Over the last few years, we've seen a range of attempts at applying technology to human interactions. Whilst I applaud platforms such as LinkedIn which make it easy for recruiters and prospective candidates to find each other, often companies go too far in implementing technology in pursuit of optimizing their recruitment process.

I recently received a pitch for an online platform that meant as an internal recruiter, I would never have to speak to agencies again. I can optimize my recruitment efforts by passing a job description electronically to someone I've never met who knows nothing about the business to approach candidates and recruit on my behalf.

Where do I sign?

I also received a pitch by a company who can record candidate's responses to a set of stock questions, removing the need for me to actually interview candidates. Instead I can watch them perched in front of their webcam, awkwardly responding to questions read out by what sounded like a satnav.

Pitch over, just take my money now.

We have seen an influx of systems, services and solutions that pitch the unique selling point of removing person to person communication in order to free up our valuable time, masquerading as improvements to recruiting. These are systems that are adopted by Fortune 500 companies and rolled out on the promise of optimization, usually sold to senior HR leaders who believe it will solve their recruiting issues.

With companies spending vast sums of money on engagement, marketing and trying to increase their status and reputation as employers it seems baffling that these same companies then implement systems to reduce anything resembling a conversation as much as possible in the recruiting process.

The influx of technology and optimization into recruitment followed a strange sequence of events:

1. We don't have enough candidates applying for the role
2. Let's implement a solution which promotes our roles to as many candidates as possible
3. We have more candidates applying to the role than we can manage
4. Let's implement a solution which screens the candidates for us
5. We don't have enough suitable candidates getting through our screening process
   
   It was around this point it was decided that there was a war for talent, talent shortage or that only the candidates who didn't apply for jobs qualified as talent
   
   
6. Let's implement a solution that targets passive candidates for us
7. We need to communicate with all these candidates but don't have the time
8. Let's implement a solution which will communicate with candidates automatically using templates
9. Our candidate experience is poor, suitable candidates don't want to work for us
10. Let's implement a solution to improve our candidate experience and increase our employer value proposition

Technology can be fantastic in allowing both recruiters and candidates to find and connect with each other to enable a conversation to take place. Problems occur when companies attempt to replace the conversation with technology.

Recruiters can use technology to approach anyone who might be remotely relevant to an open position, to directly market a job opportunity to each and every one of them and then use technology to disqualify and regret the majority from the process. I don't see this as optimization.

Sending template messages through LinkedIn to everyone who has certain keywords in their profile is not recruiting, it's just amateur marketing.

The majority of recruiters are bought in to the idea that they are optimized, using the same tools and channels with the same messages and templates, advertising open jobs, pushing marketing content and communicating their employer value proposition to an audience who are growing tired of the optimization of it all.

At some point in the process, you need to have a conversation to successfully recruit, you have to engage with people. It is the companies that build their technology to improve the conversation rather than to replace it that will continue to be the most successful.