Are employers creating an AI versus AI problem?
The conversation then turned to the other side of the equation.
Employers are also using AI.
If an organisation uses automated screening to search CVs for particular words or patterns, candidates have an obvious incentive to optimise their applications for that technology.
Hector described it as AI versus AI.
Rav agreed.
“If as an employer, you are expecting your AI system to pick up CVs, your AI system is only programmed to pick up certain keywords… What am I going to do as a candidate? I’m going to go to AI.”
That creates a strange recruitment loop.
Candidates use AI to predict what employer technology wants. Employer technology then assesses content written partly to satisfy another machine. Somewhere between the two, the actual person becomes harder to see.
Rav’s concern is not that technology is inherently bad. AI can help recruiters organise information, spot patterns and reduce administrative work.
Her concern is giving it responsibility for the final judgement.
Social Interest Group keeps screening human-led, partly because candidates who appear average on paper can become exceptional employees once given the chance to speak.
“A lot of the people that we’ve employed might not have had the most polished CV, but they have excelled during their screening, excelled during their interviews, and now they’re working for us and they’re absolutely excelling. An AI screening tool could have never done that for us.”
For Rav, that is where the boundary sits.
Use AI to help people make better decisions. Do not assume it should make the decision for them.
Transparency could help both employers and candidates
AI use has also created uncertainty for applicants.
Candidates rarely know whether a person will read their CV, whether a tool will summarise it or whether automated screening will influence the decision.
Rav believes employers should be clearer.
“I think transparency goes a long way.”
If AI appears somewhere in the recruitment process, employers should explain where it is used, why they use it and what role it plays.
That clarity could also help reduce the pressure candidates feel to stuff applications with keywords.
If someone knows that AI only summarises information before a human reviews their application, they may feel more comfortable submitting something that sounds like them.
Rav believes that transparency can work both ways. Employers could also give candidates a simple opportunity to disclose whether they used AI and what they used it for.
Using AI to proofread a CV is very different from asking it to invent an answer about motivation or experience.
“As an employer, you should really set that tone.”
Her wider point was about trust. If employers are open about their technology, asking candidates for similar openness becomes much more reasonable.
What should sit alongside the CV?
If recruiters stop asking the CV to tell them everything, they need other ways to understand candidates.
At Social Interest Group, that means conversation.
After reviewing an application, hiring managers may invite someone to an informal screening call. Rav deliberately separates this from a traditional interview.
There are no endless competency questions. Instead, managers use the conversation to understand how someone communicates and who they are.
“That call is very much a conversation… our managers are gauging, who is this person? What are they like to speak to on the phone? What is their personality?”
Interviews are then held face to face.
Rav acknowledged that this could sound old-school in a recruitment market that increasingly relies on video calls and digital assessments. But for Social Interest Group, the format serves a clear purpose.
Candidates may spend five days a week working within a service. They should see that environment before accepting the role, meet people and understand how it feels.
Recruitment also works both ways. Employers are assessing the candidate, but candidates are also deciding whether they can see themselves staying.
Social Interest Group takes this further by involving residents and participants in interview panels where appropriate. Their perspective can be completely different from a recruiter or hiring manager.
They are not only asking whether someone can perform a job.
They may be asking: Would I trust this person to support me?
That approach will not transfer directly into every sector, but the principle does. Consider who is best placed to assess the qualities that actually matter for the job, rather than expecting one CV and one hiring manager to provide every answer.
One application question could tell you more than another page of CV
Hector asked Rav what she would recommend to a stretched recruitment team that cannot add lots of extra stages.
Her answer was one of the most practical ideas from the webinar:
“Have one application question which AI cannot answer.”
The point is not to create a trick question designed to catch candidates using technology.
It is to ask something personal enough that the answer gives you meaningful insight into the individual.
A generic values question may produce a generic answer. The same applies to questions about hobbies or interests.
Instead, start by asking yourself what you genuinely need to learn about the candidate that cannot be found in their employment history.
Then build one focused question around it.
Rav’s wider rule for application design is useful here: ask why you are asking.
What will the answer tell you? Will it influence your decision? Is that information already available somewhere else?
If you cannot explain why a question exists, candidates probably should not have to spend time answering it.
More recruitment stages do not automatically mean better decisions
The same thinking shaped Rav’s view on one-way video interviews.
She is open to them, but not convinced they are always the right answer.
Adding another stage before someone has spoken to a human can increase candidate drop-off. Pre-recorded interviews can also feel uncomfortable for applicants, particularly in roles where natural interaction matters.
“Having too many processes can put people off… having too many steps before even speaking to someone again can put someone off and you get a drop-off.”
The point is not that employers should avoid new selection methods.
Instead, every stage needs to earn its place.
For some jobs, a work sample or video question may provide useful evidence. For others, a ten-minute conversation could tell you far more.
Recruitment teams should judge new technology on whether it improves the decision and candidate experience, not simply because the tool exists.
Do we still need cover letters?
Rav applies the same test to cover letters.
Her personal view is that shorter, focused application questions often provide more useful information.
A traditional cover letter can leave candidates guessing about what the employer actually wants. They may spend an hour writing an enthusiastic introduction, only for the employer to skim it or never respond.
“I don’t think it’s fair to expect people to spend hours writing a cover letter just to be ghosted.”
And once the work becomes repetitive, AI becomes the obvious shortcut.
That sends employers back to the same problem: another polished document that may sound almost identical to the previous one.
Rather than asking candidates for more content, Rav’s advice is to ask for better content.
“Always think when you’re writing the applications, why are we asking this question? Do we really need it?… If you don’t need it, don’t ask it.”
For recruitment teams, that could mean reviewing the entire application journey and removing questions, documents or stages that no longer influence hiring decisions.
Will CVs still be the focal point in ten years?
When Hector asked Rav to look ten years ahead, her answer was clear: she does not expect the traditional CV to retain the same position.
That does not necessarily mean candidate profiles will disappear. Rav expects some form of general record showing experience and skills to remain.
What may change is the amount of influence that document has.
“Just because I’ve done one thing in one job doesn’t mean I can’t do it in the next.”
That is one of the CV’s biggest limitations.
It is excellent at documenting the past. It is far less effective at showing what someone could do next.
Rav has already seen recruitment technology moving towards richer candidate profiles and tools that use AI to support the process rather than decide who progresses.
“I think we’ll have a general profile, but I don’t think CVs are always going to be there as the focal point, because they don’t tell you everything.”
The opportunity for employers is not necessarily to kill the CV.
It is to stop expecting two pages of employment history to answer questions they were never designed to answer.
Rav’s advice to candidates: let recruiters see you
The webinar finished by turning the question back towards candidates.
What can someone do today to stand out?
Rav was careful to say that every employer will be different. But when applying to Social Interest Group, her advice is straightforward.
“My number one thing would be show your personality, show who you are as a person and why you really want to work for us, and make it real.”
That does not mean writing your whole life story.
A glimpse of lived experience, a genuine reason for caring about the organisation’s work or an honest explanation of what you could bring can be enough.
The important word is genuine.
AI can help make that answer clearer. It should not decide what the answer is.
“Make it real. Be real. Show your personality… We want to see you and you as a person, what you can bring to us.”
Where Reach ATS can help
The question is not whether recruitment teams should use AI or whether candidates should stop using it. Those tools are already part of hiring.
A more useful question is where technology adds value, and where people still need to lead.
For Rav and Social Interest Group, that means giving CVs less responsibility, asking better application questions and creating opportunities for candidates to show more of who they are.
For other organisations, the right mix may look different.
Reach ATS gives recruitment teams the flexibility to shape application journeys around the information they actually need, from tailored application questions and screening through to interviews, candidate management and onboarding.
If this webinar has made you question whether your current application process still gives you the right signals, it might be time to review what you ask candidates to provide, what your team actually uses, and where human judgement matters most.