Author: Buddhi Jayatilleke, Chief Data Scientist, Sapia.ai
We all know the value of company culture. Culture forms the shared values, beliefs, and practices that shape the behaviors and interactions of employees within an organization. It is like the collective personality of a company that shapes everything from employee satisfaction to customer experiences.
While culture is a collective outcome, it isn’t something that just happens automatically. Leaders are responsible for defining the underlying values and must remain intentional about sustaining the desired organizational culture. A key part of culture is who you hire and how you hire them. We hear phrases like “Culture Fit” and “Culture Add” in the hiring process. These are part of “who” you hire and are used to both accept and reject candidates. But “how” you hire reflects your culture and creates the virtuous (or vicious) cycle that amplifies (or derails) an organizational culture.
“If you hire people just because they can do a job, they’ll work for your money. But if you hire people who believe what you believe, they’ll work for you with blood and sweat and tears.” – Simon Sinek
The above quote, attributed to Simon Sinek, makes a great point, but how do you find people “who believe what you believe”? In other words, how do you attract and hire individuals who will thrive in and uplift your culture? The experience through the candidate’s journey plays a key role.
And today we have a new enabler. Artificial Intelligence (AI).
AI certainly can not create culture. Culture is innately a human construct. However, AI as a tool can help sustain, project, and amplify culture through effective engagement with employees and candidates. From job description writing to employee coaching, new generative AI tools, built on ethical principles, can help organizations instill their culture through sourcing to onboarding.
Here I highlight four key steps that leaders should pay attention to for building the right “hiring culture” and how AI can help. Due to my own experience in the selection process, more emphasis is placed there, but all 4 steps are equally important.
1. First Impressions Matter: The Job Description and Career Site
The job description is often the first interaction potential employees have with your organization. The language used, the values highlighted, and even the requirements listed can say a lot about your culture. For instance, emphasizing teamwork and collaboration suggests a culture valuing collective success over individual achievements. Using gender-neutral language can help attract a candidate pool that is gender diverse. These indicators give candidates an upfront understanding of what you prioritize and allow them to self-select based on fit.
Companies can enhance this first impression by providing more interactive means to get to know the organization rather than using static career websites filled with a lot of content. While some organizations do a great job in structuring the content and including more engaging content such as videos from existing employees, FAQ’s etc, these approaches fail to address questions a potential applicant might have in a timely manner. In a high-volume recruitment scenario, it is impossible to have human recruiters answer thousands of questions via phone or text chat.
This is where smart chatbots built on top of generative AI like Sapia.ai‘s Phai, a careers site assistant, can help. Phai can ingest all the relevant content on a website (or other sources) and then provide fast personalized responses to candidate queries, 24/. Phai not only enhances the experience but also increases the chances of a candidate completing the application process. Chat with Phai yourself by clicking the blue icon in the bottom right of your browser.
2. The Selection Process: What You Value in Candidates
The selection criteria and the selection process are reflections of what the organization values. Prioritizing skills over experience may indicate a culture that values continuous learning and potential. An interview is a common step in the selection process and most of the time it is unstructured and fraught with bias. We can all fall victim to various unconscious biases at this stage (and sometimes practice conscious ones too, unfortunately). As an example, here are 4 common ones that I have noticed in fast-paced growth environments like startups:
- Urgency bias: Rushed decisions to prioritize immediate needs over long-term goals when making hiring decisions. (We need to fill this role this week!)
- Confirmation bias: The tendency to interpret or favor information that confirms one’s preconceptions and ignore other relevant details. (This candidate comes from ABC Inc. They must be good!)
- Halo effect: Tendency to base an overall impression of a candidate on one positive trait or experience. (Wow! Their presentation slides looked amazing!)
- Dunning-Kruger effect: Individuals with limited skills or experience might overestimate their abilities in an interview and this overconfidence can sometimes be persuasive. Leaders who are inexperienced in a specific subject matter, for example, a non-technical founder who is recruiting an engineering manager, can be susceptible to this bias.
One way you can interrupt these human biases is to include an AI assistant in the process. This is where tools like Sapia.ai’s Chat Interview™ can help. Chat Interview™ conducts a chat-based structured interview that is scored by AI. Structured interviews are found to be high in validity and low in bias among the many options available to assess candidates. Hiring managers get access to a detailed report called Talent Insights (Ti) that can challenge some of their biased views and help them make better hiring decisions. For instance, independent research conducted using the Sapia.ai Chat Interview™ found a 36% reduction in the gender gap relative to recruitment without AI. One of the practices the Sapia.ai Chat Interview™ encourages is asking value-based interview questions to gauge alignment with company values. For example “Could you tell me about a time when you went above and beyond to help a team member at work?”.
3. Onboarding: The Introduction to Culture
The onboarding process is a critical stage for instilling organizational culture in new hires. Effective onboarding programs that align new employees with organizational values and expected behaviors can have a lasting impact on their integration and success within the company. As more companies become distributed and rely on remote work, part of company culture can be collaborating effectively over tools like wikis, and messaging apps like Slack and email. This requires making sure a new hire knows how to use these tools well and content norms specific to the company. This also brings to light the importance of “connection” as part of building culture, as in a remote work environment you have to be more intentional in building connections than when working together in an office. You can read more on this in “HR for the world of tomorrow“ where we discuss the changing landscape of work and how smart chat is the new medium for building connections.
4. Feedback and Continuous Improvement: Sustaining the Culture
How feedback is provided during the hiring process and the onboarding period can also be a cultural indicator. A culture that values growth and development is likely to provide constructive feedback to candidates (whether they are hired or not) and to new employees in an effective manner. This is the philosophy that Sapia.ai Chat Interview™ follows with My Insights, a feedback email every candidate gets after completing the chat interview that includes personality insights and coaching tips. The Sapia.ai Talent Insights report provides similar insights to the hiring managers that help them prepare for onboarding a new hire.
In essence, every aspect of the hiring process – from the job description to the final decision – is a reflection of your organizational culture. By being mindful of this, organizations can ensure they not only attract the right talent but also reinforce the culture they aspire to maintain and develop. AI can be used as a tool to mitigate biases, form a consistent process, and enhance the candidate experience to better reflect the company culture.
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: