Humans in the Hiring Process

I found this recently on the back end of an online job application. The employer apparently uses ADP as their ATS, and the artificial intelligence link on the application revealed this disclosure:

“ADP’s Candidate Relevancy and Profile Relevance tools use artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms to conduct an initial review of an application, and are designed to be utilized by employers as one tool, among others, in the hiring process. Specifically, Candidate Relevancy conducts a mathematical assessment of how close the skills, education and/or experience on an applicant’s résumé match the skills, education, and/or experience listed on the relevant job description.  This process quantifies the “relevance” between the applicant’s résumé and the job posting. The Candidate Relevancy model also leverages past decisions derived from millions of résumés and job descriptions where the selection decision is already known.”

Translation: The software can assign a numerical score that reflects how well the candidate matches the advertised job further. And apparently, legal guidelines are driving all of this:

New York City Local Law 144, enacted on December 11, 2021, regulates the use of automated employment decision tools (AEDT). It prohibits employers and employment agencies from using these tools unless they have undergone a bias audit within the past year, and the results of this audit are publicly available. Additionally, employers must provide certain notices to employees or job candidates regarding the use of these tools. The law aims to ensure transparency and fairness in hiring practices, addressing potential biases in automated systems.

Translation: Guardrails for potential bias and transparency are being built into the way AI is used in hiring practices. ADP’s disclosure states what is NOT intended:

Candidate Relevancy is not intended by ADP to be relied upon solely by employers in making employment decisions and is not meant to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making in employment decisions. Moreover, Candidate Relevancy is not intended to be used as a criterion that is weighted more than any other criterion in making employment decisions and is not intended to be used to overrule conclusions derived from other factors, including human decision-making.

Translation: Humans are meant to be part of the process, assisted by AI. The true intent is stated this way:

Candidate Relevancy is intended to be one source of assistance in helping to prioritize candidates selected for next steps. Education, skills, and experience must be evaluated and validated by employers through person-to-person interviews and background checks, among other things. Candidate Relevancy is not intended to replace human judgment during any step of the recruitment process and is designed in such a way that there are no cut-off scores that would eliminate candidates from being visible to employers in the user interface. Employers are thereby provided access to all candidates, enabling them to make human decisions on which candidates to pursue.

This is one ATS; there are hundreds on the market. ADP claims that its platform “works alongside you and your people, making HR more strategic, efficient, and human-centered at every stage.” 

A human-centered tool still requires algorithmic literacy, ethical awareness, and a willingness to slow down when needed. An ATS can support this whole human-centered hiring approach if the organizations that use them keep asking: “Who decides?”, “By what logic?”, and “Under what pressure?” Clearly, those answers suggest that human oversight will be part of the equation going forward. 

Does any of this have any bearing on the way you approach résumé writing? Does any of this put pressure on the résumé writing community to advance a human-centered approach of its own? Curious to know where you stand.