Will AI recruitment destroy the headhunter model?

I sometimes get asked whether I am worried about recruiting software or artificial intelligence eventually replacing my job.  We never know how technology will continue to develop, but the simple answer that I give is no.  If I was a recruiter who focused on entry level positions or high turnover positions, my answer might be different, but most recruiters surrendered that business years ago when interactive job board postings became more accessible.

There is still a tremendous amount of human touch that is required to engage passive candidates.  This is achieved when there is an intermediary who deeply understands the company and the opportunity AND who also understands what the potential candidate is trying to accomplish with their career.  There is also instinct required as to when there is a potential WIN/WIN scenario and when it makes sense to shake hands and part ways until another opportunity presents itself.

I do believe that there are some innovative AI companies that are creating some great recruitment tools that can assist companies in the recruitment process. 

X.ai  is a solution that can help tackle the administrative nightmare of scheduling interviews. 

ClearFit saves recruiters sourcing time by automatically finding and ranking candidates.

Filtered can help assess technical candidates through auto-generated coding challenges. 

Tools like these are great resources to reduce some of the administration functions of recruiting, but I have still yet to find a tool that effectively engages passive candidates for any position at the mid management level or above.  There are a few key reasons as to why software and AI is not effective in his regard.

1.  Accuracy – Software is only based on what a company is seeking BUT not what the candidate is seeking.  Software usually only targets experience.  A good candidate who is content with what they are doing is not likely to be interested in making a lateral move or moving backwards with their job responsibilities.  This ineffective targeting happens all too frequently.  (i.e., There is someone who was a Sales Analyst and has since been promoted to a Key Account Manager and this person is getting emails for job positions for both Sales Analyst positions and Key Account Manager positions)  Understanding a resume and predicting what the person is looking for next in terms of growth and career development is essential in order to be able to connect with a candidate.

2.  Spam - This is a real issue.  In order for AI technology to work, software companies rely on a spray and splatter quantity approach instead of a high quality less contact approach for reaching candidates.  Too often candidates are being bombarded with irrelevant jobs and even jobs in the wrong geographical territories.  This doesn’t not build trust with a passive candidate and will actually accomplish the exact opposite feeling.  I often hear about one software recruiter nicknamed ‘Phil’ whose emails just start to get deleted and sent to junk mail.  Remember, passive candidates are not looking for work.  They are very content in their positions; they are focused on their mandates and they are usually well thought of by their companies.  If you waste their time with nonsense, they will start to ignore your communication.

3.  Inability to explain a win/win proposition - When someone contacts a passive candidate, it is vital that they make a good impression. This means being friendly, efficient with time without being pushy, and well versed in explaining WIIIFT (What Is In It For Them) and that requires detail for when that opportunity arrives there in the moment.  There needs to be enough reason as to why a potential candidate should even read the first sentence of whatever is being sent to them.  A company name/brand is not enough.  A candidate will not research a company if they are not even looking for a new job, and/or the email that was sent to them is not even resonating with them.  Some large companies also make the error in assuming big company brand names will draw interest but this is not the 1990’s anymore.  Good candidates often realize that big brands can often mean less agility, less compensation, more bureaucracy, less work/life balance and more competition for a promotion. 

There is also a real business model challenge with this technology as many companies prefer to pay on a per job/position basis while technology companies prefer to use a recurring revenue stream model for their customers.  This insistence will likely force tech companies to focus on industries that have high turnover or businesses focused on temporary workers.

Farewell,

Mike