UpTrajectory Review
Mandy Gilbert's Inc. piece argues that companies have pushed automation too far in hiring, and the best candidates now walk away. She points to AI resume screens, chatbot interviews, and algorithmic rejections that treat applicants as data points rather than people. The context matters: after years of labor shortage, employers flooded the funnel with software, and candidates responded by ghosting processes that ghosted them first. Gilbert does not reject technology; she wants hiring managers to use it for scheduling, screening volume, and administrative work while keeping humans in charge of judgment calls.
For a small-business operator, this lands close to home. Large corporations can absorb a bad hire or a slow search; you cannot. Every role you fill touches revenue, customer relationships, or your own workload directly. If your hiring process relies on automated filters and form emails, you lose candidates who have options, and you lose the personal signal that helps you spot culture fit. Small firms win talent through speed, direct access to the founder, and a human experience that big competitors cannot replicate. Over-automation strips away your only real advantage.
Gilbert's core claim, that over-automation alienates top performers, aligns with what we see in hiring data and candidate surveys. Top candidates receive multiple offers and move fast; a clunky, robotic process signals a low-trust workplace. Where we push back: she treats the fix as a mindset shift, but the real constraint is time. Small operators automate because they lack HR staff. The solution is not to abandon tools but to audit which steps require human judgment and which do not. A 15-minute founder call with a finalist carries more weight than any algorithmic assessment.
The second-order effect cuts both ways. Candidates now use AI to write resumes and prep answers, which means your screening tools may filter for polish rather than ability. Meanwhile, workers burned by ghosting share experiences publicly, damaging employer brands faster than before. If you rely on AI to reject applicants without feedback, you risk viral posts that cost you future applicants. Conversely, firms that respond personally, even to rejections, build reputation capital that pays off in referrals and repeat applicants.
Audit your hiring process this week. List every step and ask whether a human must perform it or whether software handles it well. Keep automation for scheduling, initial screening questions, and status updates. Assign a person to respond to every finalist within 24 hours and to deliver rejections personally. If you use AI scoring, test it against your best current employees to see whether it would have selected them. The goal is a process that scales your attention, not replaces it.
Watch whether AI hiring tools add bias-audit features and whether candidates begin demanding transparency about automated screening. If regulators move on AI in employment decisions, small firms using vendor tools may inherit compliance risk. For now, the competitive edge belongs to operators who combine software efficiency with founder-level human contact. That combination costs little and differentiates you immediately.
“Over-automating recruitment is alienating top candidates.” — Inc. Magazine
Takeaway: Automate scheduling and admin, but keep humans in every step where judgment, rejection, or final selection occurs.
Excerpt from the original — Inc. Magazine
Over-automating recruitment is alienating top candidates. Here is how hiring managers can leverage technology without sacrificing the human element.