Machine learning and AI have been hot topics across various industries lately, and recruitment is no exception. More and more companies are using this technology to support their HR team and streamline the hiring process. 

According to 2023 statistics from Business Solution, 65% of recruiters are already using AI in their hiring process. Plus, 89% of HR professionals believe that AI will improve their day-to-day operations. A different study, however, found that 87% of those surveyed felt there were risks related to using AI in recruitment processes. 

There’s been a lot of hype and speculation about this technology and it’s hard to know what the future will hold. What does using AI really mean for recruiters? What are the pros and cons of using it to support our recruitment processes? Have we taken enough time to consider the dangers involved in relying too much on AI? 

In this article, we’ll take a closer look into what the future of AI for recruiters might bring when it comes to incorporating this technology into their workflow. Let’s take a look at a few of the most common recruitment-related use cases for AI, and their pros and cons. 

Example Use Case #1: AI Generated Job Posts

Job posts, careers pages and blogs about company values are important recruitment tools. However, writing these materials takes time and effort. In some cases, AI can be used in the writing process to create this content faster. This is especially true if the material is somewhat generic and can be based on an easily-replicated template. 

However, the quality of the content ChatGPT and other AI tools produces is still not very high. It requires skillful prompting and a lot of tweaking to get what you want and sometimes, writing these materials yourself is more effective. This is especially true if there are unique values and a distinctive culture to your organisation that may be difficult to describe.

(Plus, AI-powered generative text tools are prone to making up facts and citations that don’t exist. So, anything you publish should be carefully proofread and fact-checked before it goes live.)

Example Use Case #2: Interview Chatbots

Another interesting use-case of AI for recruiters is AI-powered Chatbots. These are bots that use natural language processing to have initial conversations with candidates.

The bots can be programmed to respond to questions, as well as ask the candidate pre-determined questions to figure out their suitability for the role. Some studies have shown that AI-powered chatbots can eliminate some of the bias that can often show up in human hiring. 

But of course, the software will only ever be as good as the data we feed it. How has this chatbot been built and what is it based on? If there are biases inherent in the dataset the AI is trained on, we shouldn’t be surprised when those biases show up in the results. 

Also, while an interview robot can mimic a simple conversation, it doesn’t have the ability to evaluate human qualities in a subjective and nuanced way. As a result, it might overlook someone who is a great culture fit, simply because they don’t have the exact experience specified in the job posting. 

Additionally, what happens when candidates learn to simply say what the chatbots want to hear, rather than being honest?  According to this study, over 90% of people think that artificial intelligence can be manipulated in this way. The widely accepted belief is that whenever an automated tool is used, there will always be people who learn how to game the system to jump to the next stage in the hiring process.

Example Use Case #3: AI Video Interviewing

Another potential application of AI in the recruiting process? Video interviews. 

AI-powered video recruiting software programs, such as Interviewer.ai, are designed to pre-screen and shortlist candidates. This technology can save you time by performing pre-interviews, and it uses AI to identify desirable traits such as the candidates’ speech cadence, body language, dressing, eye contact, and facial motion. 

This can be interesting and helpful data and tools like this may help to streamline your process. However, they should be used with extreme caution. Using this technology to make hiring decisions could result in some serious pitfalls. 

For example, the idea that an AI can identify a suitable hire from a candidates’ body language, eye contact and facial motion quickly becomes problematic. It could result in discrimination against neurodivergent people, since it’s harder for them to make eye contact or sit still when speaking. This could lead to a candidate being unfairly disqualified, although they may do an excellent job in the role.

How to Avoid Potential Pitfalls When Using AI

Yes, AI can be a helpful tool. It is, however, far from being able to take over the role of a recruiter. We have to be careful not to get caught up in the hype or overestimate its abilities.  AI does not have a sentient mind and it is not capable of thought, or of making conscious decisions. 

Some of the major concerns about using AI include:

• We should not eliminate human judgement completely when screening recruits. Sophisticated contextual knowledge and human awareness is absolutely necessary. 
• AI interaction can feel impersonal. This can be very off-putting, especially for high-level candidates. 
• AI doesn’t always eliminate bias. It sometimes perpetuates the existing bias in the data it’s trained on. 
• There are legitimate concerns about data privacy and sensitive candidate information when using AI tools. 

While AI can be used for the things that humans do poorly, such as repetitive tasks like scheduling, it should not be used for everything. There must always be a human monitoring and measuring the process to make sure the AI is adding value. 

Here are some important tips to keep in mind for best results when working with AI:

• Make sure the data you use for training the AI is as diverse and unbiased as possible. 

• Test and validate the model to make sure it is making accurate predictions, so you can adjust as needed. 
• Make a habit of continuously monitoring and assessing the output, so you can make necessary adjustments to refine predictions.
• Chatbots can’t evaluate human qualities, so it’s still important to keep a human touch on all steps in the process. 

Conclusion: Striking a Balance in the AI Era

While AI can be helpful, it is far from being able to take over the role of the recruiter. 

AI is best used as a tool to enable and enhance human activities, but when it becomes too involved in the selection process you end up losing nuance, experience and knowledge.  

In light of this, the role of an experienced human recruiter has arguably never been more important. The nuanced level of expertise that a professional brings is crucial for assessing the skills of each candidate and hiring in a fair and equitable way. Therefore, this is an opportunity for professional recruiters to really stand out and deliver quality, rather than quantity.

The future of AI for recruiters lies in striking a balance between harnessing the capabilities of this technology and preserving the human touch that is essential for meaningful connections.

What’s Your Experience with AI?

We’d love to hear your thoughts! Have you encountered AI in the recruiting process, either as a recruiter or a candidate? 

The post AI for Recruiters – A Clever Tool or a Risky Shortcut? appeared first on EWS.

By Darren Hornigold, Director, EWS Global Talent Sourcing

A US-based client recently asked me to build a talent pipeline for business development leaders. Specifically, they said they wanted to add experience and gravitas, and to “improve the balance of gray matter and gray hair” in their organization.

Focusing on age diversity is a relatively new trend in the talent solutions market, but this client is not alone. In the United States, over 1,000 companies have joined the AARP Pledge Program to recruit across diverse age groups and “consider all applications equally, regardless of age”. These companies are themselves a diverse group and include the likes of McDonald’s, Marriott, and Microsoft.

In the UK several high-profile employers have also committed to employing older workers, including Aviva, Boots, and Next. Indeed, before the pandemic, research from Glassdoor suggested that baby boomers would be the fastest growing generation in the US and UK workforce in 2020.

Benefits of hiring older workers

These companies have cottoned on to the benefits of hiring older workers, and there are plenty of them:

• Older workers are more loyal. A study by the CIPD found that over 55s are three times less likely to want to change jobs than 18-24-year-olds.
• Older works are more motivated. A majority of retired US workers would consider returning to the workplace, according to this 2022 CNBC survey. Meanwhile, a Pew study found that older workers are most likely to be “extremely” or “very” satisfied with their job.
• Older workers are tech savvy. As far back as 2016, studies showed that older workers were just as tech savvy as younger generations in the workplace, while research published by the Pew Center in 2022 showed that older people in general are becoming more tech savvy.
• Older workers have a better work ethic. In a Pew study of inter-generational attitudes, 75% of respondents said that older people have a better work ethic.
• Retaining older workers cuts recruitment costs. According to this website, the UK utilities company Centrica saved c. $2.5 million in annual recruitment costs by retaining more older workers.

On top of these benefits, ageing populations around the world mean that the average age of people in work is rising. Even in the United States, which has one of the healthiest demographics among developed nations, one third of the workforce is aged 50 or above.

US population pyramid, 2023. Source: Populationpyramid.net

Older generations are also becoming the dominant market for a majority of goods and services. The baby boomers – those born between 1946 and 1964 – have the highest net worth of any generation. Any company that wants to sell to this generation would benefit from having workers from that generation in prominent strategic and customer-facing positions.

Five tactics to tap an older talent pool

With all this in mind, let’s look at some effective tactics companies can use to tap into older talent pools:

1. Ensure your HR team is age diverse

According to 55Redefined, “only 24% of HR leaders aged 25-30 were ‘very’ willing or motivated to recruit workers aged 55–75, a stark contrast to the 63% of older HR leaders aged 46-50.” Younger HR leaders may be biased against hiring older workers, so you must ensure you have an age diverse HR team.

2. Address age bias in job ads and on your website

We know how important it is to weed out unconscious bias when it comes to gender, race, and ethnicity. It’s the same for older workers. Use neutral language and appropriate imagery that isn’t all young, fresh-faced graduates. Here are some practical examples to use as a guide.

3. Consider offering more flexible working as part of the job description

In the CNBC survey of older workers mentioned above, many respondents cited pay, flexible hours, and work-life balance as “the top criteria for the right job”. If you’re serious about attracting older workers, consider which roles you can make flexible, both in terms of hours and home working. The more flexibility you can offer, the broader a cross-section of older people will apply.

4. Actively target older talent pools

Not only do you need to use age-appropriate language and imagery on your website and in job ads to attract older workers. You also need to access older talent pools, map out older talent, and appeal to them in the places they are most likely to look for work.

5. Work with experienced talent consultants who can help

Most HR teams are too busy to make significant changes to their hiring processes. With that in mind, it may be most cost effective and faster to invest in experienced talent consultants with expertise in handling recruitment or researching and mapping older talent. When partnering with a talent consultancy, ask how many of their consultants are aged 50 and above. How much experience have they had with targeting older, more experienced workers? Ask for testimonials and references.

Five tactics to retain older talent

Once you start attracting older workers to your organization, the next step is to keep hold of them. As we saw in the Centrica example, the annual recruitment savings from retaining older workers can be huge. At the same time, their higher motivation, loyalty, and work ethic is likely to have a direct positive impact on your productivity and the bottom line. Here are five ways to retain older workers:

1. Offer training in new skills

According to this CBI article, most over-50s leave their jobs due to boredom, so offer training in new skills. This is a huge motivating factor and will keep older employees working for you for longer.

2. Develop mentoring programs

Older employees have a lot to teach junior colleagues about the company, the industry, and even the wider world of work. Many are also keen to learn about the perspectives and new ideas of younger generations.

3. Offer flexibility around family commitments and common health issues

Health issues and family commitments are statistically more likely to be an issue for older workers. You can offer a range of flexible work options to accommodate them, from job-sharing and compressed work weeks to remote work, hybrid work and project-based work. The more understanding and flexible you can be, the more your older workers are likely to appreciate it.

4. Listen to your older workers

Encourage older employees to join existing employee resource groups or create one of their own, to have a forum where they can network and share issues in a safe space.

5. Allow your older workers to shine

The more you highlight the achievements of your older workers in your PR, your social media channels, or on your website, the more your older workforce will feel represented and respected. Give older workers management responsibilities and make sure they are part of your brand image. Not only will this help to retain existing workers. It will also make you more attractive to older talent when you’re recruiting.

Tap into a silver mine of valuable talent – before your competitors beat you to it

The over-50s talent market is one of the most valuable but least tapped in the world today. With so many jobs remaining unfilled and many older workers keen to return to the workplace, this won’t remain the case much longer. Do you know how your competitors are attracting and retaining older talent?

At EWS, competitor intelligence is just one of the services we offer. Whatever workforce diversity needs you have, our two decades-plus of outsourced talent acquisition and research experience means we’ll help you find the perfect solution.

Every project we undertake is bespoke and aligned to each client’s specific business needs, market challenges, and workplace culture.

Get in touch for an initial, no-obligation conversation to see how we could help. 

The post How to Attract and Keep Older Employees appeared first on EWS.

Here are our top five tips for getting more out of any company meeting.

1. Set a meeting-cost timer

Nothing sharpens minds like the thought of wasted money. Instead of holding meetings against the clock, try one of the ingenious meeting-cost timer apps on the market, like MeeTime. These do what you’d expect – clock up how much the meeting is costing you, based on an average cost per attendee. When the cost runs into thousands (far sooner than you’d imagine), meetings quickly become more productive.

2. Leave the meeting room behind

The meeting room is the ultimate comfort zone. Staring at the same four walls dulls creativity and engagement, while sitting in those comfy ergonomic chairs hardly encourages urgency. A different setting is a great way to keep people focused and attentive. If you’re looking to stimulate creativity one-to-one, try Steve Jobs’ preferred mode of conversation: the al fresco walk-and-talk.

3. Stick to the objective like a bloodhound

The most effective meetings begin with a watertight agenda and end with actionable outputs. The way to achieve both is to start with a clearly-articulated statement of objective (ideally shared beforehand) and don’t allow the meeting to drift from it. One leadership guru claims this can save on average 17 minutes per meeting.

4. Make it exclusive

In the film In The Loop, a hapless MP is invited to an important meeting, only to find it stuffed with needless attendees, collectively referred to as ‘room meat’. There is no room in your meeting for room meat. If someone isn’t essential to the objective, don’t invite them. Is there an absolute cap on numbers? Ten is probably a sensible limit – confirming Amazon’s celebrated two-pizza rule.

5. Banish all devices

So, you’ve got the right people in the right meeting space, keenly focused on the objective at hand and primed to respond quickly and creatively. Distractions are the last thing you need. Remove the temptation to fiddle with phones or check email on laptops by banning them altogether – and watch attentiveness surge.

Those in the know, share. If you think your network would find inspiration in this post, we’ve made it really easy for you to tell them using the LinkedIn Share button below.

The post 5 Easy Ways to Stop Meetings Being a Waste of Time appeared first on EWS.

It’s an important practical question in a discussion with such huge workforce implications. Ever the pragmatists, it’s the question we’ve found ourselves pondering recently. Here’s where those ponderings have led us.

To start, some background. The TUC’s proposal is based on its belief that the benefits of technology (specifically automation, AI and robotics) should be shared evenly among the workforce. In support, the BBC cites an estimated £200bn UK economic boost from these technologies in the next decade.

Distributing these benefits would effectively mean paying typical nine-to-fivers a full weekly wage for a day’s less work. It would be to reset the clock: four days (28 hours) a week is the new full-time.

The idea is widely supported by workers. In the study underpinning the TUC proposal, 81% of respondents favoured reducing the working week to four days or less. Perhaps more surprisingly, this enthusiasm extends to bosses. A survey by Crown Workplace Relocations found 40% of leaders saying they would consider introducing a shorter work week. 60% agreed cutting hours could boost productivity.

Improving productivity is core to the four-day-week argument. There is tentative evidence that people really can do at least the same amount in less time. CNBC’s pointing to a 5% productivity increase during the 1974 Three-Day Week may be stretching exceptional circumstances. However, many of the businesses experimenting with reduced work hours are reporting at worst no reduction in output. As one advocate, Chase Clemons of Basecamp, bluntly puts it:

“[A shorter working week] forces us to prioritize what we work on.”

Crucially, anecdotal productivity gains must be weighed against the other critical factor in the four-day week argument. The evidence for improved employee wellbeing is substantial. Longer hours are linked to stress, depression, anxiety and irritability, while early adopters of lower hours say their people are “happier” (Toyota), “sharper” (Basecamp), “more relaxed” (Radioactive PR) and “stimulated, committed and empowered” (Perpetual Guardian).

Together, these two factors make a compelling case. People can achieve at least as much in a 4-day week, and enjoy a better work-life balance in the process. Doesn’t that make our adherence to a 5-day week presenteeism of the worst kind? In the words of a comprehensive Equal Times article on the topic:

“The traditional 40-hour-a-week could only be a convention made valid by tradition [rather] than its efficiency.”

Which leads us to our original question. If a shorter work week can be effectively implemented and provides sound benefits to companies and workers alike, what’s holding it back?

Traditionally, we might expect employers to be the opposition. Impetus for lower working hours in the past has come from what Gregor Gall in The Guardian terms “the twin forces of compulsion (through legislative underpinning) and pressure on the shopfloor (through workplace union organisation)”.

But if the prize of a 4-day week is improved employee wellbeing with no drop-off in productivity, why should employers resist? Of course, there will be some companies that can’t rely on technology to fill the efficiency gap. But for those that can, maybe caution is all that’s holding them back.

What’s clear is that change doesn’t take place without commitment, as neatly illustrated in two contrasting quotes from senior figures in two companies which have tested out a shorter working week.

In New Zealand, where estate planning firm Perpetual Guardian successfully trialled a 4-day week, founder Andrew Barnes states:

“The right attitude is a requirement to make it work – everyone has to be committed and take it seriously for us to create a viable long-term model for our business.”

Meanwhile in Sweden, this from Erik Gatenholm of 3D bio-printing company Cellink:

“When we read about the six-hour work day in the news, we all chuckled at the idea. I was not convinced it was a viable option but I was willing to give it a shot to test the waters. So, we tried it out with our production staff. In the end, we realised it wasn’t for us.”

Maybe it really wasn’t viable for Cellink. Then again, perhaps those initial chuckles were all it took for the trial to fail. Our hunch is that, if the future of work is set to be more flexible, contingent and tech-assisted, this may be the time to seriously review our pre-conceived notions of the ‘normal’ working week.

Those in the know, share. If you think your network would find inspiration in this post, we’ve made it really easy for you to tell them using the LinkedIn Share button below.

The post Who’s Actually Pushing For a 4-Day Week? appeared first on EWS.

Few industries are being left unaffected by the rise of the robots (our recent Future of Work series outlined the likely impact on four key sectors). But how will talent acquisition fare in the automation stakes?

Broadly, the picture looks positive for recruiters. This year’s LinkedIn Global Recruiting Trends survey reports that only 14% of hiring professionals are concerned that AI will take away their jobs. But flip that statistic and you have one in seven recruiters looking over their shoulder for the steely march of the HireBot 3000.

Fortunately, there are good reasons for those nervy one-in-seven not to panic about their future prospects. Five reasons, to be precise.

This is because the LinkedIn report also contains a list of the five recruiting skills AI is least capable of replacing. With these capabilities at the heart of your hiring practice, you can work safely in the knowledge that your job will be augmented by automation, not replaced by it.

1. Building relationships with candidates

We’ve written before about the pitfalls of removing human interaction from the hiring process. At its best, ours is an innately human business, and building strong relationships with candidates is beyond the wit of AI for the foreseeable future.

Establishing trust and rapport, persuading someone to choose your offer over multiple others, knowing the right moment to attempt to convert a passive candidate. These are all ‘touch’ skills, requiring human connections, laced with nuance and gut instinct.

2. Seeing candidate potential beyond credentials

As a living, breathing recruiting organism (put that on your LinkedIn profile), you effortlessly and instantly bring an un-automatable degree of sophistication to candidate selection. You can literally see things that aren’t there, in the shape of raw potential.

It takes hard-won experience and often a leap of faith to look beyond credentials as a predictor of success, making potential-spotting one of the most powerful weapons in your armoury.

3. Judging ‘culture add’ or ‘culture fit’

How do you tell which candidates belong in, or even better add to your culture? There may be a pre-screening role for AI in the process, but you can only be sure when you see them immersed in that culture, interacting naturally with their future colleagues. (This is one reason why job auditions are another prominent feature of the LinkedIn report.)

4. Gauging candidates’ interpersonal skills

Communicating, empathising and connecting with others is among the most automation-resistant skills in the workplace. Likewise, your ability to gauge these skills, simply by chatting to candidates, is another critical – and inimitable – role you play in the assessment process.

5. Convincing candidates to accept offers

The last step can be where you do your most valuable work. Having been alongside a successful candidate from the start of their journey, you know better than anyone what they need to hear to be convinced. You can address their concerns and head off their objections. Equally, you can bring that most persuasive of human techniques to the task… we’ve yet to hear of a robot skilled in the fine art of flattery.

All of which is a long way round of saying that your job as a recruiter is not just safe but indispensable for many years to come. Where AI does slot in, it will be to liberate you from menial and repetitive tasks, giving you more time to dedicate to the human elements that recruiters typically enjoy most.

The robots aren’t coming to replace you. They’re coming to help.

Those in the know, share. If you think your network would find inspiration in this post, we’ve made it really easy for you to tell them using the LinkedIn Share button below.

The post Five things recruiters can do that robots can’t appeared first on EWS.

The world is not getting any more productive. In the near-decade since the global financial crisis triggered an initial productivity plunge, this vital gauge of economic efficiency is still in the doldrums. And since it impacts everything from economic growth and financial stability to social equality and living standards, it’s no surprise that so many are so keen to see productivity growth return to healthy levels worldwide.

The causes of the slump are many and varied and ultimately not the concern of this blog post. The point here is that, when productivity is commonly defined as the output per hour worked in an economy, surely we in the world of work have an important contribution to make.

If so, that contribution can be framed in a simple question:

How can we create workforces and workplaces that get more out of each precious working hour?

In our guise as the recruiter’s productivity champion, we’ve turned up some interesting answers to this question. And from everything we’ve read, the key finding is neatly summed up in these wise words from a seasoned start-up founder:

It’s a lesson that goes against much conventional thinking on productivity. We typically equate effort to output, hard work to results. According to this thinking, boosting productivity is simply a matter of cramming more work into each available hour.

That’s the way many people (and indeed organisations) approach the problem. And why wouldn’t they? It’s basically the founding philosophy of the American Dream and all of the glittering promises of hard-won successes to follow.

The problem is that when you transfer such a simple maxim into the increasingly complex modern world of work, you fail to account for the critical distinction between working hard and working hard at the right things.

You end up worshipping at what work and management blogger Ted Bauer has memorably termed the Temple of Busy.

In the Temple of Busy, feeling busy is as rewarding to an employee as actually being productive. More troublingly, the claim of busyness may be viewed as favourably in performance reviews.

A fascinating study of one elite global consulting firm identified three types of employees:

1. Workaholics overtly embracing the long-hours, always-on culture
2. Dissenters openly pushing back, insisting on more flexible hours or lighter workloads
3. ‘Mock’ workaholics quietly structuring their workload around their lifestyle without compromising the results they delivered for clients.

While dissenters were punished in performance reviews, mock workaholics performed as well as their 80-hour-a-week counterparts and were consequently reviewed as highly. So what was actually achieved for the consultancy in those extra 20 or 30 hours workaholics were putting in at the grindstone? As the New York Times report puts it:

“Heavy workloads may be more about signaling devotion to a firm than really being more productive.”

The report goes on to conclude that “maybe the real problem isn’t [employees] faking greater devotion to their jobs. Maybe it’s that too many companies reward the wrong things, favoring the illusion of extraordinary effort over actual productivity.”

And there it is; the productivity problem in a nutshell.

Effort is not the same as output.

In the Temple of Busy, productivity is actually the sacrificial lamb.

The way to be more productive is not to work harder, but to work smarter.

This is certainly the view of the CIPD, who published a blog post on exactly this topic last year. In it, Chief Economist Mark Beatson sets out three ways companies can work smarter to up productivity:

1. Give employees the tools to work more productively.

That could mean investing in technology that moulds around people’s jobs, rather than systems that force users to fit in with rigid pre-set processes. Or it could mean redesigning the workplace to energise employees, promote collaboration and support wellbeing – all important factors in enhancing output.

2. Focus your work culture on prioritising value-adding tasks.

Every second spent on secondary tasks is a drain on productivity. This can be avoided by giving everyone a clear focus to the tasks that matter most in delivering company objectives. Employees need to feel empowered to prioritise and delegate effectively. That can only be achieved with what Beatson calls “systematic, continuous communication from management on the organisation’s purpose and how that purpose is best achieved.”

3. Adopt smart new ways of organising work.

Workplace innovation could see processes streamlined or work streams redistributed. Crucially, these changes are usually best when they build from the ground up. Start by asking employees where inefficiencies lie in their work and how best they can be removed. Such knowledge represents a huge untapped efficiency mine in many companies. Ten years into our global productivity slump, it’s hard to work out why this is still the case.

Interestingly, when these three factors are viewed together, it becomes clear that improving productivity is something that both employers and employees can contribute to. With so much at stake in the drive to create a more productive world, the onus is on us to play our part.

Those in the know, share. If you think your network would find inspiration in this post, we’ve made it really easy for you to tell them using the LinkedIn Share button below.

The post If You’re Working Hard to Be More Productive, You’re Doing it Wrong appeared first on EWS.