Candidates’ perceptions of selection procedures can affect how likely they are to accept a job offer and ultimately the talent that employers have access to. Therefore, it is important to understand how candidates view hiring algorithms.

There are a number of ways that algorithms can be used in recruitment, such as scoring game- and image-based assessments, scoring video interviews and determining the match between a candidate and a job description based on their résumé, with estimates suggesting that around 25% of businesses use AI to support HR activities, including recruitment.

These algorithmic recruitment tools can help to streamline the hiring process, provide greater flexibility and even increase diversity when they are developed and used in the right way. Given the fact that hiring algorithms can use nontraditional data, such as game play, they can also improve candidate experience and can offer greater customizability in terms of format. However, the use of algorithmic recruitment tools can also be met with caution by candidates, particularly when used later in the hiring funnel.

Enhancing the Candidate Experience

Hiring algorithms and the associated novel assessment formats can benefit candidates by making the experience more enjoyable. For example, research has found that game-based assessments and video interviews are judged as more immersive and better designed compared to questionnaires designed to measure the same traits. Game-based assessments can also be seen as more satisfying compared to traditional formats, which can improve perceptions of the organization as a whole.

Since hiring algorithms are data driven and a large number of data points can be extracted over a short period of time, algorithmic assessments can also take less time to complete compared to traditional formats. Coupled with the fact that algorithmic assessments do not require on-site testing and can usually be taken from an applicant’s own device at a location of their choosing, this can make completing the assessment more convenient and flexible for candidates.

Lack of Social Connection

Despite the benefits of the novel assessment formats associated with hiring algorithms, candidates can feel that there is a lack of social connection and empathy from algorithms compared to humans. In fact, asynchronous video interviews judged by humans are perceived to be higher in social presence than asynchronous video interviews judged by algorithms, despite not interacting with a human in the human judgment scenario — the mere thought that a human is evaluating an application can help to increase social warmth.

Furthermore, although algorithmic evaluations are acknowledged to be more objective than human ratings, and therefore may level the playing field by reducing the influence of unconscious bias, hiring algorithms are seen as less fair than (potentially biased) human ratings because of this lack of human connection.

A Perceived Narrow Focus

The more objective approach of algorithms can also be viewed negatively by candidates due to a perceived lack of opportunity to influence decisions made about them. This is known as behavioral control.

In contrast to humans who may be able to form a wider or more full picture of an individual based on the experiences they share during an interview or on a resume for example, algorithms are trained to extract specific features and predict a specified outcome, meaning their focus can be more narrow and not clouded by other factors. Because of this, algorithms can be seen as  less able to judge human character when evaluating a résumé compared to a human, despite humans only spending around seven seconds reading each résumé.

Greater Acceptance Earlier in the Recruitment Funnel

Overall, candidates are more accepting of algorithms used earlier in the recruitment process, such as personality tests or resume screening tools. When used later in the process, such as for interviews, perceptions could be made more positive by making sure that there are opportunities for candidates to interact with or reach out to human recruiters to form social connections.

However, it’s not all bad news — research has still found that algorithmic formats can be preferred and seen as fairer than traditional at later stages of the funnel like situational judgment tests. This highlights the importance of well-designed, validated assessments that are communicated well to candidates to reduce ambiguity.