Machine learning outcomes are testable and corrective measures remain consistent, unlike in humans.
“People are not your most important asset. The right people are.” – Jim Collins, author and lecturer on company sustainability and growth.
“Are the right people in the right roles?” [This is] the single most important factor for leadership success and for organisational success.” – Gail Kelly, former CEO of Westpac
How many research papers do we need to read or edicts from top-class CEOs before we get the message that in every organisation, it all comes down to the people?
Adam Bryant who pens the terrific weekly column, The Corner Office, for the NYT has interviewed a diverse pool of leaders, and a common theme from 99 % of his interviews with CEOs is that success correlates with hiring the best team.
My former boss Tracey Fellows, CEO of the REA Group, was also fond of saying that it is ‘people’ that keeps her up at night more than any other business challenge.
Most hiring in most organisations relies 100 % on people to make those most important decisions. Yet we do so with little objective data. Instead, we have layers upon layers of bias! And to give you an idea of how many there are, here is a whooping full Wikipedia list of cognitive biases for you to check out. This article lays out in great detail a plethora of cloudy, smeary and hazy biases I didn’t know could exist.
It concludes that they are mostly unalterable and fixed, regardless of how much unconscious bias training you attend in your lifetime.
There is no scalable, efficient and reliable way to train us out of our biases. Our biases are so embedded and invisible; mostly, we just can’t ‘check ourselves’ at the moment to manage them.
So, how is that diversity hiring program going?
Read: Why a Lack of Diversity is Costing Your Business
In some functions/ departments, your “Hiring for Diversity” may be going very well. However, diversity training and hiring isn’t repeatable, where humans are involved. And, if humans could be trained out of their biases, we may get more diversity in our new hires. But then, do we know that we are getting the ‘better’ hire from the applicant pool? How CAN you tell if you have no method of reliably testing for what matters for success?
You might say we rely on CVs to give us that ‘insight’ but did you know CVs are usually crafted, designed, worded and reworded to ‘best-light’ the applicant. Ever appointed an Excel whizz, who on hire doesn’t know a pivot from a concatenate? Or even worse, who cannot apply logic, reasoning and critical thought?
We have all done this – apply crude (biased) filters to screen applications:
- Blue-chip companies on their CV – tick!
- Stayed in their role for two years on average – tick!
- Promoted at least once inside of a (good) organisation – tick!
- Good school – tick!
- Impressive referees – tick tick tick!
Because biases appear to be so hardwired and inalterable, it is more straightforward to remove bias from algorithms than from people.
This gives AI the potential to create a future where important insights underpinning decisions such as hiring, are made more fairly.
The machine can be trained to help you make repeatable and stable decisions.
Read: Why Machines make better decisions than humans (oh and why I hate Simon Sinek)
Algorithmic bias is not the elephant in the room. Some argue that algorithms themselves have bias. The reality is that machine learning, by its very definition, is aiming to find patterns in large volumes of data, mostly latent, to support decisive actions. Removing bias is driven by what bits of training data you use to feed the machine.
You can ensure there is no (or limited) bias in the machine learning and it is all about two things:
- What data is being used to build the model?
- What are you doing to that data to build the model?
If you build models from the profile of your talent and that talent is homogenous and monochromatic, then so will be the data model and you are back to self-reinforcing hiring.
If you are using data which looks at age, gender, ethnicity and all those visible markers of bias, then, sure enough, you will amplify that bias in your machine learning. Relying on internal performance data to make people decisions, that is like layering bias-upon-bias. Similar to building a sentencing algorithm with sentencing data from the US court system, which is already biased against black men.
So instead of lumping all AI and ML into one big bucket of ‘bias’, look beneath the surface to understand what’s going into the machine as that is where amplification risks loom large.
To ensure you are using machine learning wisely, only use objective data which has no biodata (that means a big NO to CV and social media scraping). Test rigorously and adjust to learn continuously. And, be certain to use multiple machine learning models to continuously triangulate the model versus relying on one version of the truth.
Machines are better at learning this stuff.
Unlike trying to solve human bias, machine learning is repeatable, stable, consistent and most importantly, testable. The value to the organisation is of course, immense.
- Every applicant gets a fair go at the role;
- Every applicant is assessed;
- Hire the person who will succeed vs someone your gut tells you will succeed;
- Use fewer resources to hire;
- Reduce the cost of hire.
Now that is ticking all the right boxes. It makes the possibility of objective and valid decisions available at scale, a probability.
Machine learning outcomes are testable and corrective measures remain consistent, unlike in humans.
The ability to test both training data and outcome data, continuously, allows you to detect and correct the slightest bias if it ever occurs.
Soon (maybe already) you will be putting yours, and your loved ones live in the hands of algorithms when you ride in that self-driven car. Algorithms are extensions to our cognitive ability helping us make better decisions, faster and consistently based on data, even in hiring.
To keep up to date on all things “Hiring with Ai” and Machine Learning subscribe to our blog!
You can try out Sapia’s Chat Interview right now – HERE. Else leave us your details to get a personalised demo
Related
Blog
New Research Proves the Value of AI Hiring
A new study has just confirmed what many in HR have long suspected: traditional psychometric tests are no longer the gold standard for hiring.
Published in Frontiers in Psychology, the research compared AI-powered, chat-based interviews to traditional assessments, finding that structured, conversational AI interviews significantly reduce social desirability bias, deliver a better candidate experience, and offer a fairer path to talent discovery.
We’ve always believed hiring should be about understanding people and their potential, rather than reducing them to static scores. This latest research validates that approach, signalling to employers what modern, fair and inclusive hiring should look like.
The problem with traditional psychometric tests
While used for many decades in the absence of a more candidate-first approach, psychometric testing has some fatal flaws.
For starters, these tests rely heavily on self-reporting. Candidates are expected to assess their own traits. Could you truly and honestly rate how conscientious you are, how well you manage stress, or how likely you are to follow rules? Human beings are nuanced, and in high-stakes situations like job applications, most people are answering to impress, which can lead to less-than-honest self-evaluations.
This is known as social desirability bias: a tendency to respond in ways that are perceived as more favourable or acceptable, even if they don’t reflect reality. In other words, traditional assessments often capture a version of the candidate that’s curated for the test, not the person who will show up to work.
Worse still, these assessments can feel cold, transactional, even intimidating. They do little to surface communication skills, adaptability, or real-world problem solving, the things that make someone great at a job. And for many candidates, especially those from underrepresented backgrounds, the format itself can feel exclusionary.
The Rise of Chat-Based Interviews
Enter conversational AI.
Organisations have been using chat-based interviews to assess talent since before 2018, and they offer a distinctly different approach.
Rather than asking candidates to rate themselves on abstract traits, they invite them into a structured, open-ended conversation. This creates space for candidates to share stories, explain their thinking, and demonstrate how they communicate and solve problems.
The format reduces stress and pressure because it feels more like messaging than testing. Candidates can be more authentic, and their responses have been proven to reveal personality traits, values, and competencies in a context that mirrors honest workplace communication.
Importantly, every candidate receives the same questions, evaluated against the same objective, explainable framework. These interviews are structured by design, evaluated by AI models like Sapia.ai’s InterviewBERT, and built on deep language analysis. That means better data, richer insights, and a process that works at scale without compromising fairness.
Key Findings from the Latest Research
The new study, published in Frontiers in Psychology, put AI-powered, chat-based interviews head-to-head with traditional psychometric assessments, and the results were striking.
One of the most significant takeaways was that candidates are less likely to “fake good” in chat interviews. The study found that AI-led conversations reduce social desirability bias, giving a more honest, unfiltered view of how people think and express themselves. That’s because, unlike multiple-choice questionnaires, chat-based assessments don’t offer obvious “right” answers – it’s on the candidate to express themselves authentically and not guess teh answer they think they would be rewarded for.
The research also confirmed what our candidate feedback has shown for years: people actually enjoy this kind of assessment. Participants rated the chat interviews as more engaging, less stressful, and more respectful of their individuality. In a hiring landscape where candidate experience is make-or-break, this matters.
And while traditional psychometric tests still show higher predictive validity in isolated lab conditions, the researchers were clear: real-world hiring decisions can’t be reduced to prediction alone. Fairness, transparency, and experience matter just as much, often more, when building trust and attracting top talent.
Sapia.ai was spotlighted in the study as a leader in this space, with our InterviewBERT model recognised for its ability to interpret candidate responses in a way that’s explainable, responsible, and grounded in science.
Why Trust and Candidate Agency Win
Today, hiring has to be about earning trust and empowering candidates to show up as their full selves, and having a voice in the process.
Traditional assessments often strip candidates of agency. They’re asked to conform, perform, and second-guess what the “right” answer might be. Chat-based interviews flip that dynamic. By inviting candidates into an open conversation, they offer something rare in hiring: autonomy. Candidates can tell their story, explain their thinking, and share how they approach real-world challenges, all in their own words.
This signals respect from the employer. It says: We trust you to show us who you are.
Hiring should be a two-way street – a long-held belief we’ve had, now backed by peer-reviewed science. The new research confirms that AI-led interviews can reduce bias, enhance fairness, and give candidates control over how they’re seen and evaluated.
Blog
AI Maturity in the Enterprise
Barb Hyman, CEO & Founder, Sapia.ai
It’s time for a new way to map progress in AI adoption, and pilots are not it.
Over the past year, I’ve been lucky enough to see inside dozens of enterprise AI programs. As a CEO, founder, and recently, judge in the inaugural Australian Financial Review AI Awards.
And here’s what struck me:
Despite the hype, we still don’t have a shared language for AI maturity in business.
Some companies are racing ahead. Others are still building slide decks. But the real issue is that even the orgs that are “doing AI” often don’t know what good looks like.
You don’t need more pilots. You need a maturity model.
The most successful AI adoption strategy does not have you buying the hottest Gen AI tool or spinning up a chatbot to solve one use case. What it should do is build organisational capability in AI ethics, AI governance, data, design, and most of all, leadership.
It’s time we introduced a real AI Maturity Model. Not a checklist. A considered progression model. Something that recognises where your organisation is today and what needs to evolve next, safely, responsibly, and strategically.
Here’s an early sketch based on what I’ve seen:
The 5 Stages of AI Maturity (for real enterprises)
- Curious
- Awareness is growing across leadership
- Experimentation led by innovation teams
- Risk is unclear, appetite is cautious
- AI is seen as “tech”
- Reactive
- Gen AI introduced via vendors or tools (e.g., copilots, agents)
- Some pilots show promise, but with limited scale or guardrails
- Data privacy and sovereignty questions begin to surface
- Risk is siloed in legal/IT
- Capable
- Clear policies on privacy, bias, and governance
- Dedicated AI leads or councils exist
- Internal use cases scale (e.g., summarisation, scoring, chat)
- LLMs integrated with guardrails, safety reviewed
- Strategic
- AI embedded in workflows, not layered on
- LLM/data infrastructure is regionally compliant
- AI outcomes measured (accuracy, equity, productivity)
- Teams restructured around AI capability — not just tech enablement
- AI-Native
- AI informs and transforms core decisions (hiring, pricing, customer service)
- Enterprise builds proprietary intelligence
- FAIR™/RAI principles deeply operationalised
- Talent, systems, and leadership are aligned around an intelligent operating model
Why this matters for enterprise leaders
AI is a capability.And like any capability, it needs time, structure, investment, and a map.
If you’re an HR leader, CIO, or enterprise buyer, and you’re trying to separate the real from the theatre, maturity thinking is your edge.
Let’s stop asking, “Who’s using AI?”
And start asking: “How mature is our AI practice and what’s the next step?”
I’m working on a more complete model now, based on what I’ve seen in Australia, the UK, and across our customer base. If you’re thinking about this too, I’d love to hear from you.
Blog
Beyond the Black Box: Why Transparency in AI Hiring Matters More Than Ever
For too long, AI in hiring has been a black box. It promises speed, fairness, and efficiency, but rarely shows its work.
That era is ending.
“AI hiring should never feel like a mystery. Transparency builds trust, and trust drives adoption.”
At Sapia.ai, we’ve always worked to provide transparency to our customers. Whether with explainable scores, understandable AI models, or by sharing ROI data regularly, it’s a founding principle on which we build all of our products.
Now, with Discover Insights, transparency is embedded into our user experience. And it’s giving TA leaders the clarity to lead with confidence.
Transparency Is the New Talent Advantage
Candidates expect fairness. Executives demand ROI. Boards want compliance. Transparency delivers all three.
Even visionary Talent Leaders can find it difficult to move beyond managing processes to driving strategy without the right data. Discover Insights changes that.
“When talent leaders can see what’s working (and why) they can stop defending their strategy and start owning it.”
Metrics That Make Transparency Real (and Actionable)
🕒 Time to Hire
What it is: The median time between application and hire.
Why it matters: This is your speedometer. A sharp view of how long hiring takes and how that varies by cohort, role, or team helps you identify delays and prove efficiency gains to leadership.
Faster time to hire = faster access to revenue-driving talent.
💬 Candidate Sentiment, Advocacy & Verbatim Feedback
What it is: Satisfaction scores, brand advocacy measures, and unfiltered candidate comments.
Why it matters: Many platforms track satisfaction. Sapia.ai’s Discover Insights takes it further, measuring whether that satisfaction translates into employer and consumer brand advocacy.
And with verbatim feedback collected at scale, talent leaders don’t have to guess how candidates feel. They can read it, learn from it, and take action.
You don’t just measure experience. You understand it in the candidates’ own words.
🔍 Drop-Off Rates, Funnel Visibility & Automation That Works
What it is: The percentage of candidates who exit the hiring process at different stages, and how to spot why.
Why it matters: Understanding drop-off points lets teams fix friction quickly. Embedding automation early in the funnel reduces recruiter workload and elevates top candidates, getting them talking to your hiring teams faster.
Assessment completion benchmarks in volume hiring range between 60–80%, but with a mobile-first, chat-based format like Sapia.ai’s, clients often exceed that.
Optimising your funnel isn’t about doing more. It’s about doing smarter, with less effort and better outcomes.
📈 Hiring Yield (Hired / Applied)
What it is: The percentage of completed applications that result in a hire.
Why it matters: This is your funnel efficiency score. A high yield means your sourcing, screening, and selection are aligned. A low one? There’s leakage, misfit, or missed opportunity.
Hiring yield signals funnel health, recruiter performance, and candidate-process fit.
🧠 AI Effectiveness: Score Distribution & Answer Originality
What it is: Insights into how candidate scores are distributed, and whether responses appear copied or AI-generated.
Why it matters: In high-volume hiring, a normal distribution of scores suggests your assessment is calibrated fairly. If it’s skewed too far left or right, it could be too hard or too easy, and that affects trust.
Add in answer originality, and you can track engagement integrity, protecting both your process and your brand.
From Metrics to Momentum
To effectively lead, you need more than simply tracking; you need insights enabling action.
When you can see how AI impacts every part of your hiring, from recruiter productivity to candidate sentiment to untapped talent, you lead with insight, not assumption. And that’s how TA earns a seat at the strategy table.