Are You Just a Number? The Dehumanizing Truth Behind AI Recruiting

In 2015, I published an article titled "You Need Only One Kind of Recruiting Technology,” wherein I argued that despite technological advancements designed to streamline recruiting, the indispensable element was, and always would be, building relationships. These intervening years have brought a surge in technological innovation, the most exciting of which is the rise of AI.  

Without a doubt, for both candidates and employers AI is a promising development. It enhances job matching, streamlining the search for both parties. Candidates can use tools like ChatGPT and Claude.ai to refine their resumes and ensure they line up better with job postings. They can use AI as a surrogate interviewer to prepare for the real thing. Employers can reduce their time to hire and reduce their labor costs. Hiring managers and recruiters can use AI to write and refine job postings, easing what is often a painful process for each. Both candidates and employers can benefit from the strength of technology in sifting through, analyzing, and summarizing large amounts of data. Hooray!! Well, not so fast…  

Enter the perspective of Byung-Chul Han, a contemporary philosopher whose work focuses on the impact of technology on society. In his works such as "The Burnout Society" and "Psychopolitics," he argues that digital technologies have the potential to transform individuals into objects of information. He forewarns that this kind of objectification leads to a loss of individuality, as people are increasingly seen as data sets or profiles, rather than as complex human beings with their own unique identities and stories. As a consequence, the recruiting process becomes increasingly transactional.  

Who knows, maybe that's what people want. In theory, an efficient marketplace is a setting where goods and services are exchanged with ease, and all parties have access to all necessary information. In that case, shouldn’t we value this efficiency? Not without caution. In the case of the labor market, the "goods" are people and their labor. All parties do not have access to all necessary information – for example, the job seeker doesn’t really know if those GlassDoor reviews reflect reality, and the employer doesn’t know the exact details of the candidate’s work experience. Additionally, if the focus is purely on efficiency, it could lead to a situation where workers are valued solely for their immediate economic contribution, ignoring their broader humanity, personal circumstances, and long-term well-being. Individuals are impelled to commodify themselves, manifesting as market-optimized profiles rather than multifaceted human beings. 

There are additional problems.  

The rise in candidate’s use of AI tools to tweak and tailor their resumes will lead to an environment where all candidates “look good on paper.” People feeding the job posting into ChatGPT will receive similar advice on how to massage their resume. Former human beings now exist as homogenized data sets in a binary landscape. Compound that with technology that allows for volume resume submissions, flooding company systems and often leading to either black hole silence or a rapid rejection email that offends with its laughable “After careful consideration” opening.  

Although the use of AI is still nascent, we’re already seeing glimpses of how this will alter behavior. Job seekers increasingly realize that their networks – their relationships – are what will separate them from the pack of digital clones. How best to represent yourself as a human being? By talking to other human beings. Leverage other people who know you and can speak to your wholeness. I’m no luddite, but as AI reshapes the mechanics of our processes, we must not lose sight of what it means to be fundamentally human. 

Our challenge is to integrate these technological advancements without reducing the relational to transactional, the human to the binary. For all the benefits of this technology, the full qualitative, ineffable aspects of a candidate's potential and value cannot be captured by algorithms alone. AI can—and should—be used to augment our innate abilities to connect and understand, not to replace them. We must leverage technology to enhance rather than diminish our humanity, not just as a tool for efficiency, but as a facilitator of deeper understanding and connection. 

No AI was harmed in the writing of this article.