Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in the selection process. The processes are indeed becoming faster, but in interviews with candidates we are increasingly hearing the other side of these changes – more anxiety, less human connection, and questions that don't always get answered or take a long time to make a decision.

Every day we have the opportunity to communicate with specialists and managers of different professions. For us, these conversations have always been one of the most valuable ways to understand what is really happening in the labor market. Behind every CV is a person with their own professional history, expectations, doubts and sometimes difficult decisions. Therefore, it is interesting not only how the needs of employers change, but also how the candidates themselves experience these changes.

Recently, we have noticed several recurring themes in their stories, which also reflect the latest research on the topic.

in 2026 in Human Resource Management Review„ A meta-analysis published in 2018 summarized the results of 53 scientific studies involving more than 24,000 participants. The researchers analyzed how people react to algorithmic decision-making in personnel management processes. The results suggest that the use of algorithms may be associated with lower trust, less favorable evaluations of the fairness of decisions, and poorer attitudes toward the organization. Of course, this does not mean that candidates do not want the technology or that AI should not be used in selection.

However, the study reminds us of one important thing: The quality of the selection process is not just about its speed. It is also about how the person feels during the process.

This conclusion is particularly close to our hearts, because this is what the candidates we met are increasingly talking about.

The demands are increasing, but the rewards don't always grow with them.

One of the topics we hear when talking to candidates is growing expectations of employers. Employees are sought who are not only well-versed in their professional field, but also able to make independent decisions, manage multiple functions, quickly adapt to changes, and understand technologies. However, at the same time, candidates notice that a growing list of requirements does not necessarily mean a growing salary. Being in the position of an employer, it is worth asking the question: are all of the listed competencies really necessary? Perhaps the candidate could learn some of them while working? A motivated and fast-learning employee can create more value for the organization than a candidate who formally meets every line of the job posting, but lacks curiosity and internal motivation to learn.

When a third participant appears in the interview – AI

Another interesting topic we discuss with candidates is the use of artificial intelligence during interviews. For example, AI assistants that help with interview notes, prepare a summary of the interview, or structure the information collected. It can help the selection specialist focus more on the candidate rather than the notes, capture important details more accurately, and compare candidate experiences more consistently. However, not all candidates welcome such tools. For some, it is a completely natural part of technological progress, while for others, there are a number of questions. Will the interview be recorded? Where will the information be stored? Who will be able to view it? Does the AI just help record the interview, or does it also participate in the assessment of the candidate?

And these questions are definitely worth hearing. We think the most important thing here is not the technology itself, but how we talk to the candidate about its use. When a person understands what the tool is used for, how their data will be processed, and what choices they have, there is more clarity and trust.

 Why do we have to wait longer for decisions?

Another trend that is increasingly mentioned by candidates is Lengthy selection processes.  Interestingly, while technology allows for faster completion of many selection tasks, candidates increasingly report longer wait times for a final decision.

This paradox is partly explained by In 2026, Ashby analyzed over 54 million applications. The study revealed that one of the most significant sources of delays in the selection process is the time between the last job interview and the final decision.

It turns out that finding a candidate or assessing their competencies doesn't always take the most time. Sometimes the most difficult thing for an organization is agreeing on which person to choose.

Another interesting finding of the study is filling senior-level positions takes as much as 37 % longer than junior-level ones. This reminds us of how important it is to clearly agree before the selection process begins what kind of person we are looking for, what competencies are necessary, and who will make the final decision.

We believe that here lies one of the most important lessons of modern selection: we can automate CV review, interview scheduling, and information summarization, but if the organization lacks clarity about expectations and decision-making, technology will unfortunately not solve these problems.

And for a candidate who has already participated in several interviews, it is not important how many hours the selection team saved. It is important for him to know when he will receive a response and whether his time has been respected.

Where can we improve?

We believe that artificial intelligence in selection has great potential, but at the same time we must remember that selection is not only a comparison of competencies or a decision about which candidate best meets the established criteria, but also a personal connection that is established, which turns into a result - a positive journey for the candidate, his good impression of the company or a recommendation, not only as an employer, but also as a brand.

Therefore, it is worth following a few simple principles:

  • Clearly agree with the hiring team what and how we will assess and how we will make decisions.
  • Communicate clearly and respectfully with candidates throughout the selection process.
  • Be open about the use of AI and its purpose.
  • Responsible assessment of which competencies are truly necessary for the position.
  • Don't forget about personal feedback, especially for candidates who have already been interviewed.
  • Use technology as an aid to professional assessment, not as a guarantee of quality in itself.

 Finally

Observing changes in the labor market and evaluating candidate feedback, the conclusion emerges that technological progress not only creates more opportunities for us, but also reminds us of our own most important responsibilities – the need for live communication and decision-making. Although we can find candidates faster, process information more easily, and automate more and more processes, we are no less responsible for the ability to listen to a person, understand their motivation, and evaluate what does not always fit into a CV or automated evaluation system.

We would like selections to be not only faster, but also of higher quality, and for people-oriented selection to remain its top priority.