Further to our previous article on the use of automation and artificial intelligence, a new survey has found that those recruitment firms that do make use of automation and artificial intelligence are able to fill almost two-thirds more vacancies compared to those that don't.
Using Automation & Artificial Intelligence
In a new survey conducted by Bullhorn, its was found that compared to those that did not use automation and artificial intelligence, recruitment organisations that did:-
- filled 64% more vacancies
- were 55% more likely to have generated greater turnover in 2021
- put forward 33% more candidates
- are quicker and more effective in updating candidates and processing alerts
- were able to redeploy 20% more locums / temps at the end of their assignments
- approximately 20,000 tasks per year, including emails and texts, are automated by the average recruitment company, which equates to saving each recruitment officer 3 hours per day on average
The Senior Vice President (Automation and Artificial Intelligence) at Bullhorn, Jason Heilman, stated: "The adoption of automation has accelerated in tandem with some of the most turbulent market conditions in recent memory. During the pandemic, digital transformation presented much-needed opportunities for recruitment businesses as circumstances forced them to cut costs and operate as efficiently as possible."
Hellman added: "Today, automation can take on an incredible range of tasks......It already represents a way of overcoming common pain points, from poor communication to time-consuming scheduling and regulatory compliance, and the data clearly shows that firms that embrace it have a competitive edge."
Investigation
The Bullhorn survey focused upon the automation of tasks within the recruitment industry, as opposed to more sophisticated artificial intelligence systems that go a stage further and proactively screen candidates.
As we highlighted in our aforementioned previous article, in terms of artificial intelligence systems that are deployed by recruiters to actively screen candidates, there are mounting concerns that they could be operated in a discriminatory manner. Given this, the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) has now launched a formal inquiry into these artificial intelligence systems and their use, including the algorithms used to screen candidates.
A spokesperson for the ICO stated: “We will be investigating concerns over the use of algorithms to sift recruitment applications, which could be negatively impacting employment opportunities of those from diverse backgrounds. We will also set out our expectations through refreshed guidance for AI developers on ensuring that algorithms treat people and their information fairly.”
Recent Use Of Algorithms
Several companies have encountered problems when trying to deploy artificial intelligence in relation to their HR functions.
Estée Lauder
Estée Lauder recently settled with and paid out 3 members of staff who were made redundant as a result of an automated video interview, and the use of Hirevue software underpinned by an algorithm. One of staff members told the BBC that: "I literally thought we would be videoed and someone would mark it after. I found out that wasn’t the case. Nobody saw the video, it was all algorithms."
An Estée Lauder representative told City AM: "We endeavour to treat our employees and candidates with dignity and respect at all times. The company takes significant steps to counter unconscious bias in all our employment-related decisions."
Amazon
Back in 2018, Amazon had to drop its use of artificial intelligence underpinned by an algorithm in its recruitment processes, following a trial of the software. They found that the software was not gender neutral and favoured male candidates.
According to Reuters, "Amazon’s computer models were trained to vet applicants by observing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over a 10-year period. Most came from men, a reflection of male dominance across the tech industry. In effect, Amazon’s system taught itself that male candidates were preferable. It penalized resumes that included the word “women’s,” as in “women’s chess club captain.” And it downgraded graduates of two all-women’s colleges, according to people familiar with the matter."
