Resume-ing Control: (Mis)Perceptions of Agency Arou... | AI Research

Key Takeaways

Resume-ing Control: (Mis)Perceptions of Agency Around GenAI Use in Recruiting Workflows This research investigates how generative AI (genAI) impacts the prof...
When generative AI (genAI) systems are used in high-stakes decision-making, its recommended role is to aid, rather than replace, human decision-making.
However, there is little empirical exploration of how professionals making high-stakes decisions, such as those related to employment, perceive their agency and level of control when working with genAI systems.
Through interviews with 22 recruiting professionals, we investigate how genAI subtly influences control over everyday workflows and even individual hiring decisions.
Despite a seemingly seismic shift in how recruiting happens, participants only reported marginal efficiency gains.

Paper AbstractExpand

When generative AI (genAI) systems are used in high-stakes decision-making, its recommended role is to aid, rather than replace, human decision-making. However, there is little empirical exploration of how professionals making high-stakes decisions, such as those related to employment, perceive their agency and level of control when working with genAI systems. Through interviews with 22 recruiting professionals, we investigate how genAI subtly influences control over everyday workflows and even individual hiring decisions. Our findings highlight a pressing conflict: while recruiters believe they have final authority across the recruiting pipeline, genAI has become an invisible architect that shapes the foundational building blocks of information used for evaluation, from defining a job to determining good interview performances. The decision of whether or not to adopt was also often outside recruiters' control, with many feeling compelled to adopt genAI due to calls to integrate AI from higher-ups in their business, to combat applicant use of AI, and the individual need to boost productivity. Despite a seemingly seismic shift in how recruiting happens, participants only reported marginal efficiency gains. Such gains came at the high cost of recruiter deskilling, a trend that jeopardizes the meaningful oversight of decision-making. We conclude by discussing the implications of such findings for responsible and perceptible genAI use in hiring contexts.

Resume-ing Control: (Mis)Perceptions of Agency Around GenAI Use in Recruiting Workflows

This research investigates how generative AI (genAI) impacts the professional agency of recruiters in high-stakes hiring decisions. While industry standards suggest that AI should only assist human judgment, this study explores whether recruiters truly maintain control or if their decision-making processes are being subtly reshaped by the tools they use. By interviewing 22 recruiting professionals, the authors reveal a significant gap between the perceived autonomy of recruiters and the reality of how AI influences their workflows.

The Invisible Architect

The study finds that while recruiters believe they hold final authority, genAI acts as an "invisible architect" in the hiring process. These systems do more than just automate low-level tasks; they define job qualifications, create interview rubrics, and summarize candidate interactions. By structuring the foundational information used to evaluate applicants, genAI exerts a profound influence on hiring decisions before a human even begins their formal assessment.

The Illusion of Choice

Recruiters often feel they have little say in whether to adopt these AI tools. Many participants described being "boxed in" by external pressures, including mandates from company leadership, the need to keep up with competitors, and the requirement to combat the use of AI by applicants themselves. Consequently, the decision to integrate genAI is frequently framed as a business necessity rather than a self-directed professional choice.

Hidden Costs and Deskilling

Despite the widespread adoption of these systems, participants reported only marginal gains in efficiency. The study highlights three major concerns resulting from this shift:

Workforce Deskilling: There is a growing risk that recruiters, particularly those early in their careers, are losing the ability to make reasoned, independent decisions as they rely more on AI.
Increased Bias: The "AI arms race" has eroded trust in application materials, pushing recruiters toward subjective "vibe checks" that may inadvertently intensify systemic bias.
Poor Returns: The industry is investing significant effort into these tools for minimal improvements in the quality of candidate placement, leading to new vulnerabilities such as higher turnover from poor job matches.

Study Methodology and Limitations

The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 recruiters across eight different industries to capture the "how" and "why" behind AI adoption. To ensure candid responses, the team used a "normalization framing" to help participants feel comfortable discussing their AI usage. Limitations of the study include the reliance on retrospective self-reporting, which may affect the accuracy of recalled events, and the fact that the study focused exclusively on participants based in the United States.