next steps.
Viktor regularly encounters senior professionals who, on the surface, seem to have it all: a luxury home, two German sedans in the garage, children in top-tier schools, and exotic vacations. Yet behind the enviable exterior lies a more troubling reality. Many feel drained, teetering on the edge of burnout, and unsure how to escape. They’re stuck behind a “glass wall”. They are desperate for change but unable to find a way forward. Their personal brand is so deeply tied to specific circles that stepping outside feels risky. To make matters worse, the roles they aspire to often aren’t even advertised. It’s as if the job market has become an exclusive club, and they’ve been left off the guest list.
Then there’s the matter of AI, which, for many seasoned professionals has become a nearly insurmountable hurdle. The thought of filling out endless online forms or enduring aptitude tests feels like a cruel joke. Already feeling vulnerable, they struggle to imagine « selling » themselves to a robot – explaining that they possess not only extensive experience but also the adaptability and drive to thrive in a new role. They crave change, but AI – and often human recruiters – seem to make the process even more challenging. Many are ghosted after just one interview, leaving them flooded with self-doubt and unsettling questions: “Am I too old? What’s wrong with me? Am I even good enough? What more could I have done?” Viktor sees firsthand how these experiences erode confidence, leaving professionals grappling with waves of negative emotions.
The invisible barrier
Take Martin, for example. For 25 years, he served as the managing director of a real estate investment company, handling every facet of the business – from acquisitions and development to leasing and property management. It’s the kind of résumé that commands respect. But when his partners decided to sell the company, Martin suddenly found himself confronting a job market after decades of stability. At 56, he was bracing himself for an uncertain and unfamiliar journey
Martin quickly discovered a harsh reality: rejection often came without explanation – or worse, dressed up in vague justifications like, “We think you’d get bored in this position.” Because, naturally, recruiters have an impeccable sense of how satisfied he’d be in any given role. Deep down, Martin suspected the real issue wasn’t his qualifications or interest – it was his age. Yet no one would admit it outright.
For executives in their fifties and sixties, ageism remains a stubborn obstacle when reentering the job market. Marie notes that age discrimination has seamlessly transitioned into the digital age, with AI now doing the dirty work. Companies may not ask your age outright, but they’ve found clever workarounds, like casually requesting your date of birth – or better yet, your birthday. How charmingly subtle! And then there are the « inclusive » questions about your sexual orientation or gender identity, posed under the noble banner of diversity. How considerate of them to ensure your private life is front and center in the hiring process, right?
It’s a modern hiring landscape where bias not only persists but is dressed up as progress – and the hurdles keep getting higher.
The result? Executives like Martin are left to fight invisible battles against biases that no one wants to acknowledge, much less address. And in a hiring landscape increasingly dominated by algorithms, the barriers aren’t just persistent – they’re becoming harder to break through.
Cracking the black box
Whether we like it or not, AI isn’t going anywhere. And the best part? We’ve only just begun to see what it can graciously take over from us. Everyone seems to agree that AI will evolve at lightning speed, transforming industries along the way. For instance, one major player in the pre-hire assessment market proudly announces on their homepage they’ve completed 70 million interviews. Quite the milestone! And their slogan? “We’re putting the human back in human resources.” A heartwarming slogan – until you remember it’s brought to you by an algorithm tallying 70 million interviews and counting.
It’s becoming increasingly clear: the role of human interaction in hiring has already diminished and will continue to decline. AI is revolutionizing how job seekers and employers connect. Candidates now use AI tools to draft CVs and applications, while employers rely on AI-powered systems to screen and assess those same applications. The result? A curious scenario where AI essentially talks to itself.
Welcome to this bold new era, where machine learning algorithms quietly oversee hiring decisions – decisions made within “black boxes” that few, if any, truly understand. How do these systems decide who’s in and who’s out? Who’s accountable when biases are reinforced or unfair outcomes emerge? Is it the developers? The companies deploying these tools? Or is the AI itself conveniently blameless? And what about candidates – what recourse do they have if they feel they’ve been treated unfairly?
It’s no secret that transparency and accountability in automated hiring remain sorely lacking. Yet, policymakers seem to be taking their time addressing these critical issues. Meanwhile, the so-called digital revolution is leaving countless people behind. Many of those classified as “economically inactive” have stopped not just working, but even seeking work – discouraged by hiring systems powered by AI that seem to reject them before they even have a chance. Pushed aside by technology that feels impersonal and opaque, they’re sidelined in a system that appears increasingly designed for exclusion.
So here we are in this brave new landscape. But one has to wonder: who truly benefits from this new order?