Building Candidate Trust: Ben Eubanks on AI Consent in Hiring

In a recent LinkedIn post, Ben Eubanks explores how companies can foster greater trust with job candidates, particularly concerning the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the hiring process. Eubanks, drawing on data from Lighthouse Research & Advisory’s latest Talent Acquisition Trends study, which surveyed 1,000 individuals actively seeking employment, highlights a critical area where employers can improve perceptions of fairness and respect without significant investment.

Candidate Preferences on AI in Recruitment

The core of Eubanks’s analysis centers on how candidates respond to different phrasings of AI consent in job advertisements. He notes that while the preference for human interaction in hiring is predictable, the specific language used by employers can significantly impact candidate comfort levels. Eubanks points out the prevailing sentiment, stating:

“The results are predictable in some ways (people prefer humans–shocker!), but there’s a clear lesson for employers that will increase candidate trust & perceptions of fairness, and it only takes a few minutes to make sure it’s incorporated into the job postings and/or career page.”

The study presented candidates with various AI consent statements, and Eubanks breaks down the preferences. The least preferred option was a vague mention of AI or automation. More effective, according to Eubanks, were descriptive statements. He elaborates on the hierarchy of these descriptions:

The Impact of AI Consent Phrasing

Eubanks details how the focus of the AI consent statement matters. Statements that simply mentioned AI usage were less favored than those that provided more context. He identifies specific approaches that resonated more positively with candidates:

• A descriptive statement focusing on protecting candidates from bias based on race, age, etc.
• A descriptive statement emphasizing skills and experience evaluation.
• The most preferred option: a descriptive statement that explicitly clarifies that humans make the final hiring decision.

This last point, Eubanks argues, directly addresses a significant candidate fear. As Ben Eubanks notes, the perception that AI or Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) automatically screen out candidates without human review is a widespread myth.

Addressing Candidate Fears and Misconceptions

Eubanks emphasizes that many companies, despite already involving humans in the final stages of hiring, fail to communicate this effectively. This lack of transparency fuels candidate anxiety. He states:

“The takeaway is clear: companies that are only highlighting AI usage as part of the hiring process without thinking about the candidate side of the equation are missing the chance to address + alleviate one of the biggest fears candidates have today.”

According to Ben Eubanks, the solution is straightforward: clear communication about human oversight. He suggests that committing to and clearly stating that human reviews are part of the process can significantly boost candidate trust. This is particularly important in the current market, which, while often described as an employer’s market, still sees job seekers concerned about fairness and respect in the application process.

Ben Eubanks concludes by stressing the importance of proactively addressing these candidate concerns. By transparently communicating how AI is used and, crucially, how human judgment remains central to the hiring decision, organizations can differentiate themselves and build stronger relationships with potential hires. He advocates for clear messaging, noting:

“Want candidates to be more comfortable applying for your jobs, regardless of AI usage? Commit to human reviews at the end of the process.”

This approach, Eubanks suggests, can help dispel common myths about automated hiring and foster a more positive and trustworthy recruitment experience for everyone involved.