To pinpoint the exact measures of automation and human involvement within a recruitment process can be immensely difficult. Often there are too many variables that determine how effective a hiring strategy will be for example, applicant volume, the type of role you are recruiting for and everything in between.
So, we want to explore the implications and benefits of either applying too much automation or human input in a recruitment strategy.
Too much automation can be risky if you want to maintain or create a hiring experience that still feels human. An overly automated process can seem robotic and less personalised to each individual candidate. This can deter applicants from applying again in the future or push them to drop out of the current hiring process.
Personalisation can be key to improving the candidate experience and creating an overall more ‘human’ feel to the recruitment process. By doing this, it can increase employer and candidate engagement and encourage candidates to feel more compelled to express any thoughts or concerns they have. This basic level of interaction forms a solid foundation between both parties and hopefully makes for a high-quality hire.
Applicants often prefer to interact with real people who can help guide and lead them through the hiring process, answering any questions along the way. For example, a recent study highlighted the preference for human interaction still remains, determining that 72% of candidates prefer in-person interviews. Eliminating face-to-face interviews may save time and reduce the risk of bias or inconsistent hiring decisions but employers should consider with caution which areas of their hiring strategy they want to automate.
Removing all human interaction in hiring may be beneficial for company expenditure and save precious time and resources but ultimately the candidate, the ‘person’ needs to be taken into consideration. Will they be likely to apply for a job role where their decision to be hired is not decided by human resolution?
On the other hand, relying completely on human input in recruitment can be inefficient. Whilst some hiring professionals may favour this approach for more control over key decision-making moments – it’s not always practical.
If resources are limited and job vacancies receive a high applicant volume, technological assistance is sometimes a necessity, to help recruiters manage their workflow, screen and onboard new employees.
Depending entirely on manual methods means your recruitment process is more at risk of bias and favouritism. Humans may unconsciously favour some applicants over others due to factors that are irrelevant to the job role. Hiring technology can help minimise this risk and take out human bias in the recruitment process.
Whether intentional or unintentional, candidates deserve to be provided with a fair and equal start and their job changes should be based on their skills, experience and potential.
Time is precious. So do hiring professionals really have the time to manage job applications effectively without any additional assistance?
Recruiters and HR departments may feel the pressure to rush through tasks in order to keep up with their heavy workload. But the risks of doing so can mean inconsistent results and hiring mistakes.
Finding the balance
Over-automating puts your hiring strategy at risk of feeling dehumanised and less engaging to potential candidates; whereas relying only on human input to complete all recruitment stages is often time-consuming and ineffective for hiring on a mass scale. Therefore it’s important to find a balance between the two variables and find what works best for your hiring team.
What do you think? Is it time to include more automation in your recruitment process? Or are you hesitant to make the changes and are keen to keep the ‘human’ in human resources? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below or on Twitter @CiiVSOFT.