We know that the global pandemic has caused a disruption in global workforces. Much has already been said about the Great Resignation, and how it has morphed into the Great Reshuffle, a period in which many are looking to reinvent themselves in the light of new jobs and careers. No industries or role types have been spared, either, it seems – even recruiters are leaving positions in the tens of thousands.
With a reshuffle, however, comes uncertainty, doubt, and anxiety. The war on talent may have benefited some, but the path to career reinvention is by no means guaranteed. Consider the following factors, factors job-hunters must face every day:
- Bias in recruitment. According to a recent survey, 65% of tech recruiters believe their hiring process is biased. You may not get a fair shake, and you may not ever know why.
- Ghosting. According to CandE research, In 2020, 33% of candidates in North America who completed job applications had still not received a response more than two months later.
- Unfair competition. 78% of people admit to misrepresenting themselves on their resume.
- Threats to longevity and progression. According to Harvard Business Review, almost two thirds of the tasks that a manager currently does may be automated by as soon as 2025.
- Changes to the very nature of work. Noted future-of-work columnist Dror Poleg said it best: “It is not just where or when we work that is changing; it is the nature of work itself. For a growing number of people, work is becoming indistinguishable from leisure. In some cases, the workers don’t even know they are working. In others, workers think they are working while they are, in fact, resting. In the emerging world of work, video gamers are getting paid to play games, and fans are paid to listen to music.”
It’s little wonder that some Great Reshufflers, especially emerging adults (ages 18-24), are experiencing anxiety about working in the post-COVID world. Instability is the only constant. Consider, too, that some people are better at dealing with uncertainty – or, in technical terms, they are higher-than-average in the HEXACO personality traits Flexibility (or Adaptability, as it’s sometimes known).
This hypothesis is supported by at least one study, published last year in the International Journal of Social Psychiatry. It suggested that, “…due to the outbreak of ‘Fear of COVID-19’, people are becoming depressed and anxious about their future career, which is creating a long-term negative effect on human psychology.”
How this translates to good (or not-so-good) candidate experience
The traditional face-to-face interview is typified by stilted small talk and a general air of nervousness. If a candidate is low in Extraversion, high in Agreeableness, or high in the Anxiety and Fearfulness scales of the Emotionality personality domain, their experience of walking into a blind interview is likely to be worsened by the additional stressors left by COVID-19.
Consider, as is likely to be the case, that the candidate might possess a combination of all three traits, in the proportions laid out above. These people, especially if they are young, may not even bother to apply for a job in today’s climate.
The ramifications of this are obvious: You risk, at best, filling your workforce with open, disagreeable, type-A employees. At worst, you risk baking unfairnesses or bias into your recruitment process, at the cost of good candidates who don’t shine in awkward face-to-face situations.
How good candidate experience data, and talent analytics, can help you ease gender biases at the top of your hiring funnel
Take this small data visualisation from our TalentInsights dashboard as a key example. Please note here that the following results apply to the outcomes of the hiring process, and not Smart Interviewer’s recommendations.
It presents an assessment of candidate hiring outcomes according to key HEXACO personality traits. The red dots represent female candidates, the blue dots male. Immediately, we can see that when it comes to Conscientiousness – one of the best predictors of workplace success – females and males are more or less identical.
The main differences between the two genders occur, however, in the domains of Agreeableness and Emotionality. Combined, these two traits are good predictors of anxiety and/or aversion to fear. As you can see, females tend to be higher in Agreeableness and Emotionality than males.
Though the difference is not incredibly significant, it is still present – and it may require a slight change to the way you bring female candidates into your hiring process. The data proves, of course, that your best candidates are just as likely to be female as male – but your recruitment tactics may be producing outcomes that favour males.
How to account for fear, anxiety, and Agreeableness in your recruitment process
We’ve said it before, and it’s the whole reason we exist: A blind, text-based Chat Interview with a clever, machine-learning Ai. Smart Interviewer is our smart interviewer, and it has now analysed more than 500 million candidate words to arrive at the kinds of data points you see above. It helps you combat bias at the top of your funnel, and gives you the Talent Analytics you need at the bottom.
And it works. Take it from the candidates high in Agreeableness:
“I have never had an interview like this online in my life… able to speak without fear or judgement. The feedback is also great to reflect on. I feel this is a great way to interview people as it helps an individual to be themselves and at the same time the responses back to me are written with a good sense of understanding and compassion also. I don’t know if it is a human or a robot answering me, but if it is a robot then technology is quite amazing.”
– Graduate Candidate A
“[It was] approachable, rather than daunting. I found the process to be comprehensive and easy to complete. I also enjoyed that the range of questions were different than those commonly asked. The visual aspects of the survey makes the task seem approachable rather than daunting and thus easier to complete.”
– Graduate Candidate B
The future of work is uncertain. But with a fair and unbiased assessment tool, you can prevent the best talent from being lost under the dust of the Great Reshuffle – and save a lot of time and money doing it.
Related
Blog
Neuroinclusion by design. Not by exception.
Why neuroinclusion can’t be a retrofit and how Sapia.ai is building a better experience for every candidate.
In the past, if you were neurodivergent and applying for a job, you were often asked to disclose your diagnosis to get a basic accommodation – extra time on a test, maybe the option to skip a task. That disclosure often came with risk: of judgment, of stigma, or just being seen as different.
This wasn’t inclusion. It was bureaucracy. And it made neurodiverse candidates carry the burden of fitting in.
We’ve come a long way, but we’re not there yet.
Shifting from retrofits to inclusive-by-design
Over the last two decades, hiring practices have slowly moved away from reactive accommodations toward proactive, human-centric design. Leading employers began experimenting with:
- Sharing interview questions in advance
- Replacing group exercises with structured simulations
- Offering a variety of assessment formats
- Co-designing assessments with neurodiverse candidates
But even these advances have often been limited in scope, applied to special hiring programs or specific roles. Neurodiverse talent still encounters systems built for neurotypical profiles, with limited flexibility and a heavy dose of social performance pressure.
Hiring needs to look different.
Insight 1: The next frontier of hiring equity is universal design
Truly inclusive hiring doesn’t rely on diagnosis or disclosure. It doesn’t just give a select few special treatment. It’s about removing friction for everyone, especially those who’ve historically been excluded.
That’s why Sapia.ai was built with universal design principles from day one.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
- No time limits — Candidates answer at their own pace
- No pressure to perform — It’s a conversation, not a spotlight
- No video, no group tasks — Just structured, 1:1 chat-based interviews
- Built-in coaching — Everyone gets personalised feedback
It’s not a workaround. It’s a rework.
Insight 2: Not all “friendly” methods are inclusive
We tend to assume that social or “casual” interview formats make people comfortable. But for many neurodiverse individuals, icebreakers, group exercises, and informal chats are the problem, not the solution.
When we asked 6,000 neurodiverse candidates about their experience using Sapia.ai’s chat-based interview, they told us:
“It felt very 1:1 and trustworthy… I had time to fully think about my answers.”
“It was less anxiety-inducing than video interviews.”
“I like that all applicants get initial interviews which ensures an unbiased and fair way to weigh-up candidates.”
Insight 3: Prediction ≠ Inclusion
Some AI systems claim to infer skills or fit from resumes or behavioural data. But if the training data is biased or the experience itself is exclusionary, you’re just replicating the same inequity with more speed and scale.
Inclusion means seeing people for who they are, not who they resemble in your data set.
At Sapia.ai, every interaction is transparent, explainable, and scientifically validated. We use structured, fair assessments that work for all brains, not just neurotypical ones.
Where to from here?
Neurodiversity is rising in both awareness and representation. However, inclusion won’t scale unless the systems behind hiring change as well.
That’s why we built a platform that:
- Doesn’t rely on disclosure
- Removes ambiguity and pressure
- Creates space for everyone to shine
- Measures what matters, fairly
Sapia.ai is already powering inclusive, structured, and scalable hiring for global employers like BT Group, Costa Coffee and Concentrix. Want to see how your hiring process can be more inclusive for neurodivergent individuals? Let’s chat.
Blog
Skills Measurement vs Skills Inference – What’s the Difference and Why Does It Matter?
There’s growing interest in AI-driven tools that infer skills from CVs, LinkedIn profiles, and other passive data sources. These systems claim to map someone’s capability based on the words they use, the jobs they’ve held, and patterns derived from millions of similar profiles. In theory, it’s efficient. But when inference becomes the primary basis for hiring or promotion, we need to scrutinise what’s actually being measured and what’s not.
Let’s be clear: the technology isn’t the problem. Modern inference engines use advanced natural language processing, embeddings, and knowledge graphs. The science behind them is genuinely impressive. And when they’re used alongside richer sources of data, such as internal project contributions, validated assessments, or behavioural evidence, they can offer valuable insight for workforce planning and development.
But we need to separate the two ideas:
- Skills Measurement: Directly observing or quantifying a skill based on evidence of actual performance.
- Skills Inference: Estimating the likelihood that someone has a skill, based on indirect signals or patterns in their data.
The risk lies in conflating the two.
The Problem Isn’t Inference of Skills. It’s the Data Feeding It
CVs and LinkedIn profiles are riddled with bias, inconsistency, and omission. They’re self-authored, unverified, and often written strategically – for example, to enhance certain experiences or downplay others in response to a job ad.
And different groups represent themselves in different ways. Ahuja (2024) showed, for example, that male MBA graduates in India tend to self-promote more than their female peers. Something as simple as a longer LinkedIn ‘About’ section becomes a proxy for perceived competence.
Job titles are vague. Skill descriptions vary. Proficiency is rarely signposted. Even where systems draw on internal performance data, the quality is often questionable. Ratings tend to cluster (remember the year everyone got a ‘3’ at your org?) and can often reflect manager bias or company culture more than actual output.
Sophisticated ≠ Objective
The most advanced skill inference platforms use layered data: open web sources like job ads and bios, public databases like O*NET and ESCO, internal frameworks, even anonymised behavioural signals from platform users. This breadth gives a more complete picture, and the models powering it are undeniably sophisticated.
But sophistication doesn’t equal accuracy.
These systems rely heavily on proxies and correlations, rather than observed behaviour. They estimate presence, not proficiency. And when used in high-stakes decisions, that distinction matters.
Transparency (or Lack Thereof)
In many inference systems, it’s hard to trace where a skill came from. Was it picked up from a keyword? Assumed from a job title? Correlated with others in similar roles? The logic is rarely visible, and that’s a problem, especially when decisions based on these inferences affect access to jobs, development, or promotion.
Presence ≠ Proficiency
Inferred skills suggest someone might have a capability. But hiring isn’t about possibility. It’s about evidence of capability. Saying you’ve led a team isn’t the same as doing it well. Collecting or observing actual examples of behaviour allows you to evaluate someone’s true competence at a claimed skill.
Some platforms try to infer proficiency, too, but this is still inference, not measurement. No matter how smart the model, it’s still drawing conclusions from indirect data.
By contrast, validated assessments like structured interviews, simulations, and psychometric tools are designed to measure. They observe behaviour against defined criteria, use consistent scoring frameworks (like Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales, or BARS), and provide a transparent, defensible basis for decision-making. In doing this, the level or proficiency of a skill can be placed on a properly calibrated scale.
But here’s the thing: we don’t have to choose one over the other.
A Smarter Way Forward: The Hybrid Model
The real opportunity lies in combining the rigour of measurement with the scalability of inference.
Start with measurement
Define the skills that matter. Use structured tools to capture behavioural evidence. Set a clear standard for what good looks like. For example, define Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) when assessing interviews for skills. Using a framework like Sapia.ai’s Competency Framework is critical for defining what you want to measure.
Layer in inference
Apply AI to scale scoring, add contextual nuance, and detect deeper patterns that human assessors might miss, especially when reviewing large volumes of data.
Anchor the whole system in transparency and validation
Ensure people understand how inferences are made by providing clear explanations. Continuously test for fairness. Keep human oversight in the loop, especially where the stakes are high. More information on ensuring AI systems are transparent can be found in this paper.
This hybrid model respects the strengths and limits of both approaches. It recognises that AI can’t replace human judgement, but it can enhance it. That inference can extend reach, but only measurement can give you higher confidence in the results.
The Bottom Line
Inference can support and guide, but only measurement can prove. And when people’s futures are on the line, proof should always win.
References
Ahuja, A. (2024). LinkedIn profile analysis reveals gender-based differences in self-presentation among Indian MBA graduates. Journal of Business and Psychology.
Blog
Making Healthcare Hiring Human with Ethical AI
Hiring for care is unlike any other sector. Recruiters are looking for people who can bring empathy, resilience, and energy to the most demanding human roles. Whether it’s dental care, mental health, or aged care, new hires are charged with looking after others when they’re most vulnerable. The stakes are high.
Hiring for care is exactly where leveraging ethical AI can make the biggest impact.
Hiring for the traits that matter
The best carers don’t always have the best CVs.
That’s why our chat-based AI interview doesn’t screen for qualifications. It screens for the the skills that matter when caring for others. The traits that define a brilliant care worker, things like:
Empathy, Self-awareness, Accountability, Teamwork, and Energy.
The best way to uncover these traits is through structured behavioural science, delivered through an experience that allows candidates to open up. Giving candidates space to give real-life, open-text answers. With no time pressure or video stress. Then, our AI picks up the signals that matter, free from any demographic data or bias-inducing signals.
Candidates’ answers to our structured interview questions aren’t simply ticking boxes. They’re a window into how someone shows up under pressure. And they’re helping leading care organisations hire people who belong in care and those who stay.
Inclusion, built in
Inclusivity should be a core foundation of any talent assessment, and it’s a fundamental requirement for hirers in the care industry.
When healthcare hirers use chat-based AI interviews, designed to be inclusive for all groups, candidates complete their interviews when and where they choose, without the bias traps of face-to-face or phone screening. There are no accents to judge, no assumptions, just their words and their story.
And it works:
- 91.8% of carer candidates complete their interviews
- Carer candidates report 9/10 Candidate Satisfaction with their interview experience
- 80% of candidates would recommend others to apply
- Every candidate receives personalised feedback, regardless of the outcome
Drop-offs are reduced, and engagement & employer brand advocacy go up. Building a brand that candidates want to work for includes providing a hiring experience that candidates want to complete.
Real outcomes in care hiring
Our smart chat already works for some of the most respected names in healthcare and community services. Here’s a sample of the outcomes that are possible by leveraging ethical AI, a validated scientific assessment, wrapped in an experience that candidates love:
Anglicare – a leading provider of aged care services
- Time-to-offer dropped from 40+ days to just 14
- Candidate pool grew by 30%
- Turnover dropped by 63%
Abano Healthcare – Australasia’s largest dental support organisation
- 1,213 recruiter hours saved in the first month (67 hours per individual hiring team member)
- $25,000 saved in screening and interviewing time
Berry Street – a not for profit family & child services organisation
- Time-to-hire down from 22 to 7 days
- 95.4% of candidates completed their chat interviews
A smarter way to hire
The case study tells the full story of how Sapia.ai helped Anglicare, Abano Healthcare, and Berry Street transform their hiring processes by scaling up, reducing burnout, and hiring with heart.
Download it here: