Let’s be honest: Hiring has been underestimated at the top for too long.
Most boards and CEOs have historically kept recruitment at arm’s length.
It’s been seen as an Human Resources or Talent Aquisition function, delegated down, outsourced to search firms, or buried under dashboards that rarely reach board-level conversation.
But hiring is no longer a behind-the-scenes issue. It’s a mirror of your leadership, your culture, and your brand, and when it goes wrong, the consequences are public, commercial, and increasingly, regulatory.
This article looks at where that reality becomes visible:
- In recruitment
- In the candidate experience
- And in how your leadership is perceived, at every level of the organisation
Because here’s the truth: your hiring process is either building your reputation or eroding it. And most executives have no idea which.
AI is reshaping recruitment – but it’s not a silver bullet
Used well, AI can speed up screening, improve job matching, and provide better data for decision-making. According to PwC, AI tools can reduce time-to-hire by up to 75%, a massive gain for overstretched HR and talent teams.
But speed isn’t the same as quality.
AI can’t replace curiosity. Or accountability. Or leadership. When used without insight or oversight, it risks scaling the very problems it’s meant to solve.
Because no algorithm can:
- Translate a vague job spec into a compelling, values-led invitation
- Spot potential beyond a CV or psychometric score
- Recognise difference as a strength, especially when it shows up in unexpected ways
- Make a candidate feel seen, welcomed, or respected
That’s human work. And it still matters.
Bias and Opportunity: AI’s Double-Edged Sword
AI systems are only as neutral as the data they’re trained on. If historical hiring patterns reflect past preferences for certain schools, accents, demographics, AI will replicate them, just faster.
But here’s the opportunity: AI also makes bias more visible and measurable than traditional processes. You can audit decisions, test for disproportionate impact, and adjust in real-time.
Here’s where AI becomes particularly complex: it can either amplify historical bias or actively reduce it, depending entirely on how it’s designed and monitored.
If designed intentionally, AI can:
- Flag exclusionary language in job descriptions
- Benchmark based on skills, not proxies like university name or job title
- Surface hidden talent, career changers, neurodiverse profiles, or those overlooked by traditional filters
The challenge is to design for fairness, not assume it. And always pair AI with human review, especially for edge cases and senior hires.
The disconnect is costing more than we think
We assume recruitment is working until we look closer.
- 41% of people stop buying from a business after a poor hiring experience (CareerPlug, 2024)
- 61% of candidates say they’ve been ghosted after an interview
- 81% of hiring managers admit to ghosting, often due to broken or unclear processes (Greenhouse/HBR, 2023)
- 47% of candidates say AI tools make hiring feel impersonal, even when efficient (PwC, 2023)
- 78% believe their hiring journey reflects how seriously the company values people (TalentBoard, 2023)
And this isn’t just theory – it’s happening in plain sight.
Today, the BBC aired a segment on job seekers being ghosted, misled, or left in the dark by employers. You can watch it here:
🔗 BBC News: Job seekers say poor recruitment experiences are damaging trust
It reinforces exactly what this article explores: when hiring practices fall short, it’s not just an HR slip-up – it’s a visible failure of leadership and brand.
This isn’t good enough. It makes the HR profession look unprofessional. And when candidates share those stories publicly, the reputational damage doesn’t stop with Talent Acquisition; it lands with the board.
Although in my experience rarely listened to with any credibility, the financial impact is far from trivial. Industry data suggests a bad hire can cost 150% to 300% of the person’s salary once you account for lost productivity, disruption, rehiring, and training.
And when poor experiences drive away top candidates or future customers, the reputational cost is harder to measure, but often far greater.
Where AI Can Help – If Leaders Stay Involved
Let’s be clear: AI has real potential when paired with human insight. It can:
- Benchmark roles using real-time market data
- Spot overlooked or atypical candidates
- Personalise onboarding through adaptive, responsive content
- Reveal engagement risks and early warning signs from exit or feedback data
Used intentionally, it enables better decisions. But it can’t tell you what matters or whether your process reflects your culture, ambition, or values.
That’s leadership’s job.
Reinvesting the Gains: AI Doesn’t Eliminate the Human Cost – it Shifts It
Yes, AI drives efficiency. But the value is only realised if those savings are reinvested into the human insight that underpins good judgement.
That might mean:
- Time for hiring managers to review shortlists with care
- Coaching for leaders on evaluating potential, not just pedigree
- Better alignment between internal TA, external search, and business strategy
- Space for leadership teams to explore how recruitment reflects (or distorts) company values
If those efficiencies are simply absorbed or redeployed without reflection, you risk creating a slicker version of the same broken system. The best organisations use AI to create space, not eliminate it, for leadership to step in and lead.
The leadership challenge: Don’t delegate what defines you
Too often, recruitment is treated as operational – delegated to HR, outsourced to headhunters, or automated through tech. That might feel efficient, but if no one is checking the message it sends, who’s protecting your brand?
The best organisations treat recruitment as strategic.
Not because it fills roles faster, but because it builds trust, culture, and performance.
Leaders should be asking:
- What is the candidate experience really like, across all levels?
- Are we using AI responsibly or just assuming it’s neutral?
- Are we actively monitoring for bias or relying on old assumptions?
- Do our recruitment processes align with the values we say we lead by?
- What insight are we missing that could help us improve?
Boards increasingly carry accountability, too. New regulations like the EU AI Act will require transparent oversight of recruitment algorithms, placing legal responsibility for bias and fairness squarely at the top.
These are not operational questions. They’re strategic ones. And they belong in the boardroom.
You don’t need all the answers, but you do need better questions
The future of hiring won’t be built by AI alone. It will be shaped by the leaders who stay involved, who ask sharper questions, challenge assumptions, and take ownership of how their organisation attracts and engages talent.
Sometimes that means stepping back, pressure-testing what’s happening, and reconnecting the people strategy with commercial ambition.
That’s the work I do as a business advisor, fractional Chief People Officer, and executive coach with hands-on experience leading both HR and technology strategy.
If you’re ready to bring more clarity, alignment, and leadership to your recruitment approach, let’s start that conversation.
#Leadership #ExecutiveLeadership #BoardLeadership #StrategicHR #ExecutiveCoaching #FractionalCPO #PeopleAndCulture #AIinHR #FutureOfWork #EmployerBrand #CandidateExperience #TalentStrategy #HiringReputation #BusinessStrategy #Elevatexec
