“Candidates don’t like AI” has become a common assumption in recruitment, but it is too simple. Research suggests that applicants can react less positively when AI appears to replace human involvement entirely, yet those reactions are not the same in every situation. How the tool is introduced, what candidates are told about it and the role it plays in the decision can all influence how the process is perceived.
The more useful question is therefore not simply whether candidates like or dislike AI, but whether they understand what is happening. A candidate who receives a clear explanation of an AI-supported screening is having a very different experience from someone who encounters an unfamiliar tool without knowing what it measures, how the information will be used or whether a recruiter will review the result. The technology may be similar, but the level of uncertainty is not.
Candidate experience starts immediately after applying
Hiring teams often place most of their attention on interviews, which is understandable. Interviews are where candidates and employers meet, discuss the role and decide whether there may be a good match. However, candidates begin forming an impression much earlier.
After submitting an application, they are likely to have several practical questions. Was the application received? Is there another step to complete? How long will the review take? Will every applicant receive a response? Who will see the information they provide?
A standard confirmation such as “Thank you, your application has been submitted” confirms that the form worked, but it does not explain what happens next. This becomes even more important when an automated screening follows shortly afterwards.
The candidate may receive a link to a chatbot, questionnaire or digital assessment without a clear introduction. They are expected to continue, but they may not have enough context to understand the purpose of the task. From the employer’s perspective, the process may be moving quickly; from the candidate’s perspective, it may still feel unclear.
The first message should provide direction
An application confirmation does not need to be long or highly personalised to be useful. It should simply answer the most important questions a candidate is likely to have at that moment.
A helpful message might include the name of the position, confirmation that the application was received, an outline of the next stage, an approximate review period and information about whether every applicant will receive an update.
For example:
Thank you for applying for the Store Assistant position. We will review applications over the next five working days. Selected candidates will then receive an invitation to complete a short online pre-screening. We will contact all applicants once the review is complete.
This message does not promise an immediate decision, but it gives the candidate a clear point of reference. The employer may still need several days to review applications, yet the candidate no longer has to guess whether the process has started or whether another action is required.
Mentioning AI is not the same as explaining it
Transparency is sometimes reduced to a brief statement that AI is being used. That is a starting point, but it does not necessarily tell candidates what they need to know.
A sentence such as “This process uses artificial intelligence” may leave several questions unanswered. Which part of the process uses AI? Is it asking the questions, evaluating the answers or making the decision? Can a recruiter see the original response? Can the result be reviewed?
The UK government’s responsible AI recruitment guidance recommends clearly signposting the use of AI and explaining when and how it is involved. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office has similarly emphasised that employers are responsible for making automated decision-making lawful, fair and transparent.
In practice, candidates need more than an AI label. They need a straightforward explanation of the tool’s role within the hiring process.
For example:
We use a digital screening tool to ask every applicant the same initial questions. The tool helps us organise your responses, which are then available to the recruitment team during the review.
This explanation is still brief, but it gives the candidate something concrete. They know what the tool is doing and where the recruiter fits into the process.
Explain the purpose before asking for more effort
An invitation to complete another stage should not begin with an unexplained instruction. “Click here to complete your assessment” tells candidates what to do, but not why they should do it.
Before beginning, candidates should understand what the activity involves, what the company hopes to learn, how long the task should take, when it must be completed and what happens afterwards. These details do not require a lengthy explanation, but they do help candidates prepare appropriately.
Descriptions such as “digital assessment” are often too broad. A candidate should know whether they are being invited to a short conversation, questionnaire, skills test or recorded interview. They should also understand whether the screening is designed to confirm availability, relevant experience, motivation, location or another practical requirement.
The estimated duration should be specific where possible. Saying that a task takes “approximately eight minutes” is more helpful than describing it only as “quick.” The deadline should also be clear, including the relevant time zone when necessary.
A short introduction might read:
We would like to learn more about your availability and relevant experience. The screening contains six questions and usually takes around ten minutes. Please complete it by Thursday at 18:00. Your responses will then be reviewed as part of the next stage of the process.
By the time the candidate opens the tool, they already know what is expected and how the screening fits into the wider process.
Candidates should not have to guess how to answer
When candidates know that AI is involved but do not understand what it is looking for, they may start trying to adapt their answers to an imagined algorithm. They may wonder whether the answer should be long or short, whether certain keywords are expected or whether formal language will be rewarded.
Published research has connected applicant reactions to AI-supported hiring with issues such as transparency, perceived fairness and the opportunity to show relevant individual qualities. Studies have also found more favourable reactions when AI supports human decision-making rather than operating as a fully independent decision-maker.
Employers can reduce unnecessary guesswork by giving simple instructions. Candidates may be told to answer in their own words, focus on experience relevant to the position and avoid worrying about specialist terminology or a required answer length.
This does not reveal confidential scoring logic. It simply gives candidates a clearer understanding of how to approach the task and what kind of information is relevant.
Make human involvement visible
Candidates may reasonably want to know whether a person remains involved, especially when technology is used during screening. Research comparing human-led, AI-led and combined hiring processes has generally found more positive reactions to human-led and augmented approaches than to processes presented as being managed by AI alone.
This does not mean every automated interaction needs to be followed immediately by a recruiter call. It means the process should explain where human review takes place.
Possible wording might include:
The screening supports our recruitment team by organising the information provided by applicants.
Or:
Your responses will be available to the recruiter responsible for this vacancy.
The wording should always reflect the company’s real process. Employers should not suggest that a recruiter reviews every response if that is not actually the case. The important point is that candidates should not be left to make assumptions about whether a person is involved.
Clear communication should continue after completion
Uncertainty can return as soon as the screening ends. A candidate submits their responses and sees a message saying only, “Completed successfully.”
This confirms a technical event, but it does not explain what happens in the recruitment process. A more useful closing message should confirm that all responses were received, explain what happens next, indicate when another update is expected and state whether any further action is required.
For example:
Thank you, your screening has been submitted successfully. Our recruitment team will now review your application and responses. You do not need to take any further action. We expect to contact candidates by 12 September.
This gives the candidate a clear stopping point. They know that the task is complete and that the next action belongs to the employer.
Test the journey as a candidate would experience it
An internal recruitment workflow may look clear on paper while still feeling fragmented to an applicant. The candidate may move between the company careers page, an applicant tracking system, an email platform, a screening tool and a scheduling system.
Each system may work correctly on its own, but the transitions between them can still create confusion. Hiring teams should therefore test the full journey rather than reviewing every tool separately.
That means submitting a real test application and checking whether the role name remains consistent, the sender is recognisable, every link opens correctly and the use of AI is explained before the interaction begins. Teams should also verify that the stated completion time is realistic, the deadline is easy to find, the closing message explains the next step and help is available when something goes wrong.
The UK government’s responsible AI recruitment guidance recommends monitoring deployed systems, collecting user feedback and clearly signposting routes for questions or challenges. Testing the candidate journey is one practical way to identify communication problems before they affect real applicants.
Audit the first ten minutes after application
The opening stage of recruitment can be reviewed through four areas: response, usefulness, transparency and handover.
First, how quickly does the candidate receive confirmation? An automatic message should arrive promptly enough for the candidate to know that the application was submitted successfully.
Second, does that message contain useful information? Confirmation alone is not enough. It should explain what happens next and provide a realistic indication of timing.
Third, is the role of AI clear? Candidates should know where AI or automation is being used and what function it performs.
Finally, does the candidate know when the employer takes over? After completing an automated step, they should understand whether their application is awaiting review and when another update may arrive.
These questions do not require a complete redesign of the recruitment process. In many cases, the most important improvements are found in the introductions, confirmation messages and transitions between stages.
Better technology cannot compensate for unclear communication
AI can support a faster and more structured application process, but even a well-designed tool can create a poor experience when candidates do not understand why it is there.
The first stage of hiring should give applicants a clear path. They should know that their application has been received, what the next step is, why they are being asked to complete it, how the information will be used and when they can expect to hear from the employer again.
That level of clarity does not remove all uncertainty from recruitment. Candidates still will not know whether they will progress, but they will understand how the process works.
The first impression of an employer is not created only when a candidate meets a recruiter. It begins with the response they receive after applying and whether that response gives them direction or leaves them guessing.