Resume-ing Control: (Mis)Perceptions of Agency Around GenAI Use in Recruiting Workflows

When generative AI (genAI) systems are used in high-stakes decision-making, its recommended role is to aid, rather than replace, human decision-making. However, there is little empirical exploration of how professionals making high-stakes decisions, such as those related to employment, perceive their agency and level of control when working with genAI systems. Through interviews with 22 recruiting professionals, we investigate how genAI subtly influences control over everyday workflows and even individual hiring decisions. Our findings highlight a pressing conflict: while recruiters believe they have final authority across the recruiting pipeline, genAI has become an invisible architect that shapes the foundational building blocks of information used for evaluation, from defining a job to determining good interview performances. The decision of whether or not to adopt was also often outside recruiters' control, with many feeling compelled to adopt genAI due to calls to integrate AI from higher-ups in their business, to combat applicant use of AI, and the individual need to boost productivity. Despite a seemingly seismic shift in how recruiting happens, participants only reported marginal efficiency gains. Such gains came at the high cost of recruiter deskilling, a trend that jeopardizes the meaningful oversight of decision-making. We conclude by discussing the implications of such findings for responsible and perceptible genAI use in hiring contexts.

Summary

Main Finding

Recruiters believe they retain final authority over hiring decisions, but generative AI (genAI) functions as an “invisible architect” that systematically frames and filters the information (job descriptions, rubrics, summaries of applicants and interviews) used for evaluation. Adoption is often compelled by top-down mandates, productivity pressure, and an AI arms race with applicants/competitors. Reported efficiency gains are marginal, while risks—particularly deskilling of recruiters (especially juniors), erosion of oversight, increased reliance on heuristics, and poor match quality with higher turnover—are substantial.

Key Points

Invisible architect: genAI commonly generates foundational artifacts (job themes, interview questions, evaluation rubrics, candidate summaries) that pre-structure human decision spaces; this influence is often unrecognized by recruiters.
Perceived vs. actual agency: recruiters assert final authority, but early-stage framing by genAI shapes what humans see and consider, shifting real influence toward the systems.
Adoption pressures:
- Top-down business mandates to integrate genAI.
- Individual productivity incentives to adopt genAI tools.
- Competitive pressure and candidate use of genAI pushing recruiters into an “arms race.”
- Often little genuine choice in whether to adopt.
Limited benefits vs. costs:
- Participants reported marginal efficiency gains despite heavy investment.
- Quality of placements did not meaningfully improve according to recruiters; some reported worse matches and higher turnover.
Deskilling and oversight risk:
- Routine use of genAI degrades domain expertise and the capacity to judge when AI outputs are appropriate.
- Junior recruiters are especially vulnerable to deskilling.
- Reduced ability to audit or correct AI-induced framing increases risk of error and bias.
Trust and heuristics:
- Growing distrust in applicant materials (due to applicant AI use) leads recruiters to rely more on intuitive “vibe checks,” potentially amplifying biased heuristics.
- Some recruiters see genAI as more objective, creating tension in trust allocation.
Tool landscape and analysis: authors paired interviews with a functionality analysis of the genAI hiring tools mentioned (Appendix A).

Data & Methods

Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and a follow-up functionality analysis of tools.
Sample: 22 recruiting professionals across eight industry sectors in the U.S.; roles include in-house and agency recruiters, hiring managers. Recruitment Sept–Dec 2025.
Recruitment: Purposive sampling via LinkedIn outreach (560 contacts → 19 responses used), plus convenience and snowballing (total N=22).
Interviews: 60 minutes on average, Zoom-recorded and auto-transcribed; protocol covered AI use across the recruitment pipeline, perceptions of agency, critical incidents.
Analysis: Reflexive thematic analysis (hybrid inductive–deductive coding). Final codebook of 54 codes; inter-rater Krippendorff’s alpha = 0.80.
Supplementary: Functionality analysis of named genAI hiring tools to map where systems intervene in pipelines.
Ethics & limitations: IRB-exempt, anonymized data, $50 honorarium. Limitations include small US-only sample, retrospective self-reporting, social desirability bias, and some participants withholding company-specific details.

Implications for AI Economics

Productivity paradox and mismeasured returns:
- The study illustrates an “automation without productivity” outcome: heavy investment and adoption pressure but only marginal recruiter efficiency gains and little improvement in placement quality. Economic evaluations of genAI should go beyond short-term time-savings and measure match quality, retention, and downstream firm productivity.
Human capital depreciation and labor demand effects:
- Routine genAI use can deskill recruiters (especially junior workers), reducing human capital in tasks requiring judgment. Over time this can lower the required skill premium for entry roles, alter training investments, and change career ladders in HR/recruiting occupations.
Complementarity vs. substitution:
- GenAI changes the task mix of recruiting. If AI principally automates preparatory tasks (framing, summarization) rather than evaluative judgment, it is a partial substitute that may reduce demand for some tasks while increasing demand for AI oversight and governance roles. Misalignment can result in misallocation of effort and workforce.
Information production and matching frictions:
- Because genAI shapes the content of job descriptions, rubrics, and summaries, it alters the signaling environment and information structure in labor markets. Models of matching should incorporate this pre-processing role—genAI can systematically bias the signals agents use, with welfare consequences (worse matches, higher turnover).
Externalities and an arms race:
- Candidate use of genAI creates a coordination/externality problem: firms feel forced to adopt countermeasures even when net benefit is unclear, producing socially wasteful arms-race dynamics. This can generate overinvestment in defensive tools and underinvestment in governance or training.
Principal–agent and governance concerns:
- Top-down mandates and limited transparency mean principals (firms, regulators, hiring managers) may not fully internalize the downstream costs (turnover, bias). There is a case for governance interventions: transparency requirements for AI outputs, audit trails, and standards for human oversight to preserve meaningful agency and accountability.
Policy and measurement recommendations:
- Empirical metrics: measure AI’s effect on hire quality (performance, retention), hiring costs (including turnover), and fairness outcomes; include longitudinal measures capturing human capital depreciation.
- Experimental research: randomized field trials comparing AI-assisted vs. human-only pipelines on matching outcomes; audit studies to detect systematic bias introduced at framing stages.
- Organizational policy: firms should invest in training and oversight capacity (not just tool procurement) and require documentation/traceability of AI-produced artifacts (job descriptions, rubrics, summaries).
- Regulation: consider mandatory disclosure when genAI materially influences candidate evaluation and standards for explainability/auditability tailored to pre-computational framing roles.
Open research questions for AI economics:
- Quantify welfare effects of genAI-induced framing on labor market matching efficiency.
- Model the equilibrium of an AI arms race between applicants and firms, including welfare losses from defensive adoption.
- Evaluate optimal investment allocations across AI tooling, human oversight, and worker upskilling to maximize net social returns.

Short takeaway: genAI’s biggest economic effect in hiring may be indirect—by reshaping information production and human capital—rather than through straightforward productivity gains. Economic assessments, policy, and firm strategy must therefore account for match quality, deskilling risks, arms-race externalities, and governance costs, not just time saved.

Assessment

Paper Typedescriptive Evidence Strengthlow — Findings are based on a small, non-representative qualitative sample of self-reports and perceptions, which cannot establish causal effects or precise magnitudes (e.g., productivity gains) and may reflect selection and reporting biases. Methods Rigormedium — Uses standard qualitative methods (interviews and thematic analysis) appropriate for exploratory work, but rigor is limited by small sample size, likely purposive sampling, apparent reliance on self-report without triangulation or quantitative validation, and limited information about coding reliability provided in the summary. Sample22 recruiting professionals interviewed about their experience using generative AI in hiring workflows; details on recruitment strategy, geographic spread, employer types, seniority distribution, and exact tools used are not specified in the summary. Themeshuman_ai_collab labor_markets productivity skills_training adoption IdentificationSemi-structured qualitative interviews (N=22) with recruiting professionals and thematic coding of responses; no causal identification strategy or counterfactual comparison. GeneralizabilitySmall, non-random sample limits statistical generalization, Likely selection bias toward recruiters who have experience or strong views about genAI, Unknown geographic, industry, and organizational variety—may not represent all recruiting contexts, Findings reflect perceptions at a specific moment in a rapidly evolving technology landscape, Qualitative self-reports may not map directly to measured productivity or labor-market outcomes

Claims (10)

Claim	Direction	Confidence	Outcome	Details
When generative AI (genAI) systems are used in high-stakes decision-making, its recommended role is to aid, rather than replace, human decision-making. Governance And Regulation	positive	high	recommended role of genAI in decision-making (augmentation vs. replacement)	0.03
There is little empirical exploration of how professionals making high-stakes decisions perceive their agency and level of control when working with genAI systems. Governance And Regulation	null_result	high	availability of empirical research on professionals' perceptions of agency/control with genAI	0.18
GenAI subtly influences control over everyday recruiting workflows and individual hiring decisions. Task Allocation	negative	high	perceived control/agency in workflows and hiring decisions	n=22 0.18
Recruiters believe they have final authority across the recruiting pipeline, but genAI has become an invisible architect shaping the foundational information used for evaluation (e.g., defining a job, determining what counts as a good interview performance). Decision Quality	negative	high	perceived decision authority vs. shaping of evaluation criteria	n=22 0.18
The decision of whether or not to adopt genAI was often outside recruiters' control, with many feeling compelled to adopt due to directives from higher-ups in their business. Adoption Rate	negative	high	decision-making autonomy over tool adoption	n=22 0.18
Recruiters often felt compelled to adopt genAI to combat applicant use of AI. Adoption Rate	positive	high	motivation for adoption related to applicant behavior	n=22 0.18
Individual recruiters also felt compelled to adopt genAI because of the personal need to boost productivity. Developer Productivity	positive	high	self-reported motivation to adopt for productivity gains	n=22 0.18
Participants reported only marginal efficiency gains from genAI despite a seemingly seismic shift in how recruiting happens. Task Completion Time	positive	high	efficiency gains / task completion efficiency	n=22 marginal efficiency gains 0.18
The marginal gains from genAI came at the high cost of recruiter deskilling, a trend that jeopardizes meaningful oversight of decision-making. Skill Obsolescence	negative	high	deskilling / erosion of practitioner skills and oversight capacity	n=22 0.18
The authors conclude that these findings have implications for responsible and perceptible genAI use in hiring contexts. Governance And Regulation	positive	high	need for responsible/perceptible genAI adoption practices	n=22 0.03

Generative AI is reshaping hiring from behind the scenes: recruiters retain formal authority but genAI quietly structures job definitions and evaluation inputs, producing only small productivity gains while accelerating deskilling and reducing meaningful oversight.