This hiring expert says AI could finally fix one of the most frustrating parts of job hunting

Candidate ghosting is often less about intent and more about a breakdown between the volume of interest employers receive and the capacity of hiring teams to respond.

Applying for jobs has become easier and more accessible, which is good for candidates, but it also means recruiters can be managing very large applicant pools for a single role. When the process still depends on recruiters manually reviewing applications, coordinating interviews and sending individual updates, communication can become one of the first things to fall through the cracks.

The important distinction is that high application volume does not have to translate into a poor candidate experience. Technology should help employers absorb that complexity. If an organization invites someone into a hiring process, there should be a mechanism for keeping that person informed—even when the update is simply, “We’re still reviewing applications.”

AI can make the biggest difference at the handoffs — the moments when candidates are waiting for something to happen. That could be immediately after applying, between an assessment and an interview, while an interview team is making a decision, or after the final interview.

Those periods of uncertainty are where automation can be particularly valuable. AI can acknowledge an application, communicate next steps, answer common questions, help coordinate scheduling and proactively provide status updates. The goal is not to automate the human relationship out of recruiting. It is to automate away the silence.

That distinction matters. Recruiters should be able to spend more of their time on conversations where human judgment and connection add value, while technology handles the repetitive communication that too often gets delayed.

There is a significant amount of administrative work in recruiting that hirers don't necessarily need a human being to perform. Scheduling an interview, confirming an appointment, reminding someone of a next step, answering routine questions and providing a status update are good examples.

We are also seeing AI-powered agents evolve beyond simple chatbots. A digital recruiter can maintain a conversation with a candidate, respond to questions, guide someone through the process and help determine the appropriate next step based on job-related criteria. That creates the possibility of a hiring experience that is both more scalable and more responsive.

But personalization isn't the same thing as pretending that automation is human. Employers should be transparent about when candidates are interacting with AI and make it easy to reach a person when necessary. The strongest model is one where AI handles scale and responsiveness while humans remain responsible for the decisions and interactions where human judgment matters most.

The risk is replacing one frustrating experience — silence — with another: communication that is frequent but generic, confusing or impossible to escape.

A candidate receiving an immediate automated response isn't necessarily having a better experience if that response doesn't answer their question or provide meaningful information. Employers need to evaluate these systems from the candidate's perspective: Is the information accurate? Is it relevant? Does the candidate understand what happens next? Can they reach a human when the situation requires one?

There is also a broader responsibility when AI moves beyond communication and begins informing hiring decisions (but never making decisions). Those systems should be validated for their intended use, monitored for fairness and consistency, and designed around job-relevant criteria. Speed and convenience are valuable, but they shouldn't come at the expense of rigor, transparency or accountability.

Absolutely, and in some ways this is one of the simplest but most valuable applications of automation. A hiring system already knows when someone applied, completed an assessment or interviewed. It can therefore recognize when a candidate has remained at a particular stage longer than the employer's expected timeline.

Rather than relying on a recruiter to notice every delay, the system can trigger an appropriate update: “Your application is still under review,” for example, or “The interview process is taking longer than expected, and we'll update you again by Friday.” It can also alert the recruiter when human intervention is needed.

That creates accountability in the process. Instead of communication depending entirely on whether an individual recruiter remembers to send an update, the hiring workflow itself is designed to prevent candidates from disappearing into a black box.

Candidates should expect clarity about the process, not necessarily a running ranking against other applicants. A good hiring experience should tell candidates what stage they are in, what is expected of them, what comes next and, where possible, approximately when they should expect an update.

Employers should also be transparent about meaningful uses of AI in the hiring process. Candidates shouldn't have to guess whether they're interacting with an automated system or how technology is being used.

What AI can change is the consistency of that experience. Historically, providing timely communication to thousands of applicants was operationally difficult. Technology makes it increasingly possible to provide each candidate with relevant information at the right time. The standard should therefore move toward fewer periods where candidates simply have no idea what is happening.

Create an immediate communication path from the moment someone applies — and use the channels candidates actually pay attention to.

For many candidates, that means mobile communication. A text or WhatsApp message can confirm that an application was received and, when appropriate, immediately provide the next step, whether that's scheduling, an assessment or an on-demand interview. Employers can then use that same channel for reminders and status updates throughout the process.

The technology can range from relatively simple automated messaging to more sophisticated conversational AI. The underlying principle is the same: don't make candidates chase the employer for information. Design communication into the hiring process itself.

Ultimately, AI's value in recruiting shouldn't be measured by how many human interactions it eliminates. It should be measured by whether it removes unnecessary friction and gives recruiters more capacity for the human interactions that matter.