Using AI to craft your executive legal resume or LinkedIn profile might seem convenient, but it can backfire. AI often produces generic, inaccurate, or impersonal content that fails to reflect your unique career story. Recruiters and hiring teams value authenticity and specific achievements, which AI cannot replicate. Stand out by showcasing your true experience and personal brand. #hiring #interviewtips #management https://lnkd.in/eMfaFK9p
Rob Recchia’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
❓❓❓If you try to ban AI in applications, shouldn't you guarantee a human will read them? A friend shared this clause from a recent job application: "By checking this box, I acknowledge that my responses are my own work. I understand that the use of AI tools is prohibited for any part of the responses, including brainstorming, editing, and writing. I understand that if AI use is detected, the Department of Employee Relations reserves the right to remove me from the selection process." Here's my question: If organizations are this concerned about authentic human responses, shouldn't they commit to authentic HUMAN REVIEW? Many of these same organizations use AI screening tools to filter applications before any human ever sees them. They demand human-written cover letters that get scanned by algorithms for keywords. They require personal statements that may never reach human eyes. The irony is striking. We're asking candidates to pour their authentic selves onto paper, then feeding those responses into automated systems that can't appreciate nuance, context, or the human story behind the words. If we want genuine human connection in hiring, it should go both ways. Organizations serious about human-to-human evaluation should guarantee: 🫀A human will read your full application 📏Your responses will be evaluated for substance, not just keyword matches 🚪AI screening tools won't eliminate you before human review Fair hiring means mutual authenticity. If you want my human voice, give me your human attention. #AI #hiring #job
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
Amen Dawan Stanford! It is straight hypocrisy to use a system to penalize someone for using that same system to improve their chances of securing a job. AI is only as useful and powerful as the person providing it with directions. If I came up with an idea and ask AI to nuance or provide an additional lens for exploration, it's still my idea. Why am I surprised! This is a pathology in this country. Using nouns (people, places and things) up for their own double standard conveniences. I guarantee if AI could give disadvantaged people an advantage, it would be banned. This is my Alpha Indigo (AI) rewrite: Penalising (Why it uses the British spelling I am not sure but I love it) someone for using a system to improve their job prospects is hypocritical. AI’s value depends on the user's input; if I generate an idea and use AI to expand it, it remains my idea. This reflects a societal double standard—tools are often exploited for convenience but criticised when they level the field. If AI benefitted the disadvantaged, it would likely be prohibited. It still said the same thing. I had to conceptualize the idea in order for it to generate a rewrite. Y'all go on now and have a seat. We are majoring too much in minors.
Designing business, higher ed and nonprofit solutions, training, workshops, and strategy focused on transformative outcomes.
❓❓❓If you try to ban AI in applications, shouldn't you guarantee a human will read them? A friend shared this clause from a recent job application: "By checking this box, I acknowledge that my responses are my own work. I understand that the use of AI tools is prohibited for any part of the responses, including brainstorming, editing, and writing. I understand that if AI use is detected, the Department of Employee Relations reserves the right to remove me from the selection process." Here's my question: If organizations are this concerned about authentic human responses, shouldn't they commit to authentic HUMAN REVIEW? Many of these same organizations use AI screening tools to filter applications before any human ever sees them. They demand human-written cover letters that get scanned by algorithms for keywords. They require personal statements that may never reach human eyes. The irony is striking. We're asking candidates to pour their authentic selves onto paper, then feeding those responses into automated systems that can't appreciate nuance, context, or the human story behind the words. If we want genuine human connection in hiring, it should go both ways. Organizations serious about human-to-human evaluation should guarantee: 🫀A human will read your full application 📏Your responses will be evaluated for substance, not just keyword matches 🚪AI screening tools won't eliminate you before human review Fair hiring means mutual authenticity. If you want my human voice, give me your human attention. #AI #hiring #job
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
Who is using AI for screening applicant resumes? I’ve not considered it for my organization for a few reasons. *I feel like we are taking the human aspect out of Human Resources and it’s to the detriment of our employees and engagement. *A great recruiter can recognize transferable skills on an applicant’s resume even when they don’t have “direct experience.” *AI is only looking for buzz words-certain words on your resume that match those in the job posting/job description. *Similar to my second point above, a great recruiter will look through the full resume and recognize the most recent position may not be the best representation of a candidate. AI has its place….I use it daily, but I don’t love it for recruiting. What are your thoughts?
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The rise of AI-enhanced resumes, spruced up with keywords and quantifiable data, has created both opportunities and challenges in hiring. Over-reliance on AI without personal understanding can be risky. If the candidate behind such a resume is only “skin deep” and the content is superficially enhanced by AI, accountability and responsibility become complex issues involving both the candidate and hiring teams. How should potential employers / hiring teams adopt a layered verification strategy combining traditional checks (background, references, documentation), practical skills validation, and behavioral assessment alongside AI tools? The challenge is real and growing - would anyone like to comment ? #EthicalHiring #FutureOfWork #TalentAcquisition #ResponsibleAI #RecruitingChallenges #AIRecruitment #HRInnovation #DiversityAndInclusion #HiringTrends #WorkplaceEthics #JobSearch
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Think AI is rejecting your resume? It’s not. 0 of my clients use AI to filter applicants. Not one. What they do use: basic knockout questions like location, work authorization, or minimum years of experience. The real problem isn’t AI. It’s bots. Candidates blasting out applications to every role under the sun. That floods recruiters with hundreds (sometimes thousands) of resumes. And while I believe in sending a mass update when a role is closed, recruiters don’t have the bandwidth to provide individual feedback especially early in the process. Final rounds are different, but even then, legal risk often limits how much detail companies can share. The real black hole isn’t AI. It’s thousands of applications clogging the system.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
After all, rule based algorithms still outperform AI in the majority of use cases. It is a natural biological and psychological human flaw and pretense that people often pay overly extra attention to the lesser important matters and factors, while overlooking or ignoring the obvious and fundamental, just because the prior is fashionable whereas the latter is basic. It's a common human flaw that people tend to focus on improving that 3% part without doing well at the 97% first.
Think AI is rejecting your resume? It’s not. 0 of my clients use AI to filter applicants. Not one. What they do use: basic knockout questions like location, work authorization, or minimum years of experience. The real problem isn’t AI. It’s bots. Candidates blasting out applications to every role under the sun. That floods recruiters with hundreds (sometimes thousands) of resumes. And while I believe in sending a mass update when a role is closed, recruiters don’t have the bandwidth to provide individual feedback especially early in the process. Final rounds are different, but even then, legal risk often limits how much detail companies can share. The real black hole isn’t AI. It’s thousands of applications clogging the system.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
We’re entering a strange loop: – Applicants use AI to write resumes. – Recruiters use AI to screen resumes. And while both sides “optimize,” AI is also automating up to 70% of the jobs they’re fighting for. Maybe the question isn’t who gets hired, but what will be left to hire for,
AI and the Job Market
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
If you're not using AI to help with your resume, you're going to get crushed. In this job market, you might need to apply to dozens or even hundreds of jobs. That means you need every edge you can get. Some folks look down on using AI for resumes as if it’s “half-assing it.” But the truth is that you’re not writing resumes for humans. You’re writing them for: - AI bots that scan for exact keywords - Non-technical recruiters using filters - Systems that reject you for not using the “right” phrasing And even when a knowledgable human reads your resume? They skim. They look for big ideas and metrics… and then focus back on you. When I was hiring at IBM, I looked at someone’s resume once before the call. After that, it was all about the person, not the paper. The resume just got them in the room. This isn’t an excuse to be lazy. You still need to: - Apply to roles that match your background - Coach the AI with your career history - Iterate through multiple versions But you’re playing a numbers game. And AI is the only way to scale that game intelligently. If you’re struggling to figure out how to intelligently add AI to your workflow, leave a comment and let’s chat! I'd love to help.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
AI won’t get you blacklisted. But a generic, chatbot-written resume might. Recruiters are spotting patterns—and many candidates are getting passed over. Here’s how to avoid that trap (and what to do instead): https://lnkd.in/exTmxNzS
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
I once watched a hiring manager reject a strong resume because an algorithm ranked it low. She paused, shut the tool, and asked a human question instead. The candidate got the interview. That pause is the skill I want you to build: knowing when to trust people over predictions. Here are 5 real cases where AI can do more harm than help — and what to do instead: 1. Sensitive personal data ☑ AI can mishandle health, religion, or sexual orientation info — triggering GDPR Article 9 violations. → Instead: anonymize data, use vetted models, get explicit consent, or keep workflows human. ️2. Mental health or grief support ☑ AI mimics empathy but misses crisis cues. → Instead: limit to low-stakes tasks like journaling prompts. Escalate to real clinicians when needed. 3. High-stakes legal, medical, or safety calls ☑ AI lacks domain judgment and accountability. → Instead: ensure expert oversight, rigorous audits, and clear documentation. 4. Moral or bias-sensitive decisions ☑ AI reflects past patterns — not lived realities. → Instead: co-design with affected communities and audit for bias. 5. Quick gut-check: ask these before using AI ☑ Would harm be irreversible? ☑ Does this involve legal/ethical risk? ☑ Can the AI explain itself in plain terms? If no to any → pause. Human-in-the-loop wins. When AI is fast, persuasive, and flawed… pause becomes a leadership skill. Have you ever chosen not to use AI? Drop your example or vote in the follow-up poll — it might save someone from a costly mistake.
To view or add a comment, sign in
I simplify talent acquisition for clients and job seekers—helping businesses find top talent quickly while connecting candidates with roles that align with their skills, goals, and aspirations.
5dIncendia Partners