Blogs

I get dozens of messages like this every day: Our latest [product] leverages AI… It is based on our proprietary [secret] algorithm… Another benefit [for us] is our AI solution is automated and personalized… Does this sound useful to [company name]?

It’s not AI that concerns me.

It's that the technology is being applied to random parts of a fatally flawed recruiting process that really keeps me up at night. To explain what I mean you have to imagine a transformation that occurred a long, long time ago -- the late 19 the century when horses and buggies were still the only way to travel. In that bygone era, Henry Ford, when questioned why he didn’t listen more closely to his customers said, “If I asked my customers what they wanted, I would have built a faster horse, instead of the motor car.”

My fantasy is that in some alternate universe this was what he did. As a result, the mechanical, electrical and hydraulic engineering pioneers of the second industrial revolution listened to their customers and invented artificial limbs to amplify horses’ legs so that they could go faster for longer periods of time. How long do you think it would have taken (once every horse could travel 100 miles in two to three hours) to now consider the Luddite idea of a machine, to replace our equine friends? Cars, after all, were tricky to start, expensive to run, often broke down, and needed much better roads -- not to mention access to a fuel that did not yet exist in quantity. Horses were abundant and clearly enjoyed their newfound power.

We should also consider the push back of the many groups of people fearing a loss of jobs: buggy manufacturers; horse whip artisans, all the people who bred and trained horses, stable owners and even the thousands upon thousands of immigrants cleaning up horse manure. All were at risk along with the engineers working on artificial limbs- something that would eventually benefit humans too. Lobbyists were more than willing to put up serious obstacles to the safety and uncertainty of an unproven and potentially dangerous motor car.

Now let's consider technological advances in recruiting

For decades recruiting was a pretty low tech endeavor. Hundreds of thousands of recruiters sourced people by publishing their openings in local Sunday newspapers. Smart job seekers bought Sunday Classifieds on Saturday while the USPS offices were open and, by the very next week, the mailed resumes arrived in envelopes -- a flood of talent needing to be opened, sorted and assessed...often in minutes by recruiters trained on the job to scan resumes in six seconds or less and place them in three piles. ‘Yes’, ‘Maybe’, and ‘No’. A dozen or so of the ‘Yes’ candidates were contacted and screened, fewer (3-5) were invited in to be interviewed and, typically, one person hired.

All the applications of those brought in for an interview along with all the resumes received by the time the job was filled, were then placed in drawers of file cabinets (with screening and interview notes in the application margins, as well as test results and any other ancillary content stapled appropriately). Each drawer of every file cabinet was labeled on the outside with the job titles contained therein. Inside the drawer every specific job file was duplicated 3x with the requisition code of the job, the job title and the Date with either the notation ‘NO’, ‘NOT EVER’, ‘POSSIBLY FOR SOMETHING SIMILAR’ or, ‘SILVER MEDALIST’ printed boldly in caps to be helpful to a future recruiter.

Every file cabinet was physically located in an accessible but very large HR closet. Every few months files older than three years were removed. The files themselves were then put in cardboard boxes and moved to a distant warehouse where they would remain for two more years before being destroyed to comply with our legal space policy. At best a few employers sent postcards and letters back to those candidates who did not go forward…very few.

[Want more insights into the evolution of Talent Acquisition? Check out the CXR Foundation's History of Recruiting]

This approach worked fine for the vast majority of hires. 60-90 days was a good measure of time to fill, cost per hire was modest, technology minimal. Then came the Internet.

"Eureka," said one tech pioneer, "I can help make jobs available and searchable globally 24/7. We’ll call them job boards. Newspaper classified sections are about to become obsolete."

Another techie mused, "I can imagine a way to speed up the communication between candidates and the employers. We’ll allow candidates to fax or even email their attached resumes so we can print them out, scan them and paste them into standard application fields on the company’s computer. Eventually we’ll put computers in front of every recruiter and hiring manager." 

"But why stop there?" said a growing crowd of funded founders, "why waste time processing paper. Have candidates apply or upload their resume directly to a digital application that can consume it." 

60-90 days is still a reasonable time to fill. Cost per hire is still moderate (as long as the tech costs aren't counted). We are still doing what we’ve always done - just amplified at every step.

It's time for Talent Acquisition to take a page from Henry Ford's playbook

• Who should be engaging the job seeker at the top of the funnel?
• What can we promise and deliver to everyone who expresses interest?
• What technology and level of training is necessary to collect relevant data from candidates – even after they express interest?

Let's go back to the beginning and design a difference in kind...a car perhaps instead of continuing to amplify the human horse.

Up Next: The Future of Recruiting Part II, The Conversation