Our feeds are filled with posts, articles, videos, and memes about this new era of Talent Acquisition that has been ushered in with generative and baby agentic AI.
How the machines will eventually take over.
How company executives are gleefully pushing their talent leaders to accelerate the human-to-AI changeover.
Nonetheless, we’re still left with humans being involved in a large number of hiring decisions and as such, their influence – good, bad, and ugly – is still felt on most hiring stages.
We all know the common mistakes that recruiter make that introduce bias into the hiring process, often unintentionally, but still very real. These mistakes don’t flitter away with time but stay with those we covet and far too often, find their way into social media, review sites, and shared with friends and family.
Worse, these affect diversity, fairness, and ultimately the quality of the hire.
Why do these perpetuate themselves? Dunno; while I have theories, I’m not a psychotherapist. All I know is that for most people, self-awareness works to change behavior.
The Biases We Know
You know these – so I won’t delve into them here:
- Over-Reliance on “Culture Fit”
- Resume Name, Address, or Photo Screening
- Affinity Bias During Interviews
- Overemphasis on “Pedigree”
- Halo and Horns Effect
- Gendered or Coded Language in Job Descriptions
- Unstructured Interviews
- Assuming Career Gaps = Lack of Commitment
- Ignoring Accent or Language Bias
- Confirmation Bias in Reference Checks
But there’s one that really takes the cake and isn’t discussed enough.
The “Psychic Recruiter Fallacy”.
This is a highly pervasive and damaging form of bias dressed up as “intuition” or “savvy.”
Want another name for this? How about Assumptive, Projection, or Paternalism Bias?
Not good enough?
Okie dokie – then let’s go with Acting Like a Psychic (“I Just Know This Candidate Won’t…”)
Typical “Acting Like a Psychic” Behaviors include:
- “They won’t want to do tactical work – they’ve been a manager too long.”
- “They wouldn’t be happy with the commute.”
- “This job’s too junior for someone with that title.”
- “They’ll probably want more money than we can offer.”
- “They’ll be bored in six months.”
Why is this a problem?
It removes candidate agency; you’re making decisions for someone based on assumptions rather than data.
It shuts down diversity of motivation; you’re presuming everyone wants the same career path or lifestyle.
It often reflects your own preferences or discomforts projected onto others.
It limits opportunity; some of the best hires come from unexpected fits and choices.
What should you be doing?
Ask, don’t assume; if you’re curious or unsure about commute tolerance, tactical interest, or salary flexibility, just ask.
Present options neutrally; “This role involves a mix of strategic and hands-on work – how and why do you feel about that?”
Let the person opt out, not you; your job is to facilitate a well-informed decision, not make it on their behalf.
The Final Recruiter Reality Check
If you catch yourself saying, “I just know this person won’t want to…”, that’s your cue to pause, question your assumption, and gather evidence.
Sorry but you’re not a psychic…
The Recruiting Inferno 