In today’s rapidly evolving talent landscape, traditional hiring practices are under increasing scrutiny.

The résumé, once the cornerstone of recruitment, is being challenged by more dynamic, skills-based approaches. At the same time, artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping how organizations identify and evaluate candidates.

For HR professionals, this dual shift presents both opportunities and challenges.

Understanding how to balance innovation with human insight is key to building a more effective, inclusive, and future-ready hiring process.

The Decline of the Résumé and the Rise of Skills-Based Hiring

Research by TestGorilla reveals a growing consensus among employers and employees: 70% believe skills-based hiring is more effective than relying on résumés.

This shift is driven by the limitations of traditional résumés, which often fail to accurately reflect a candidate’s true capabilities.

Employers report difficulties in verifying résumé accuracy, assessing actual skills, and ranking candidates effectively.

Skills-based hiring offers a compelling alternative. By using cognitive ability tests, role-specific assessments, and work samples, organizations can evaluate candidates based on what they can do, not just what they claim to have done.

This approach not only improves hiring accuracy but also broadens access to diverse talent pools, helping companies move beyond degree inflation and traditional credentialism.

Moreover, hiring based on demonstrated ability reduces the risk of costly mis-hires – estimated to range from five to twenty-seven times an employee’s annual salary. While experience and qualifications still matter, integrating skills assessments into the hiring process can yield more reliable and economically sound outcomes.

The Double-Edged Sword of AI in Recruitment

While skills-based hiring is gaining traction, AI is also becoming a dominant force in recruitment. AI-powered Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) promise efficiency by scanning résumés for keywords and qualifications. However, this automation comes with significant caveats.

Many recruiters lack a deep understanding of how AI works, leading to overreliance on tools that are far from infallible. ATS systems often miss qualified candidates simply because their résumés don’t contain the “right” keywords. These systems struggle with context, nuance, and potential – qualities that human recruiters are better equipped to recognize.

AI also inherits the biases present in its training data. If a company’s historical hiring practices favored certain demographics or educational backgrounds, the AI will likely replicate those patterns, perpetuating inequality. This can undermine diversity efforts and reinforce systemic barriers.

Another major concern is the opacity of AI decision-making. Often described as a “black box,” AI tools provide little insight into how hiring decisions are made. This lack of transparency frustrates candidates and prevents recruiters from offering meaningful feedback – worsening an already strained candidate experience.

Reclaiming the Human Element

Despite its capabilities, AI cannot replace human insight in recruitment. It cannot assess soft skills like communication, empathy, or cultural fit – traits that are critical to team dynamics and long-term success. Nor can it understand the context behind a résumé gap or the unique journey of a non-traditional candidate.

Overreliance on AI risks turning hiring into a mechanical process, where individuality is lost and authenticity is sacrificed. Candidates feel pressured to conform to algorithm-friendly formats, leading to generic applications that obscure true talent and creativity.

To counter this, HR professionals must strike a balance. AI should be a tool that supports, not supplants, human insight. Recruiters need to be educated on AI’s limitations and trained to interpret its outputs critically.

By combining the efficiency of AI with the insight and experience of human recruiters, organizations can create a more holistic and equitable hiring process.

Conclusion: A Smarter, More Human Future

The future of hiring lies in reimagining recruitment as a skills-first, people-centered process.

By embracing skills-based assessments and using AI responsibly, HR professionals can unlock new levels of talent, reduce bias, and enhance the candidate experience.

As we move forward, the challenge for HR leaders is clear: harness technology without losing humanity.

The most successful organizations will be those that innovate thoughtfully, prioritize potential over pedigree, and never forget that behind every application is a person – not just a profile.

To discuss how we can help optimize the hiring process in your organization, please get in touch with us.

The term ‘red flags’ is often used these days in the world of dating – namely, trying to identify potentially undesirable qualities in potential suitors.

And, as we know, the dating process can be a lot like the hiring process – you arrange a time to meet, exchange pleasantries, and then get into the fundamentals to determine whether the two of you are a compatible.

But before all of this, it’s highly likely that, as in dating, a recruiter might take a look at a prospective candidate’s social media presence to see what it reveals about their personality and values.

This process of social media screening is a common practice amongst hiring professionals – in fact, a survey by CareerBuilder found that 70% of employers use social media to screen potential employees before making a hiring decision.

So, in light of this, we have compiled a list of social media ‘red flags’ that hiring managers should take into consideration when vetting a potential candidate:

• Inappropriate/Offensive Content – this is one of the most obvious red flags, and essentially means that if you are finding any posts that are misogynistic, homophobic or discriminatory, then this is probably a sign that the candidate might not be the best fit for the culture of your company. Content like this can also indicate a lack of professionalism and poor judgement, which are not two favorable skills.
• Complaints About Past Employers – while it’s normal to encounter occasional frustrations at work, frequent public complaints about previous employers, coworkers, or clients on social media can be indicative of a lack of discretion, poor conflict resolution skills, or an inability to maintain professional relationships.
• Negative/Hostile Tone – if you find that a candidate is constantly having arguments in comment sections and making frequent passive-aggressive remarks aimed at their peers than this could be a sign that they may struggle to maintain a positive and collaborative attitude in the workplace.
• Oversharing Confidential Information – posting sensitive or confidential information about a previous employer, such as proprietary data, client details, or internal discussions, is a significant red flag. It demonstrates poor judgment and raises questions about whether they would respect confidentiality in your organization.
• Excessive Alcohol or Drug Use – while occasional photos from social gatherings are generally harmless, a consistent pattern of posts featuring excessive drinking or drug use can signal potential issues with responsibility and reliability. However, when looking at this it’s important to differentiate between casual social behavior and signs of lifestyle choices that may affect job performance, as what an employee does to have fun is their own business, but how much of it they share online is when the lines begin to blur slightly.
• No Online Presence – it’s not necessarily a red flag to have no social media presence, but a complete lack of it can be noteworthy. In today’s digital age, it could suggest a candidate’s unfamiliarity with technology, or a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny. However, it’s essential to avoid penalizing candidates for their decision to maintain privacy.

It’s important to remember to take these ‘red flags’ with a pinch of salt.

A person’s social media is inevitably going to include content unrelated to their professional capabilities, and it’s important to recognize that anything that does raise a red flag doesn’t automatically mean that the assumption being made is true.

Rather, it’s merely something to touch on and discuss if you decide to offer the candidate an interview.

It’s important for hiring managers to be considering the context around social media posts and to focus more on patterns of behavior instead of isolated incidents.

Social media can be a valuable tool for gaining insights into potential hires, but it should complement, not replace, traditional evaluation methods. If you would like to discuss how we can help efficiently screen potential candidates and strengthen your hiring processes, please get in touch with us today.

Recently, UK department store John Lewis Partnership announced that they would be publishing their interview questions for all of their roles online for everyone to be able to access prior to their job interview.

This has since sparked an interesting debate over whether this move will catalyse a new trend for employers everywhere to consider doing the same. There are an array of positives that could come from having interview questions readily available to potential candidates, but there are also some potential drawbacks that should be considered too.

So, what are the pros?

• Having preview questions available for candidates can be so helpful for those who have the correct skills and experience but may struggle to convey this clearly in an interview setting. This is especially true for those who are neurodivergent, as traditional interview methods are known to not be considerate or inclusive of neurodiverse needs.
• Interviews can tend to focus solely on experience, skills, and competency, but having set questions can allow the employer to make room for questions that focus on value alignment, too. This helps hiring managers get a real sense of who the candidate is beyond their qualifications.
• From an internal perspective, having pre-set questions creates consistency across the hiring process, and mitigates the risk of subconscious bias, as all questions have been pre-approved and are given to all candidates.

However, there are some potential obstacles to consider:

• If candidates can pre-prepare answers, then this can hinder the organic element of an interview – and potentially offer a further advantage to those individuals who can answer template questions well. There is also the potential issue of candidates using AI to generate ‘ideal’ answers to these questions, but later when hired, employers may find that a candidate oversold their experience and skillset.
• Another thing to consider is whether or not employers are updating the questions they ask on a regular basis. If not, then it is likely that candidates will be able to access forums with generalized answers that could essentially be copy and pasted, running the risk of making interviews less about getting to know someone and more of a standardized, mechanical process.
• Having questions set in stone can potentially limit candidates in what they might want to discuss or certain qualities they want to highlight about themselves. Interviews that are rooted in rigidity can lend towards them becoming impersonal.

Overall, making interview questions available to candidates can act as a great step towards more inclusive hiring practices, ultimately expanding a company’s hiring horizons and granting them access to new pools of talent. However, the best approach to this may be a hybrid one – having a set of questions available for candidates to prepare for, and then having a few additional follow-up questions in the actual interview that are more tailored to the candidate themselves. This gives employers the opportunity to see how well someone prepares, and how well they are able to think on their feet. After all, there are a lot of instances in business where you will have to adapt and display agility.

What I would recommend for this is starting the interview with the pre-available questions, as this helps to set the tone for the interview and allows time for the candidate to relax into the setting and get a sense of who you are as a company, too. This offers some time to establish a psychologically safe space for follow up questions, where the candidate will likely feel much more confident to answer. After all, the overarching goal of an interview isn’t to “catch people”– it’s to get to know them, and for them to get to know your business.

If you would like to discuss how we can help your organization thread diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies into your hiring processes, please get in touch with me directly at arnold.greene@orgshakers.com

The résumé can be traced all the way back to the late 15^th century, when Leonardo Da Vinci sent a letter to the regent of Milan seeking a job and outlining his relevant work experience. It was then a few centuries later that this concept gained real traction, and by the early 19^th century, having a piece of paper that highlighted your experience, skills, and qualifications started to become a prerequisite to getting a job.

But are we seeing the era of the résumé starting to come to a close?

Maybe, but not immediately. Our latest LinkedIn poll highlighted that the first thing the majority of employers considered when hiring someone new was their experience (51%), followed by their qualifications (19%) and then finally their skills (14%). Now, this isn’t to say that all three of these things are not considered, but it was interesting to see that experience outranked all other factors. While this suggests that there is still a place for the résumé, with the working world going through exponential changes – catalysed by the pandemic and its fallout – is it time for employers to consider evolving their hiring strategy to remain in step with the accelerated pace of change?

Well, according to TestGorilla’s The State of Skills-Based Hiring 2023 report, the answer may indeed be yes. Of the 1500 employers and 1500 employees surveyed, 70% agreed that all forms of skills-based hiring are more effective than a résumé. 87% of employers said that they experience problems with résumés, most notably determining whether it is accurate, determining a candidate’s skills, and the struggle to easily rank potential hires to identify the strongest talent.

What we are starting to see is that employers are beginning to adopt a skills-based approach when it comes to identifying the best talent during their recruitment. This would see hiring managers doing away with résumés, and instead employing skills-based assessments to determine which candidates are best suited to the role. These assessments would include cognitive ability tests, role-specific skills tests and assignment or work samples – all of which were viewed as being more effective measures for identifying talented candidates over résumés.

And it is no wonder that employers are thinking this – moving away from the résumé and the ‘degree-inflation mindset’ allows organizations to gain access to a wider, more diverse talent pool, inviting in more opportunities for innovation. There is also a much lower chance of hiring the wrong person as employers would have seen their abilities in action, which helps to avoid the estimated cost of a bad hire (which ranges from five to twenty-seven times the amount of the person’s annual salary).

Experience and qualifications are still notable considerations when it comes to selecting a candidate, but employers who are expanding their horizons to skills-based hiring practices may yield the best – and most economically friendly – results in the years to come.

If you would like to discuss how we can help evolve your recruitment process by infusing skills-based assessments into it, then please get in touch with me at andy@orgshakers.com