(Photo Via Pexels.com)
Let’s get this out of the way first: Automated applicant screening funnels are brutal. Automated screening processes are a barrier preventing many from even being considered for opportunities. Opaque algorithms dismiss candidates with nonlinear paths, employment gaps, and resumes that don’t parse cleanly.
Only the obvious candidates who fit the mold get through. Dystopian much?
Baked into all of these screening processes are the same biases we’ve always had. It is well documented that identical resumes with “ethnic” sounding names receive fewer callbacks (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004). Meanwhile, we might be leaving on the bench real talent and different perspectives we need for innovation.
Of all workplaces, nonprofit managers should be paying close attention to hiring practices that drive us toward sameness. All of that is real. But, this is not what this column is about.
The Other Side Of The Hiring Coin
The employer-side challenge is structural. It is baked into the system and candidates cannot fix it themselves. Misuse of AI tools by job candidates is a behavioral problem borne of carelessness, laziness, or both. It’s a choice, made over and over. The good news? It is completely fixable.
Sameness, Lameness. The worst thing AI did for job seekers is make candidates indistinguishable from one another. A mediocre prompt is enough to produce a long, grammatically correct letter peppered with platitudes or it rearranges job description language into a customized application.
Applicants might be pleased that they customized their content to the role, unaware that their customized letter has an opening that’s identical to the next five applicants. All of this means that hiring managers are no longer putting much stock into these submissions because they do not signal credibility.
Applying For Volume, Not Fit. Newfangled technology makes it trivial to blast out 50 applications in the time that it would take to submit five thoughtful ones. It’s quantity over relevance. LinkedIn alone is now processing something like 11,000 applications a minute, a 45% jump in a single year (New York Times “AI Job Applications” — June 2025).
This trend doesn’t signal a massive increase in qualified candidates. It’s quite the opposite. The ease of application generates a massive volume of unqualified candidates with little to no relevant experience. Candidates spend minimal time skimming responsibilities of the job before throwing their hat in the ring (Ivy Exec). Some candidates advance through early stages, only to withdraw once they review the full scope in detail and discover the role doesn’t match what they need or their capabilities.
All Hat, No Cattle. “Drove cross-functional alignment.” “Delivered measurable impact across the organization.” “Transformational leader.” “Championed innovation.” “Elevated brand visibility through strategic initiatives.”
These hollow phrases didn’t start with generative AI. Buzzwords have always been a way to sound accomplished without saying anything of substance. It previously took ingenuity and effort to know which buzzwords to string together to sound plausible. AI has put platitudes on human “Miracle-Gro,” all indistinguishable and meaningless. These accomplishments ring hollow without examples, evidence, narrative.
Masking Lack Of Experience and Expertise. The world is your oyster when you can use tools to sound like an expert on anything from commercial real estate to avocado farming and donor stewardship. You could speak about any of these with total confidence. You could talk about a farm management problem, cite best practices, and come across as if you knew exactly what you were doing. None of it means you could actually grow an avocado, keep trees alive through a drought, or run a farm.
Just because AI has a working knowledge of something doesn’t mean you do. Competence requires judgement, skills and experience. The gap shows up the moment someone asks you to go deeper and you have to veer off script. The résumé got you in the room. It just didn’t prepare you for what happens once you’re there.
Your Emotional Support Bot
You thought bringing your mom to the interview was bad? Now it is your friendly AI to listen in and help feed you long-winded, well-informed responses.
“I was flabbergasted. I’ve heard of this happening, never thought it would happen to me,” said Sara Loretta, chief experience officer at UNMUTE describing recent candidate interviews via Zoom. “For the interview, they rescheduled for ‘tech issues,’ showed up late, had multiple AI note-takers try to join, and wouldn’t turn their camera on. I could tell by the second question it was AI. No way they could have prepared for the questions I asked.”
Her experience is not an outlier. One study reported that 22% of active job seekers admit using AI during real-time interviews, and many more would use it if they didn’t fear being detected. (Newsweek, Resume Genius, 2026). Hiring managers are wary, listening for stalling, unnatural pauses, robotic cadence, shifty eyes, lack of specifics.
The tells are everywhere and that has already sparked a cottage industry of AI cheat detection tools. Here’s a prediction: Expect a lot more in-person interviews going forward. There’s already plenty of chatter about the return-to-office push, and this is just another very valid reason.
What To Do Instead
None of this is an argument against using AI in a job search. It’s an argument against letting it replace your thinking and your judgement. Instead of relying on tools to give you the script, use AI as a thought partner to prepare. Studies are starting to emerge showing that thoughtful preparation with AI tools — the kind where you actually do the work — improves performance. Practice questions, look up recent news coverage and trending topics related to the company and industry landscape, use it as a virtual coach to help you prep for the questions you might be asked.
Use AI to check your work: Fix the typos, tighten the phrasing, and please, double-check the letter is actually addressed to the organization to which you’re sending it. We all have seen more than one application addressed to another organization.
As for hiring managers: Stay alert, this is just the beginning. Craft your questions that give a human superiority over a bot and listen for the spark of real, authentic thinking and genuine capability that no bot can fake for long.
***
Olga Moshinsky Woltman is vice president, strategic communications at The ALS Association. She is also founder and principal of strategic communications firm LemonSkies.
