Artificial intelligence is everywhere. Or, more appropriately, if it were up to the AI companies selling us AI, it would be everywhere.
It may not quite be everywhere in recruiting and hiring today, but AI technologies are more prevalent across recruiting platforms, especially impacting the application, screening, and interviewing scheduling stages.
There are also AI interview platforms that screen candidates via phone calls and online with human-like avatars.
But why are they called interview platforms? Aren’t they candidate screening platforms?
Candidate screening is usually a brief check by HR and recruiters, and/or technologies, to verify basic qualifications, salary expectations, and overall interest, and is used to “screen out” unqualified applicants.
Interviewing is usually a deeper and longer candidate evaluation by hiring managers that focus on competence, fit, skills and experience review to make an ultimate final hiring decision.
Yes, human interviewing has had its longtime share of flaws and biases. Still does. Is it really the best measure of final selection, whether structured or not, or behavioral or not? But it’s still human, and I’d argue most job candidates want humans (recruiters and hiring managers) to interact with during the interview stage. And then they want humans to make the final decisions and make them offers.
Humans work with humans. And yes, tech and AI too (more and more), or managing AI (more reality), but still “work” mostly with other humans.
However, not all humans like to interact with other humans in stressful situations, which is counterintuitive to the hiring process itself, but a reality nonetheless.
According to research that Glen Cathey highlighted a couple of months ago, high-performing candidates preferred human interviews. Those who are introverted and struggle with anxiety preferred AI interviewers.
Based on the past few years of our CandE Benchmark Research, when candidates are “in the running” and being engaged at the screening and interview stages, they rate their candidate experience high, whether tech and/or AI is involved or not. So far this year, only 5% of candidates said they were screened by an AI agent, and only 15% said they had a one-way recorded interview (which we know generates more AI screening outcomes today).
In the past five years of our CandE Benchmark Research, females, younger candidates (Gen Z primarily), and candidates of color have all had a more positive candidate experience overall – from pre-application to onboarding. Regardless of people, processes, or technologies involved. That’s partially due to the past five years of more targeted employer branding to sell a stronger sense of diverse belonging.
Early returns in our 2026 research again validates that. But when it’s a poor candidate experience for any and all demographics, these have been the common themes this year so far:
Interview No-Shows & AI Miscommunications
- Candidates frequently arrive for scheduled interviews only to discover the hiring manager is absent, on vacation, or completely unaware of the appointment.
- AI recruiting assistants are heavily cited for scheduling interviews without synchronizing with actual availability or open positions.
Ghosting & Poor Post-Interview Communication (13%)
- A major frustration is the complete lack of human follow-up after an interview or application is completed.
- Candidates feel disrespected when promised phone calls never happen, and they are instead met with total silence or generic, automated rejection emails days or weeks later.
Unprofessional Manager Behavior (10%)
- Numerous candidates reported highly unprofessional interview environments, including managers taking personal calls or eating meals during the conversation.
- Many applicants felt dismissed by rushed brief interviews without any meaningful questions asked regarding their qualifications.
Note the mixed review of tech and humans involved. We see this every year now; AI is the scapegoat when candidates aren’t selected to move on. Even if AI becomes more consistent at scale to screen and recommend candidates to be interviewed and make offers to (and it may already be there), the preference prior to being “in the running” is less AI and more human interaction.
But the preference of AI or human when they are being considered in the final interview-to-offer stages across job types, in any market, especially this one today, is whatever gets them there.
