Hiring is Broken, and AI is Not Helping

Let’s start with the problem.

On LinkedIn and other professional network sites, each job posting attracts hundreds of applications. As of August 2024, each open role receives an average of approximately 250 applications (per Apollo Technical).

Why? The reasons are unclear but likely multifaceted. One factor might be the rise of remote work, which broadens the applicant pool to a global scale. Another contributing factor could be the frequent announcements on LinkedIn of professionals being “impacted” and actively seeking new jobs. I have my own theory, which will become clearer as you read this article. 

Still, whatever the cause, the reality is daunting for candidates and hiring companies alike. Candidates are understandably disheartened, while companies are overwhelmed, struggling to manually sift through the proverbial haystack to find the ideal hire. To manage this volume, they rely increasingly on automated skills/requirements comparisons against job descriptions.

And that’s where the problem lies. Job matching—something that should resemble a thoughtful courtship—has been reduced to a transactional “skills-matching” game.

AI has further entrenched this practice. Candidates know that companies rely on skills matching, and AI tools now enable job seekers to tailor their resumes to job descriptions in mere seconds. Beyond ChatGPT, new tools are emerging that promise to improve interview odds by perfecting this skills-matching strategy. Current wisdom dictates that AI assistance is an essential step for anyone seeking to improve their chances.

But here’s my concern. You’ve likely heard the quote, often repeated but frequently ignored: Hire for attitude, train for skills.

This wisdom, famously shared by Herb Kelleher, co-founder of Southwest Airlines, is more relevant than ever. Southwest might have its critics today, but it achieved an extraordinary feat under Kelleher’s leadership: 47 consecutive years of profitability in an industry fraught with unique challenges. Kelleher’s emphasis on hiring for attitude played a foundational role in this success.

Now, consider the risks of ignoring this principle: enter the “well-qualified asshole.” Take, for example, Bob—a programmer I know. Bob’s resume is stellar. He has a Master’s in Computer Science, impressive tenures at Amazon and other top-tier companies, and a track record of shipping high-impact products. 

Ask his former colleagues, however, and you’ll hear a different story. Bob’s behavior was toxic—deeply political, selfishly motivated, abrasive and hostile, dismissive, and there were even two hushed-up allegations of sexual harassment. While his individual contributions were undeniable, his teams often failed to meet their objectives due to his destructive presence. Despite this, Bob continues to secure high-paying roles, thanks to his impeccable skills profile.

This is the risk of skills-matching as a reductive exercise. We are pre-selecting for Bob and those like him.

In contrast, my own career has been centered on a simple philosophy: make everyone around me better. Whether working with direct reports, peers, or supervisors, I’ve prioritized modeling behaviors that uplift others. When referred by someone who has worked with me, this approach has sometimes outweighed gaps in my skills checklist, opening doors to opportunities I might not have otherwise had. Yet, in today’s hiring environment, candidates like me, and I know several—those who lead with attitude and soft skills—may struggle to even get noticed.

We are treading dangerous ground. By focusing narrowly on skills, we risk missing the most critical human qualities that drive long-term success. While AI has its place, it cannot replace the nuanced understanding required to assess traits like integrity, empathy, passion, attitude, and leadership. 

In Start With Why, Simon Sinek recounts how the Navy SEALs select their elite members. Surprisingly, it’s not the individuals with the most impressive physical abilities, extraordinary fitness, or unshakable confidence who make the cut. Those who succeed are the ones who consistently demonstrate a willingness to support their teammates, even when it puts their own safety at risk. Sinek describes this as prioritizing “moderate performance, high trust” over “high performance, low trust.” While simplified, this principle underscores a vital truth: high-performing but untrustworthy individuals are toxic to teams, whereas trust and reliability are essential for lasting success.

If we continue down this path of skills-matching to cull the herd of candidates, we’ll undermine not only the quality of hires but also the broader workplace culture. It’s time to rethink our approach and prioritize the human elements that truly matter.