‘AI tools should just support – not replace – human decision‑making and hiring to prevent bias and maintain fairness’
As applicant tracking systems (ATS) become the default gatekeeper for hiring, HR teams that cannot properly govern these tools risk shutting out qualified candidates, weakening diversity efforts and attracting complaints about fairness and transparency.
While these systems promise faster, more data‑driven hiring and a better candidate experience through streamlined processes and status tracking, many HR teams are not ready for the responsibility that comes with this reliance on technology, according to Toronto‑based HR professional and York University graduate Arev Kizilkaya.
Hiring decisions are increasingly shaped by tools HR professionals only partially understand, she says.
“It’s so common that many good resumes are not even getting seen by the hiring team just because they put a picture or a wrong wording in their resumes."
Each platform, she notes, has its own “coding, way of working, listing, sourcing,” which most applicants — and many recruiters — do not fully grasp.
AI is making hiring harder, according to a previous report. A separate Robert Half report claims the technology is slowing down the whole process.
Candidates 'slip through cracks'
Candidate accounts show how ATS flaws and defaults can undermine both experience and equity. On Glassdoor’s community forum, a VP of client engagement reported that “even with a 90 per cent+ ATS scan rate, platforms like Workday, Greenhouse, and iCIMS often fail to attach the correct resume” when multiple versions are on file, leading to unexplained rejections.
An HR manager responding in the same thread called this “a real issue” that can make strong candidates “slip through the cracks.”
For Kizilkaya, this opacity confirms a broader drift away from human‑centred practice.
“When we think about it, human resources departments hire humans without humans – it sounds so weird,” she says.
Well-defined hiring process with ATS
Kizilkaya stresses that ATS platforms are essential in high‑volume hiring when deployed thoughtfully. She credits them with making recruitment “faster with hiring” and boosting efficiency by automating resume screening, job posting and interview scheduling. They also support “data‑driven decision‑making” through metrics such as cost per hire and source of hire.
However, she insists technology “works best when the underlying hiring process is already well defined,” and cautions HR teams not to “just pick an ATS system just because it’s popular.” Instead, she urges leaders to press vendors with questions such as the following:
- What is your actual hiring volume?
- Does the platform integrate with your existing HR tech stack?
- Can the platform keep up with Canadian rules, such as new pay transparency laws?
Kizilkaya also advocates for building an integrated HR technology ecosystem “instead of purchasing multiple, disconnected tools.” That formula, she says, creates chaos rather than clarity.
With cloud‑based, integrated deployments already the dominant model, she argues the priority now should be governance, training and oversight.
“AI tools should just support – not replace – human decision‑making and hiring to prevent bias and maintain fairness,” she says.
While many organisations are now actively integrating AI into their recruitment processes, they may be at risk of doing more harm than good, one expert previously told Canadian HR Reporter.
