Just over a third (36 per cent) of managers have lied to candidates about the role during the hiring process. This was just one of the startling facts I uncovered while researching for Reboot Hiring: The Key to Managers and Leaders Saving Time, Money and Hassle when Recruiting. Its source, Resume Builder’s 2023 survey, also revealed that of those who lied, 75 per cent lied during the interview, 52 per cent in the job description and 24 per cent in the letter offer.

Of course, the survey also found that of the 92 per cent of misled candidates who accepted the job, 55 per cent quit: 14 per cent in the first week, 35 per cent in the first month, and 31 per cent within three months. Putting aside the enormous emotional toll that this takes on the new hire, it is a wasteful, costly and avoidable exercise, which damages the employer brand and future hiring. And with many companies thinking recruiting is an area ripe for replacement by AI, well, let’s just say they are getting way ahead of themselves.

The lies told by managers during the hiring process are, sadly, unsurprising. Research from the Chartered Management Institute found that 82 per cent of managers who enter management positions have not had proper management and leadership training.’ If managers are not even trained to lead, it is unlikely they know how to recruit team members honestly and effectively without the assistance of a human recruiter.

What’s the solution? Well, it is not the supposed saviour of current artificial intelligence. In fact, with lawsuits already commencing – Mobley v. Workday for starters – it is time to put the brakes on considering AI as a viable replacement for recruiters.

Of course, the claims that recruiters can be replaced by technology is nothing new. My first book is called, rather tongue in cheekily, The Robot-Proof Recruiter: A Survival Guide for Recruitment and Sourcing Professionals. When Kogan Page approached me, back in 2018, I knew exactly what I would address: the fallacy that the humans who find, engage, woo, attract and convert humans into applicants for other human’s jobs can be automated. Technology may have come a long way in six years but not far enough to recruit people without human input. People, with their thoughts, feelings and emotions, are simply too quirky.

In my first book, recruiter and talent acquisition readers learned how to put technology safely in its supporting role, and put the humans first, but they cannot deliver a great hiring experience alone. Whether external or internal, recruiters need to be permitted to form close and balanced hiring partnerships with managers, be granted the time to discover the true particulars for the role, agree to the hiring process and interview loop, address any bias, and be trusted to drive the process forward, so they can save the managers and company vital time, money and hassle.

However, perhaps due to the aforementioned lack of training or more likely their disdain of hiring, managers can be unwilling to invest time where it is needed, and they treat recruiters or talent acquisition as an annoying cost-centre or service. This self-sabotaging behaviour negatively impacts the bottom line, employee morale, team collaboration, client deliverables, and more, all because the manager finds hiring a bothersome task and avoids investing time in it.

Not helping matters, the talent acquisition function has been through the wringer laid off in 2020, rehired and burned out during the over-hiring of 2021 and 2022, and turfed out again during the round upon rounds of layoffs commencing mid-2022. Those who have been rehired are frequently unhealthily overloaded with requirements and struggling to keep up. While researching Reboot Hiring, I also noticed a trend of companies hiring less experienced recruiters into director or head of talent acquisition positions to cut costs. This short sighted move can leave companies struggling to attract and retain the right people for roles because the manager's behaviour, that creates poor and costly hiring, remains unchallenged.

‍

Read full article here