FEATURE those decisions happen invisibly, without human oversight. The final call on whether a candidate progresses or is rejected should remain with a person. Not as a rubber stamp on an algorithmic output, but as a genuine exercise of judgement informed by everything the process has surfaced.
That distinction matters more than it might appear and is the difference between AI that expands what’ s possible in hiring and AI that merely accelerates a broken process.
Measuring what matters
The good news is that the cycle isn’ t inevitable. However, breaking it does require organisations to measure different things, and to be more deliberate about what they’ re optimising for.
The incentives that have sustained it – prioritising application volume, automating for speed, measuring throughput rather than match quality – have often developed gradually rather than by design.
Shifting that means tracking different outcomes: not how many CVs were processed, but how many hires were still in the role at 12 months. Not how quickly a vacancy was filled, but whether the person in it belongs there.
That’ s a harder discipline than deploying another tool. But it’ s the only way to stop the cycle from compounding – and to start using AI in recruitment for what it’ s actually capable of: helping organisations find the people they’ re genuinely looking for. x www. intelligentcxo. com
27