Latest news with #jobinterview
ABC News
3 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
Could AI be the 'person' deciding whether or not you get your dream job?
Have you ever been in a job interview and thought, 'this meeting could have been an interaction with an AI agent'? No? Well, two-thirds of Australian employers are now using artificial intelligence agents to conduct job interviews on their behalf. What kind of bias does a computer have when deciding on the right candidate? And could it be less objective than a human? Also, people are hacking their digital driver's licences and Grindr is once again in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. Plus, why did the CIA secretly run a Star Wars fansite in the 2010s? GUESTS: Ariel Bogle , investigations reporter for Guardian Australia , investigations reporter for Guardian Australia Gianfranco di Giovanni, games and technology journalist for ABC Entertainment This episode of Download This Show was made on Gadigal land Technical production by Craig Tilmouth and Tim Symonds
Forbes
5 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
4 Trade-Offs Talent Is Willing To Make In An Uncertain Job Market
THE JOB INTERVIEW — Pictured: CNBC''s "The Job Interview" activation — (Photo by: Heidi Gutman) When asked to describe their dream job, employees frequently mention having an inspiring job, a supportive boss, high pay, and flexible hours. When talent is scarce and jobs are widely available, employees can make a wish list while organizations compete for the best candidate with the most appealing perks. However, those wish lists are quickly forgotten when hiring is slow, or when it is unclear what direction the job market will take. That is precisely the job market uncertainty we currently face. What trade-offs is talent willing to make when jobs aren't readily available? Randstad, a global talent leader operating in 39 countries worldwide with its headquarters in the Netherlands, explored the views of over 5,000 working individuals in North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region between March 28 and April 9 this year. The report, released last week, reveals the compromises employees make in light of global and economic uncertainty. Employees worry most about keeping or getting a job when jobs are scarce. When asked what they find most important in an uncertain job market, employability is the number one priority. Not surprisingly, in the Randstad survey, 64% of the American respondents answered that they would choose long-term employability over an inspiring job, and 70% would trade remote work for staying relevant. From earlier recessions, we know that job stability becomes paramount in an uncertain job market. Professor Johnson from Washington State University examined what employees valued during the Great Recession, from 2007 to 2009. Using data points between 1991 and 2009, a clear upward trend in employees' value of job security is evident during the Great Recession. Choosing between a job and no job is not a real choice without alternatives. Instead of their dream job, employees opt for roles that offer professional development and opportunities to acquire future-relevant skills in areas such as AI, ensuring they add value to the company and increasing the chances of retaining their jobs. Does this mean that all wish lists go out the window the moment employees cannot take their job for granted? Not entirely. While once being taboo, mental health has transformed into an important topic that should be on the agenda of any organization. For many employees, support for mental health is a key criterion in their job search. In line with that credo, the Randstad survey reveals that stressful jobs can be a deal-breaker. Globally, 60 percent of participants said they would rather have a less stressful job than a higher salary. Many had already traded off pay or career advancement for work-life balance: 40 percent of respondents had accepted lower pay for a less stressful job, and 43 percent had chosen a job with flexibility over one with more opportunities for career progression. These numbers are in sync with the quest for work-life balance among younger generations. Especially Gen Z and Millennials are looking for jobs that don't consume their lives, and they are not willing to give up this goal for more pay. Job security is undoubtedly the most important, but this value is quickly followed by manageable jobs that allow for a work-life balance and good mental health. In 2024, the conversation was dominated by control over where employees work, as a whopping 90% of employers had a return-to-office mandate. It seems that some employees are starting to give up on that fight and have moved on to another. According to the survey by Randstad, 56 percent of respondents stated that they find control over their hours more important than control over their location, and 59 percent would trade a higher salary for control over their hours. These findings point out that organizations can't underestimate the importance of giving employees some level of control. Feeling in control of your life is a critical human need. If they must work in the office, giving employees decision latitude on their schedule is wise if organizations want motivated and happy employees. Now that so many organizations expect employees to work onsite, what does it take to get remote workers to return to the office, aside from schedule control? The Randstad survey shows that three-quarters of fully remote workers expect higher pay in return, or more annual leave days (67 percent). For this group, staying remote is so important that 58 percent said they would forgo a pay raise or a promotion to work from home, or they would simply quit their jobs. The latter is a risky position to take, especially in a market where organizations may be looking to streamline. Still, the numbers illustrate how challenging it is to retract a perk once it has been given. Employees have grown accustomed to the comfort of working from home and have adjusted their lives accordingly. If organizations want to retain remote working talent, they should give those remote workers a reason to come in. The most obvious way is by creating a supportive organizational culture that aligns with employees' values. Team leads can create moments for informal check-ins or organize team brainstorming sessions. Those in-person interactions are missing in remote work, and experiencing this human connection might convince remote workers that it is worthwhile to come into the office. Supervisors can also anticipate that employees may need some time to adjust to an office environment, which can be noisier and has a lower threshold for interruptions. It can be helpful to assign no-disturbance work blocks so that team members can know they will be able to complete key tasks without interruptions. When taking a helicopter view over what employees expect from a job when the economy is shaky, a clear pattern emerges. In times of uncertainty, job security comes first. Those who have a stable job focus on work-life balance, valuing mental health and job flexibility, whereas high pay and career advancement are temporarily put on the back burner. And while many employees would prefer to work remotely, organizations can lure them back to the office with the proper support.
Forbes
7 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
What Hiring Managers Really Want, And The Top Interview Dealbreakers
Nervous young job applicant wait for recruiter's question during interview in office Abbey Marino-Briggs, Adjunct Professor at the University of Tulsa and Founder of The Bold Professional, has spent the past seven years deeply immersed in the hiring process — managing recruitment, leading internship programs, and conducting over 1,000 job interviews. Through thousands of hours spent across the interview table, she noticed a troubling pattern: even highly qualified candidates were routinely missing key moments that could make — or break — an interview. In a job market where interviews are scarce and searches can stretch for months, Marino-Briggs was struck by how often candidates arrived unprepared. To understand why, she surveyed over 20 hiring managers who, collectively, have interviewed nearly 10,000 candidates across industries and roles. Her goal? To pinpoint exactly what interviewers are looking for, what sends candidates straight to the 'no' pile, and what top performers do differently to land the offer. Here's how to turn those insights into actionable strategies for your next interview. Businesswomen shaking hands over the table at the office Marino-Briggs stresses that making a strong first impression is critical, whether in person, over Zoom, or on the phone. Eye contact, a smile, and engaged body language signal to the interviewer that you're ready for a productive conversation, even virtually. Looking the part isn't enough. 'It's shocking how often candidates don't fully understand the role or the company they're applying for,' Marino-Briggs says. She advises doing your homework early, researching the company's goals, values, and team structure. Be ready to discuss what the role entails on a daily and weekly basis, and prepare questions that show you've thought about how you can contribute. For example: 'I see teamwork is a core value. How do you embody that on a daily basis?' Being well-prepared is only part of the equation. Job seekers must also prove they're the right fit. Marino-Briggs stresses the importance of not assuming the interviewer has read your resume or stalked your LinkedIn. Instead, have your career journey and elevator pitch polished and ready for the interview. 'Add context. Talk about the work you've done and the results you've achieved. Use structure and avoid rambling.' For younger candidates, Marino-Briggs recommends focusing on recent work experience and leaving high school details off your resume to avoid seeming inexperienced. 'Highlight the experience and impact you're bringing to the company.' Most importantly, be authentic. 'Interviews are conversations, not confrontations,' Marino-Briggs explains. 'The interviewer isn't trying to trip you up— they want to get to know you better.' Marino-Briggs points out that soft skills and personal connections are often as important as your qualifications. When preparing, ask yourself: What version of yourself are you bringing to the conversation? Are you personable? Would the interviewer want to spend a long travel day with this version of you? Job interview gone wrong Knowing what to do in an interview is important, but knowing what not to do is just as crucial. Rambling and poor communication are top pitfalls. Consider this: the interviewer has probably spoken with five, 10, or even 20 candidates for this role. After a while, interviews blend together. 'If you're rambling, missing the point, forgetting key context, or not emphasizing the results of your work, your interview could easily get lost in the shuffle,' Marino-Briggs warns. Another red flag: walking in unprepared. 'If you can't differentiate this interview from the one you had yesterday, the interviewer will notice,' Marino-Briggs says. Her advice? The best candidates bring concrete ideas for the role, showing they've already thought about how they'll contribute. An example might be: 'I see the job calls for someone to eliminate vendor inefficiencies. My first step would be to list all vendors and meet with the team to identify frustrations, duplications, and pain points. Then, I'd talk to the vendors, identify inefficiencies, and suggest alternatives. I'd aim to complete this project within 90 days.' This thoughtful, proactive answer shows initiative and strategic thinking, qualities every interviewer wants to see. Such well-researched answers demonstrate you've put serious thought into the role. And that shows confidence. But Marino-Briggs stresses striking the right balance. You need to own your worth without crossing into cockiness during the conversation. '90% of interviewers mentioned that arrogance is a dealbreaker,' she explains. Confidence looks like good body language, prepared impact statements, speaking with structure, a strong voice, and staying relaxed. Cockiness? It's blowing hot air and acting like you're too good for the job. Marino-Briggs reminds clients that hiring managers want someone easy to work with, open to feedback, and coachable. Acting like you're too good for the role won't get you very far in a competitive hiring process. Interviewers also seek out signs of negativity. That's why they ask tricky questions like, 'Have you ever had a conflict with a team member?' 'Why are you leaving your current job?' and 'Why is there a gap on your resume?' These aren't filler questions— they predict your future as a team member. 'The second you mention phrases like 'toxic culture,' 'toxic manager,' or 'I hate my job,' you're out,' Marino-Briggs says. No one wants a complainer on their team who doesn't do anything proactive to solve problems. Happy member of human resource team shaking hands with a candidate after successful job interview in ... More the office while other members are applauding. To stand out from the crowd, Marino-Briggs recommends a few key habits. First: have a clear personal pitch and career story. You're selling yourself to the interviewer, so make your time with them count. 'Explain how your career progression has led you here, and frame your background positively, without complaining. Connect your experience to the job. Show us why you're the perfect fit. And do so in two minutes or less,' Marino-Briggs advises. Successful interviewees also know the power of asking thoughtful questions at the end. This is your chance to turn the tables and interview your interviewers. Marino-Briggs believes this can give you an edge if you're willing to ask the tough questions. It shows your interest and demonstrates your critical thinking. For example: 'What's the most challenging aspect of this role? How does the company support overcoming that challenge?' Finally, be passionate and genuine. Interviewers want to connect with you, not just your resume. 'This is where candidates with memorized, scripted answers always fail,' Marino-Briggs says. 'You have to show your humanity. Build a personal connection during the interview.' Be authentic, and let your true personality shine through during the conversation. There's no one-size-fits-all formula for a successful interview, but it takes preparation and hard work before, during, and after your conversation. By incorporating these dos and don'ts, you'll make a lasting impression in an interview market where many candidates blur together into one.
Forbes
25-05-2025
- Forbes
Why You Are Better Off Being Interviewed By AI Than A Human
Even in its current state, AI is more accurate and less biased than most human interviewers - but it is a low bar. Although it would be almost unthinkable for anyone to get any job without first being subjected to a job interview, the science on this is quite clear: there is very little valid and unique information the interview provides, which could not be obtained through other, more reliable and predictive means (e.g., science-based assessments, IQ and personality tests, past performance, and even AI-scraping of people's digital footprints). On top of that, there's too much irrelevant and unethical information the interview provides, even when humans are determined to ignore or pretend to ignore such data: candidates' socioeconomic status or social class, gender, ethnicity, and overall appearance and physical attractiveness (one of the strongest, most pervasive, yet rarely discussed biases). This is why employers and hiring managers feel it would be ludicrous to get rid of the interview: it provides them with so much information they are supposed to ignore but 'love' to have, even when they are unaware of their biases. Unsurprisingly, academic studies show that the typical interview, which is unstructured (more like an informal chat than a rigorous standardized interaction) and amateurish (conducted and evaluated by people with little or no technical training, and their own personal agenda or political interests), rarely accounts for more than 9% of the variability in future job performance. In fact, this is probably an overestimate: when candidates' hiring managers are in charge of both the selection interview, as well as candidates' subsequent performance ratings or evaluations or ratings once they are hired into the role, there's a great deal of invisible or informal bias in the model. For example, most managers will be reluctant to accept that they have chosen the wrong candidate, so the best way to camouflage or disguise their error is to rate their performance positively even when they are doing terribly (so it reflect well on their choices). Likewise, even when managers are unaware that they hired the wrong person (because the candidate has learned to impression manage them or 'fake good' once they are in the role), managers will still see them in a positive vein. That is, the same biases that positively distorted the manager's opinion during the interview will likely still be at play months or years later, especially if the manager is not great at evaluating the candidate's actual performance, and distracted by performative aspects of their job performance (pretending to work, playing politics, sucking up, and faking competence with charisma and confidence, and so on). Enter AI, which is far from perfect, especially when it comes to assessment and hiring, at least in its current state (one would expect it to improve like in most tasks and subject matter domains). That said, AI-algorithms have been successfully deployed and researched as candidate screening and selection tools for years, way before AI went mainstream with generative AI and chatGPT. Admittedly, to this date, AI's value in assessment, hiring, selection, and talent identification is mostly around improving speed, efficiency, consistency, and cost, rather than accuracy. In that sense, its main contribution is in high-volume pre-screening and screening, since quantity eventually boosts quality (if you can examine 1 million candidates you are more likely to end up with 10 incredible candidates than if you can examine only 1000), as well as relieving recruiters from low value, boring, routine standardized activities: finding key words in a CV or resume, sexing up job descriptions, or cold-messaging tons of candidates on LinkedIn - all of which AI does better. The more repetitive, boring, and low value activities are outsourced to AI, the more time human recruiters and hiring managers have to actual connect with candidates (on a human-to-human level). However, it is questionable whether some of this time should actually be devoted to human-to-human interviews, or whether the interview should just be left to AI, including algorithmic de-selection and shortlisting of candidates. Consider some of the key advantages of well-designed AI-based interviews, by which I mean fully automated, AI-scored digital or video interviews: (1) Unlike humans, AI is very good at focusing on relevant signals while ignoring irrelevant signals (including noise linked to social class, demographic status, and any information likely to decrease fairness and harm out-group candidates). (2) Unlike humans, AI is much better at learning and unlearning, so it can continue to improve and refine its models, making them more predictive (especially if higher quality performance data is used to fine-tune them). (3) Although AI can be biased, those biases typically reflect human biases (when AI is 'taught' what an alleged high performer looks like, it will simply replicate or emulated prejudiced and biased preferences coming from humans). In fact, AI can never be biased in a truly human way. That is, unlike humans, AI will never have a fragile self-esteem it needs to protect or inflate by bringing other humans (or AI) down. Maybe in the future we will see AI evolve into this kind of neurotic or insecure intelligence, but not right now. (4) AI can predict in a more predictable and reliable way, and offer the same treatment and evaluation to all candidates. This is never the case with humans, even when the same panel of human interviewers is trained to evaluate or assess the same group of people, and experimental conditions are put in place. Like in a jury, human interviewers have their own mood swings, preferences, biases, and most are hard to detect and manage. (5) While we often attack AI for being 'black box' (in the sense that even predictive models can be hard to understand or decipher), regulations have done a good job reducing the application of black box models, and most AI/algorithmic scoring tools in recruitment and interview screening are now 'white box' (in that you can reverse-engineer the models to understand why certain scores were assigned or decisions were made). (6) In contrast to AI, the human brain is truly a black box. Consider that even when human interviewers truly believe that one candidate is better than others, they will never know why they actually preferred them over others. They may have a story, including a story they tell themselves, but we will never know whether that story is true, or just some BS they told themselves (since every human is biased, and the mother of all biases is to be unaware of our biases, and treat them as facts when they are purely feelings about facts at best). (7) Many studies show that despite the low acceptance and popularity of AI, candidates often prefer AI to human interviewers, especially when they've had bad experiences with human interviewers. These can include (but are not limited to): micro-aggressions, 'macro' (overt) aggressions, discrimination, harassment, arrogant or unfriendly treatment, and sheer indifference. This explains why, even in its current state, AI is a better alternative to many human interviewers, even if we measure this purely in terms of candidate acceptance or user-experience. (8) If there truly is a pattern linking interview activity (verbal and non-verbal communication, language, speech, manners, social skills, and the content and style that make one candidate differ from others) with future job performance, there is no question that AI will be better able to spot and detect this pattern than humans are. Moreover, it will also do so in a more consistent, cheaper, and scalable way than humans. Note that even the most proficient human interviewer (perhaps a very experienced clinical psychologists with decades of training and experience) will have off days, feel up or down because of personal events, and be affected by conscious and unconscious biases. Moreover, it is not easy to find such experts and they can only manage a small number of interviews per day. To be sure, a bigger problem is that too many people think they are this expert when in fact they have no skills or expertise at interviewing whatsoever. (9) Meta-analytic data shows that the only interviews that consistently and substantially correlated with future job performance and significantly assess potential are highly structured and standardized: in other words, they look a lot more like psychometric assessments than a typical conversation or chat between a human interviewer and a candidate. Again, this makes the interview perfectly suitable for AI and computer intelligence rather than the unpredictability and erratic human personality. (10) To be sure, candidates gain a great deal from meeting their hiring manager, asking them questions, and getting a feel for their future bosses and the company culture (even if this, too, is a way to unleash or activate their own personal biases). There is no need to eliminate this, even if AI could do a better and more sincere job at describing a given culture (and soon also boss) to candidates! However, this human-to-human chat and opportunity for candidates to pick the right job, boss, and company, could be offered once candidates are already offered a job, and without any human intervention. If all of this sounds creepy or Orwellian, think about this analogy: AI-interviews may be the recruitment equivalent of self-driving cars. They may not be quite ready for mass-consumption and adoption, and are still producing crashes and errors during pilot mode (especially if there are other human drivers on the road); however, like self-driving cars or autonomous vehicles, they are unlikely to produce 1.3M human deaths per year, like human drivers do today. And just like drivers tend to think they are better than AI when they are not, most human interviewers think they are better than AI when they are not. AI does not need to be perfect to represent an improvement over human intelligence, and especially human stupidity.
The Sun
23-05-2025
- General
- The Sun
Psychologist reveals how to walk in, sit and what to say in ANY job interview… and 4-second rule for a big advantage
I THINK we can all agree - job interviews are nerve-wracking. Psychologist Ian MacRae tells The Sun exactly how to walk in, sit down, and the golden words to say in any interview. 3 Because - as the UK's job market continues to weaken and wages remain stagnant - it's never felt more important to nail that first impression. How to walk in "Be confident when you enter, and when you are speaking - but don't be overconfident or aggressive when the other person is speaking," says MacRae, a member of the British Psychological Society. "Aim to be confident in your own approach and your own answers without dominating the conversation." While humbleness is generally considered a good quality - and is absolutely necessary in some jobs, such as caring roles - it's not a good idea to talk down your achievements. "False humility is rarely well received," explains MacRae. "If you're talking about your accomplishments, be confident about them." There is a balance to be struck between being confident and warm. Confidence can easily be mistaken for cockiness if it's overdone, according to MacRae. "Research shows both confidence and warmth significantly improve social perceptions, so don't overdo the confidence so much that you fail to listen to the other person, or respond to them respectfully," he says. "Show that you're confident you can do the job, but that you're receptive to learning." Anger is a natural response to seeing an ex move on and have a baby, says tv psychologist 3 How you should sit Now you might not think you need tips on something as simple as sitting in a chair - but posture is important. According to MacRae, "it influences both how you are seen and how you feel". To really give off the best impression, MacRae suggests relaxing your shoulders, keeping your feet grounded and your hands visible. Try not to hunch forward. With your hands visible, you may be less likely to fidget. If you tend to fidget, don't take along props that you are more likely to fidget with. Ian MacRaePsychologist Most people fidget, especially when they're nervous. But "pronounced, loud and exaggerated" fidgeting can be a distraction to an interviewer, according to MacRae. "If you tend to fidget, don't take along props that you are more likely to fidget with," he says. "The last thing you want to be doing is spinning around a vape pen or constantly checking a mobile phone during an interview - this goes for remote interviews too. "If you tend to fidget, be very careful what you place around you on the desk. If your hands need to be busy, take notes." MacRae also suggests modelling your posture on whoever is interviewing you - without being an obvious copycat, of course. "Generally, when you are attentive to the other person's body language, you naturally mimic it to a certain degree," he says. "So don't consciously try to mirror their actions but pay attention to their posture, facial expressions and body language to pick up more clues and context about the questions they are asking." 3 The advert trick Now nobody can tell you what to say to win over an interviewer - not even ChatGPT. But there are some golden phrases you can use, quietly given to you by the hiring company through the form of a job advert. "Good job adverts - not all adverts - will give you some important clues and keywords about what matters," explains MacRae. "Learn the keywords and what they are often code for." Though preparation goes a long way in an interview. The best thing you can do is to demonstrate that you understand what's required for the role, what kind of challenges there will be, and that you have the capacity to solve those problems. As MacRae notes, there is no "set of magic words" that is going to secure you a job offer. But preparing some general talking points and questions relevant to the job will put you in better stead. "The best thing you can do is to demonstrate that you understand what's required for the role, what kind of challenges there will be, and that you have the capacity to solve those problems," MacRae adds. "Asking questions that demonstrate you understand what is required in the role can really help." These days, people have to go through multiple rounds of interviews to land a job offer. Another tip up MacRae's sleeve is to ask the recruiter what the next interviewer is looking for. "They'll often tell you," he says. "And that can really help you prepare. Write down what they tell you." MacRae continues: "If they can't or won't tell you, that's also an important piece of information if they don't really know what they're looking for." Try to practice common interview questions with a friend or family member to make any surprise questions feel less intimidating. The 4-second rule It's the big day - you've done all the preparation you can, all you need to do now is walk into the job interview and shine. But those pesky nerves creep in, and you're afraid your mind might go blank at a crucial moment. According to MacRae, mental prep helps just as much as prior notetaking about the role. He suggests a simple four-second rule that can help "reset your system" by quickly slowing your heart rate and lowering your cortisol - the stress hormone. "There is strong evidence that techniques like box breathing works, in for 4, hold for 4, out for 4, hold for 4," says MacRae. "Just a few rounds before the interview can help you relax." If you want this technique to be really effective - it's best to start practising it now. "The more you practise calming techniques before you need them, the easier they are to activate under pressure," MacRae explains.
