According to The New York Times, roughly 11,000 applications are submitted on LinkedIn every minute. Some job postings receive over a thousand résumés, many of them AI-generated. Hiring teams have to sort through higher volumes of applications that are now harder to evaluate than before. Candidates aren’t faring any better and are losing trust in the hiring process.
The developing result is a slower, more difficult process to navigate for both sides.
Is AI slowing down the hiring process?
It’s easy to see why 84% of HR teams report heavier workloads as candidates use generative AI. The bulk of résumés are well-written, keyword-optimized, and embellished with requirements you’re most likely looking for. But do they reflect the candidates’ genuine capabilities? It’s hard to say, especially at scale.
Recruitment teams have turned to ATS filters, one-way video interviews, and chatbots to manage the massive influx of applications. These extra layers may improve short-term efficiency, but they also have the potential to backfire—recent data shows 33% of job seekers will abandon the interview process if a one-way video is requested, and 41% don’t believe their application will be seen by a human.
In real time, we’re watching hiring become more efficient and less effective.
How to make thoughtful adjustments
Technology isn’t the villain, and the goal isn’t to remove it. However, it can be used more intentionally.
1. Narrow the funnel early in the process
Focus on reducing the number of applications from the beginning. Start with clearer job descriptions that reflect the actual work instead of a broad list of responsibilities. Vague postings can attract applicants who don’t align with the role.
You can also introduce short screening questions, but they have to strike the right balance. Avoid generic questions that can be answered easily with AI, but keep them simple enough that the application isn’t cumbersome. For example, instead of asking why they’re a good fit, ask them to describe how they would approach a task tied to one of the job’s core responsibilities.
2. Prioritize quality over volume
Quick-apply features eliminate friction for candidates, which means you’re likely to get a higher volume of low-quality applications. When every role gets thousands of submissions, the challenge shifts from attracting talent to identifying the best fit.
When possible, avoid over-relying on quick-reply applications, especially for roles that require critical thinking or specialized experience. This won’t eliminate the high traffic, but it will improve the overall quality of your candidate pool.
3. Reintroduce human checkpoints
Once you start pinpointing your top picks, initiate conversations sooner, and don’t automate all of your communication. Candidates can usually tell when interactions are scripted or formulaic.
A short, structured screening call shows your interest and keeps them engaged. Plus, it can reveal more about a candidate’s thinking and communication style than a set of polished written answers.
4. Create opportunities to observe real interactions
Skills assessments can confirm whether a candidate can do the work, but they don’t show how they will work with the team. You usually don’t know if a new hire is a good cultural fit until after they’re onboarded.
If possible, bring in your top two or three candidates to meet the team and shadow their work for a few hours. Pay attention to how they adapt to the work environment:
- Do they ask thoughtful questions?
- Are they picking up on how the team operates?
- Are they providing input?
This approach gives both sides a chance to determine if it’s a good fit.
How to measure the effectiveness of your hiring process
An ineffective hiring process is easy to spot in hindsight, but if you know the right metrics to watch, you can catch the early warning signs.
Candidate response time
This is the time it takes candidates to respond at each stage of the hiring process. It tracks the response time of emails, confirmations, and completed steps.
Why it matters: Response time is a strong indicator of candidate engagement. Candidates tend to move quickly when they’re engaged, and their interest declines when response times slow down.
Red flags:
- Increased need for follow-ups to get a response.
- Delays after specific steps, such as assessments or interview rounds.
Stage-by-stage drop-off rate
The drop-off rate is the percentage of candidates who exit the hiring process at each stage. It’s an effective way to track how many candidates move forward and to identify where bottlenecks are forming.
Why it matters: A consistent drop-off at the same stage usually signals that the step is either unclear or too demanding.
Red flags:
- A noticeable drop after adding an extra screening layer.
- Candidates exiting after a certain number of interviews.
- Higher than expected drop-off rates in later stages despite strong initial interest.
Interview-to-offer ratio
The interview-to-offer ratio measures the number of candidates interviewed for a role relative to the number of offers extended. This metric shows how effective your early screening process is.
Why it matters: When the right candidates are identified early, fewer interviews are needed to reach a decision. A higher ratio usually indicates that your candidate filtering needs to be fine-tuned.
Red flags:
- Interviewing a large number of candidates before making an offer.
- Ongoing uncertainty about candidates late in the process.
