Positive signs are emerging that the U.S. employment picture is improving. Private sector hiring rose in December after shedding jobs the previous month. Annual pay was up. And layoffs hit their lowest pace since the summer of 2024.

Of course, that’s little consolation to the knowledge workers who have thrown their hands up in frustration looking for a job. They may want to blame artificial intelligence for kicking out their polished resumes, but here’s the deal: AI is unfairly getting the blame for what are uniquely human decisions.

The real issue here is automation amplifies bad filters at scale. So, if an HR team has bad practices to begin with, its tech stack is likewise going to reject more candidates.

As someone with a long career in HR technology, I have collaborated with a myriad of employers large and small. It is time to pull back the curtain on what is largely a misunderstood process once an applicant clicks the “submit” button on an application.

‘AI rejected me two hours after applying’

One of the worst gut punches for a candidate is the email that starts with “Thank you for applying to such-and-such a role. We have decided to move forward with other candidates whose skills better align with the role.”

The job seeker is confused because the resume checked every box in the job description. Did a human even look at the CV? Probably not if there were 500 other applicants. That’s what AI is for.

More likely, the system is screening candidates on filter criteria set by the talent acquisition team (i.e. “must have X years of experience” or “master’s degree required”). If that criteria is too narrow or broad, AI doesn’t instinctively disposition candidates—it does so with relentless perfection because that’s what humans told it to do.

There goes the notion that a sinister little black box is making corporate hiring decisions. As if it were that simple.

There’s an oft-stated statistic that says 75% of resumes are rejected by HR technology before a human even sees them. The stat has been repeated so often that it has become an accepted fact, but it has been challenged as not grounded in credible research. Seventy-five percent? Please. That’s an organization that clearly does not want to hire anyone.

A more credible fact is that there are some 27 million “hidden” U.S. workers—people who can work but are screened out by common practices and automated screening/ranking, according to a joint Harvard Business School/Accenture study. The report was released in 2021, which just goes to show how pervasive the problem was and still is.

The point isn’t that the robot is evil. But rather, once a bad proxy becomes a rule, software turns it into a brick wall.

3 things to do now for AI and hiring success

So, how can AI help candidates and employers meet when the labor market for knowledge professionals is locked?

1. Turn “no headcount” into “internal mobility.”

If companies won’t hire, they can still reallocate talent. AI skills inference and internal talent marketplaces can move people faster than managers can network. This is the lowest-friction hiring that can be done in a frozen market.

2. Convert “requirements” into “capabilities.”

A big chunk of the lock is credential inflation (e.g. degree screens and perfect linear paths). Harvard/Accenture’s “hidden workers” research describes millions screened out by practices that constrain who gets considered. AI can widen pools if it is explicitly instructed to score skills and adjacent experience, not pedigree.

3. Make interviews cheaper and more consistent.

In a cautious environment, teams avoid hiring because it’s time-expensive and high-stakes. Structured assessments and AI-assisted work-sample evaluation (with human in the loop review) can cut cycle time without lowering signal.

AI improves the job hunt for candidates and employers

Candidates might believe they would fare better at landing a job if there were no AI tools, but that would be misguided. Even the most stellar resumes might go unseen if a recruiter spends hours sifting through hundreds of CVs. Organizations would struggle to operate at today’s applicant volumes. When openings are scarce, applications per role typically spike. Employers rely on automation because humans can’t screen at that scale.

AI is specifically geared toward improving the candidate experience. Automation allows for continuous contact with applicants, a boon when so many feel ghosted by employers. An engaging career site with photos and videos is more likely to attract applicants than a static listing of thousands of job openings.

And AI-powered job discovery helps candidates find relevant roles faster. The list of benefits goes on and on.

Automation increases throughput, but it also increases false negatives when the filters are wrong. In a frozen market, false negatives are brutal because there are fewer next chances. So, for candidates, AI makes the market feel harsher because rejection is faster, quieter and more consistent. But AI also prevents total gridlock inside recruiting teams when openings are few and applicant volume is huge.

Sander van’t Noordende, CEO of the world’s largest staffing firm, Randstad, made an interesting point about AI during an interview in January at the World Economic Forum.

“I’m an AI optimist,” he told CNBC. “I see AI as a big opportunity for our industry to do a better job for talent, reaching out to talent, connecting with talent, evaluating talent, onboarding talent. Lots of those activities can be done by AI.”

Those would be empty words coming from anyone else. But the fact that they came from no less of an authority like him should reassure job seekers and employers alike that AI remains the friend, not the enemy, of hiring.

The post AI is not the enemy of job searches appeared first on HR Executive.