Interesting piece here about the pros and cons of using technology as part of the recruitment process. There seems to be broad agreement around its value in helping organisations though the initial screening phase (as long as there is confidence, of course, that the software is bias-free); after which the personal touch then takes centre stage.

What’s really interesting for me, however, is what sounds like a potential conflict between sending out automated rejection letters and the feedback that early careers audiences tell us is important to them.  How do you make sure that doesn’t happen in an automated environment?  If a school leaver, undergraduate or graduate gets a rejection letter following a video interview, but no insight into what they could do better next time, how does that impact their feeling about that organisation – or about themselves?  Would they apply again in the future?  Would they recommend it to a friend who might be similarly (or more) qualified?

Also, research that we’ve conducted over the years suggests that early careers females who don’t receive feedback are more likely to disengage from entire industries, not just the individual company in question. A lack of feedback is also likely to negatively impact the perspective of BAME early careers audiences.  Not exactly a ‘win’ in diversity terms.

While providing direct feedback to every candidate often isn’t feasible, technology can be used in a constructive way to promote self-learning amongst candidates who don’t make it through that initial screening.  That way everyone wins – employers get to keep their time-efficient recruitment processes and candidates come away with something of value, regardless of the outcome.

Would you say your recruitment process strikes the right balance?