Human Touch in Hiring: Relationships Matter in Job Process

Will AI replace technical recruiters? Maybe parts of the workflow. Not the work. In this market — where senior hiring is deliberate, budgets are tighter, and leadership wants “impact yesterday” — the gap between sourcing and closing has never been wider. Principal ICs aren’t scrolling job boards. They’re not applying through your ATS. They move through conversations. Through reputation. Through trust built over years. AI can generate a list. It can’t: • Reconnect with a Staff Engineer you first spoke with in 2022 and understand why now is the right moment. • Decode whether a role reporting into an overwhelmed VP is actually set up for success. • Explain the difference between “Staff in title” and “Staff in scope.” • Navigate equity bands, refresh cycles, and comp philosophy in a way that builds confidence instead of skepticism. In today’s market, senior engineers are cautious. They’ve seen layoffs. They’ve seen reorganizations. They ask sharper questions. And they disengage fast when outreach feels automated. The recruiters who are winning right now aren’t just fast — they’re informed. They know: • Which orgs are quietly backfilling after attrition • Which teams are stable vs. politically complex • Where comp is flexible (and where it absolutely isn’t) • Which hiring managers can actually close AI is a powerful co-pilot. I use it daily. But trust? Pattern recognition built from years of conversations? Knowing when a candidate is 70% sold but needs to talk it through? That’s still human. In this market, the question isn’t “Will AI replace recruiters?” It’s: Are the people you work with willing to take your call when it matters? That’s the moat. #TechRecruiting #AIinHiring #TalentStrategy #PrincipalEngineers #HiringMarket Bethany (Arnold) Moulthrop

Hiring is hard. Not because good candidates don't exist, but because screening thousand applications to find 10 worth calling is genuinely exhausting. So we built a recruitment agent to automate the mundane, time-consuming work of screening and ranking candidates. Here's how it works: → Candidates apply via Google Form → Resumes auto-fetched from Google Drive on new submission → AI filters for budget fit and parses resumes → Each candidate scored against the JD → Results populate a color-coded Excel with a "score" and candidate's strengths automatically → The HR uses the Excel to connect with eligible candidates But the part that changed how we work: Our team manages the entire pipeline through claude chat. "Run the pipeline for new candidates" "Who are the top 5 candidates this week?" "Why was this candidate rejected?" "Compare these two candidates" No switching between tools. No manual shortlisting. Just a conversation. This is what we mean when we talk about AI that actually works in practice - not demos, not prototypes, but tools running quietly in the background saving real hours every week. At Marslytics we build data and AI solutions. But we also use them ourselves, staying at the leading edge of what's possible with Claude and the latest AI developments as they emerge. The gap between idea and working product has never been smaller. We're committed to keeping our clients and ourselves on the right side of that gap. #AI #DataEngineering #Automation #Recruitment #Claude #AIInPractice

Recruiters are officially bored. In 2026, roughly 62% of resumes are being rejected for one specific reason: They lack a human pulse and all sound and look the same. Standard AI outputs are now so easy to spot that they’ve become the new "low-effort" signal. If your profile reads like a generic LLM wrote it, you aren't an expert, you’re a template. The shift for 2026? Hyper-Niche Storytelling. Stop using generic descriptors. Recruiters don’t want to see "Managed a team during a transition." They want to see how you managed team morale during an automated rollout that people were terrified of. They don't want "Optimized workflows." They want to know how you navigated an ethical dilemma during an AI implementation. The Fix: Replace your robotic bullet points with "Human-Centric" CAR statements (Context-Action-Result). If your brand doesn't have a heartbeat, the algorithm, and the recruiter, will skip right over you. Is your resume sounding a little too 'perfect' (aka robotic) lately? Drop a bullet point in the comments and let’s 'Humanize' it. 👇

75% of candidates now use AI to write their applications. 90% of employers say spammy applications have increased. Only 0.5% of applicants get hired. Recruiters spend 23 hours screening per hire. The hiring system is broken. Not because people are lazy. Because the tools are. CVs reward the best writers, not the best workers. AI-screening rewards the best prompt engineers, not the best candidates. One-click apply rewards volume, not intent. We built FirstLook to fix this. Instead of screening CVs first (which everyone has learned to game), we ask candidates to prove their skills with a short, relevant task. Then we show you the work before you see the CV. Radical? Maybe. Fairer? Definitely. Working? Early results say yes.

a competitor asked to white-label our product last week. we said no. here's the backstory: when I was a recruiter, agencies would sometimes subcontract to other agencies on particularly hard roles. doing a split meant you couldn't fill that one yourself. it was a temporary admission of defeat. a pragmatic choice to get the role filled. this competitor in the AI recruiting space? they wanted to do splits. they have roles from clients they can't fill. they wanted Superposition to find the candidates for them. here's why we said no, and why we'll keep saying no: 1. in recruitment, winning customers isn't the hard part. filling roles is. a partnership that just provides sourcing from one company to another is asymmetric. 2. we're not bullish on companies who outsource their core competency. so why would we partner with one? 3. our product works because we get deep context directly from the hiring manager. the weird nuance. the "I know it when I see it" stuff. we're not building a tool that plugs into the existing game of telephone from hiring manager to recruiter to candidate. our agent needs to talk directly to the person who actually understands the job. thats how it actually finds your perfect weirdo, and that's why other AI recruiters can't use it 

Recruiting shouldn’t feel like this. Candidate drop-offs. Manual screening overload. Hidden bias. AI-assisted cheating. Disconnected systems. These are the problems recruiters deal with every day. Now imagine a different workflow — where AI handles screening, engagement, and verification while recruiters focus only on the best candidates. That’s what CloudApper AI Recruiter was built for. Reduce time-to-hire by up to 97% and finally let recruiters do what they’re supposed to do: hire great people. Explore how it works: https://lnkd.in/gQURCpSM

Business Insider just declared the resume dead. For BPOs hiring hundreds of agents a month, it's been dead for years. They just didn't have the data to prove it. The article cites AI slop making resumes indistinguishable. That's real. But in high-volume contact center hiring, resumes were already the worst screening tool in the stack before ChatGPT existed. 85 years of I/O psychology research ranks resume review near the bottom for predictive validity. Work sample tests, structured interviews, and job simulations all outperform it significantly. Over 70% of resumes contain meaningful fabrications. That was the baseline before AI made it trivially easy to generate a polished, keyword-optimized resume for any job description. The BPOs that figured this out early have the data to show for it. One replaced resume-based screening with job simulations and predictive assessments. 60-day turnover dropped 33%. Another cut manual screening time by 89% by moving to structured, automated evaluation. Application time went from 90 minutes to under 30. The article talks about companies experimenting with paid work trials and skills-based hiring. BPOs running performance-based screening have been doing this at scale for years. The difference is they're measuring whether it actually predicts on-the-job success, not just whether it feels better than reading resumes. The resume isn't dying. For high-volume hiring, it was never alive. We published a guide that ranks every major screening method by predictive validity and breaks down what the top-performing BPOs are doing instead. Link in comments.

I’ve been on both sides of hiring, as a recruiter and hiring manager. And I’ll be honest… it wears you down. You’re busy all day, jumping from one thing to the next, but at the end of it, it doesn’t always feel like you moved anything forward. And it’s not a talent issue. It’s the process. Hours sourcing. Back-to-back screening calls. Messy systems. And still expected to hire faster. What’s changing isn’t just “using AI.” It’s where AI sits in the process. Instead of being another tool… It’s starting to take over the repetitive parts: → sourcing → screening → shortlisting Platforms like Noota are leaning into this. Check it out here: https://lnkd.in/eMn5KagB Not to replace recruiters. But to give them their time back. Because great recruiters don’t add value by scheduling calls. They add value by understanding people and making better decisions. Comment 'Noota' below to receive a 14-day free trial for Noota Talent! hashtag #NootaPartner

I put a post out last week about AI-generated CVs which caused a bit of a stir with some people agreeing, some disagreeing and some just using it as an opportunity to bash recruiters - classic! Whatever way you look at it, it's clear AI is having a negative impact on everyone involved! For candidates: - Rejected instantly by ATS systems - No feedback, no human interaction - Applying for roles they’re actually qualified for and hearing nothing For clients: - Flooded with irrelevant or AI-generated CVs - Candidates who are perfect on paper who don’t hold up in conversation - Identifying the gems amongst the volume For recruiters: A lot of AI generated CVs all look the exact same on paper Lots of fake profiles Answers don't match the CVs So the more AI gets involved with recruitment, the more frustrations everyone's experiencing, all valid points from different perspectives. It seems more so than ever that the human aspect of recruitment is needed on all fronts to try and sort out this shitshow we currently find ourselves in. Obviously, working with a recruiter can help both candidates & clients cut through the noise and work more efficiently to fill/find roles....#justsaying What's your suggestions on how this can be improved? #ai #recruitment #shitstorm

OpenClaw is getting attention in recruiting for the wrong reason. The headline is not “AI will replace recruiters.” The real story is this: AI agents can compress recruiting workflows across sourcing, research, outreach, follow-up, and scheduling. That matters because recruiting teams rarely fail on access to candidates. They fail on execution speed. Recent examples already point to OpenClaw being used for sourcing, candidate research, outreach automation, and screening support. At the same time, broader reporting is warning about cost and security as adoption accelerates.  My view: AI in recruiting should be used to remove administrative drag, not automate judgment. Best use cases: • target-company mapping • candidate enrichment • personalized outreach drafts • follow-up sequencing • interview coordination What should stay human: • candidate evaluation • hiring manager calibration • final selection • employer brand stewardship The firms that get this right will not just hire faster. They will build a recruiting function that scales without adding overhead at the same rate. That is the strategic advantage.