Rather than creating assessments that prohibit AI use, hiring managers should embrace it. A candidate's ability to leverage tools like ChatGPT to complete a project is a more accurate predictor of their future impact than their ability to perform tasks without them.
Related Insights
Formal AI competency frameworks are still emerging. In their place, innovative companies are assessing employee AI skills with concrete, activity-based targets like "build three custom GPTs for your role" or completing specific certifications, directly linking these achievements to performance reviews.
The purpose of quirky interview questions has evolved. Beyond just assessing personality, questions about non-work achievements or hypothetical scenarios are now used to jolt candidates out of scripted answers and expose those relying on mid-interview AI prompts for assistance.
Don't hire based on today's job description. Proactively run AI impact assessments to project how a role will evolve over the next 12-18 months. This allows you to hire for durable, human-centric skills and plan how to reallocate the 30%+ of their future capacity that will be freed up by AI agents.
Dr. Fei-Fei Li states she won't hire any software engineer who doesn't embrace AI collaborative tools. This isn't about the tools' perfection, but what their adoption signals: a candidate's open-mindedness, ability to grow with new toolkits, and potential to "superpower" their own work.
To assess a product manager's AI skills, integrate AI into your standard hiring process rather than just asking theoretical questions. Expect candidates to use AI tools in take-home case studies and analytical interviews to test for practical application and raise the quality bar.
To build an AI-native team, shift the hiring process from reviewing resumes to evaluating portfolios of work. Ask candidates to demonstrate what they've built with AI, their favorite prompt techniques, and apps they wish they could create. This reveals practical skill over credentialism.
Recognizing that providing tools is insufficient, LinkedIn is making "AI agency and fluency" a core part of its performance evaluation and calibration process. This formalizes the expectation that employees must actively use AI tools to succeed, moving adoption from voluntary to a career necessity.
As AI renders cover letters useless for signaling candidate quality, employers are shifting their screening processes. They now rely more on assessments that are harder to cheat on, such as take-home coding challenges and automated AI interviews. This moves the evaluation from subjective text analysis to more objective, skill-based demonstrations early in the hiring funnel.
Since AI assistants make it easy for candidates to complete take-home coding exercises, simply evaluating the final product is no longer an effective screening method. The new best practice is to require candidates to build with AI and then explain their thought process, revealing their true engineering and problem-solving skills.
Traditional hiring assessments that ban modern tools are obsolete. A better approach is to give candidates access to AI tools and ask them to complete a complex task in an hour. This tests their ability to leverage technology for productivity, not their ability to memorize information.
