What happens when all the professional candidates are super-qualified?
At least on “paper”. Figurative “paper” meaning their resumes and applications (unless it’s still real paper for some).
The salaried professional job market is in a dead calm; from entry-level to experienced professionals, we’re in what’s been called a “low-hire, low-fire” environment. Job candidates’ time looking for jobs across industries has doubled, so many on the market are doing what they can to improve their chances.
That means using generative AI to improve their resumes and cover letters (which many still use at the salaried professional level), or using AI platforms to apply for dozens of jobs at once. Some data shows up to 80% of job candidates are using AI to help them in their job search.
In fact, I’ve seen more data that shows high percentages of candidates using AI to help them in their job search. While our own CandE Benchmark Research shows that professional-level job seekers have increased using generative AI by 13% from 2025 to 2026 (we’re still gathering data this year), overall claimed usage is nowhere near the 80%+ claimed in data elsewhere.
It’s probably higher than the nearly 20% our data shows for salaried professionals, and I’m sure that candidates underreport in fear of negatively impacting their chances at employers they’re applying to.
Either way we’re definitely in an AI escalation; over a third of participating employers the past two years in our research are using AI technologies to screen applicants, with another 20% considering it for later this year or 2027.
Again, what happens when all the professional candidates are super-qualified? And are they all legitimate candidates, fluffed or not?
So far this year in our CandE Benchmark Research Program, 44% of participating employers told us they’re receiving applications from fake candidates.
And 49% said they have processes and/or technologies in place to identify candidate fraud.
That’s another big part of this AI escalation problem – candidate fraud is growing and not making it easier for employers to find the real candidates they need to fill jobs. This in turn has an unintended consequence of diminishing those same real candidates who struggle to be found, and who end up enhancing themselves via AI tools.
Those employers who told us they have processes and/or technologies in place to identify candidate fraud are:
- Using technologies like Certiphi, Glider, and Endorsed to verify applicants.
- Ensuring recruiters interview all applicants before moving to the manager interviews.
- Requiring candidates come to the office at least once during the interview process for in-office roles.
- Utilizing more background checks
Back to how they’re actually assessing and finding the qualified candidates in this AI mess (and it is messy, mind you). One thing we’re seeing in our benchmark research this year is that 44% more professional candidates are being screened with simulated job tasks compared to 2025 (which could include utilizing AI as well). These are exercises designed to emulate the actual daily responsibilities, challenges, and scenarios an employee would face on the job.
Through all this, many qualified candidates are losing their chances (and their minds) because they’re getting lost at the bottom of the “low-hire, low-fire” pool. Being ghosted continues to be one of the biggest negative candidate sentiments in our benchmark data. There’s also a growing backlash on the growth of AI tech in America.
What happens when all the professional candidates are super-qualified? Employers have to default to old-fashioned human sourcing, screening, and interviewing, which may not be a bad thing overall in the age of dehumanizing AI escalation.
