The short answer is to examine workplace behavioral drives through psychometric and cognitive assessments. It helps you understand how someone naturally prefers to work, communicate, influence others, and respond to structure.
We already know candidates use AI to prepare impressive resumes, so much that they all start looking the same.
Recruiters and HR departments use AI to screen applications, rank candidates, and recommend who should move forward.
But there is a question that deserves serious attention. Who is cheating whom?
What happens when the AI screening your candidates prefers a resume written by the same AI?
Recent research suggests this can happen, even when the candidates have identical qualifications. For CEOs, HR directors, and hiring managers in Thailand, the implications are worth understanding.
Research reveals an uncomfortable problem with AI recruitment
Researchers from universities in Singapore and the USA found that AI models often preferred resumes created by the same AI platform.
The results were surprising. Or were they? Candidates whose resumes were written using the same AI model as the screening system were up to 60% more likely to be shortlisted than equally qualified candidates who submitted a proper human-written resume.
The study came from simulated hiring processes across 24 occupations, not measured outcomes from actual employers. But it gives you an idea what we are up against.
Read that again. The qualifications were the same. The difference was whether AI or a human wrote the resume.
Do you read the same as I do? It’s a huge dilemma and a potential weakness that hiring companies using AI screening should investigate.
It raises a practical question for employers in Thailand.
If your recruitment software ranks candidates partly according to how convincingly their experience is described, how do you know that your shortlist contains the people most capable of doing the job?
Where behavioral and cognitive assessments become valuable
I’m not the only one who has figured this out. But I believe employers should take a more structured approach to assessing candidates.
One of the world’s top assessment tools, The Predictive Index (PI), offers two established assessments that provide different information about a person. More than 10,000 companies around the world use PI. Why not you?
The PI Behavioral Assessment examines workplace behavioral drives, including Dominance, Extraversion, Patience, and Formality. It helps you understand how someone naturally prefers to work, communicate, influence others, and respond to structure.
The PI Cognitive Assessment examines a person’s capacity to learn, adapt, and understand new concepts. Both can contribute useful information when you assess a candidate against the requirements of a particular job.
- The behavioral assessment does not measure intelligence, technical competence, or professional experience.
- The cognitive assessment does not establish whether someone has the knowledge or leadership judgment needed for a particular position.
This is why I recommend combining assessments with a properly defined Job Assessment, competency-based interviews, career evidence, and reference checks.
For senior management appointments, you need evidence from several sources rather than relying on the subjective opinion of one interviewer or the recommendation of one AI algorithm.
What should CEOs and HR directors do differently?
I have been involved in hiring since 1983 (over 40 years) and have worked in executive recruitment in Thailand since 2003.
Technology has changed considerably during those years. The need to understand the person behind the resume has not.
AI can help your recruitment team process applications, organize information, and prepare interview questions.
If you use it properly, it can make parts of the recruitment process more efficient. But efficiency alone does not establish whether you are hiring the right person.
Before your next senior management appointment, ask yourself three questions.
- Does our selection process assess what the job actually requires?
- Are we collecting reliable evidence about behavior, learning ability, experience, and leadership competence?
- Can we explain why we selected one candidate over another?
If you cannot answer those questions confidently, why not just flip a coin? Your chances of making the right hiring decision might be no better. Surely, your next senior management appointment deserves more than a guessing game.
The quality of your hiring decisions still depends on the quality of the evidence you collect and how intelligently you understand it.
