AI or no?

Greg Wyatt • October 18, 2024

I often see discussions on the uses and perils of AI in a job search.

Now, before I get into my thoughts, let me comment on what AI is.

For a start the current term AI isn’t the AI I grew up waiting for- it’s not intelligent, it has no judgement or empathy.

It is sophisticated automation based on processing and reiterating information that’s already out there.

It’s called AI for simplicity, but truthfully this is mainly marketing-led.

While marketing is used primarily to sell stuff.

When you see AI enabled tools that enhance a job search, be mindful of companies selling the magic of unknowable technology, rather than directly leading to the outcome you may be looking for.

That said there are many wonderful applications for AI inside and outside of a job search.

Some of which automate and take away the burden of the more painful aspects of looking for a job.

From writing CVs/resumes, to applying at scale for you. And potentially doing the interview for you, with burgeoning deepfake technology.

Should you use AI in your job search and how?

The answer is this question:

“Will it be seen as cheating, if the employer finds out I’ve used AI?”

Given recruitment processes are in part designed to extrapolate how you might behave and perform in a role, the sense of cheating can lead to an instant ‘no’.

And with the advent of an AI arms race, you should be careful in what you choose to use.

Yes, I know the odds are stacked against job seekers, through a combination of the market, systems and philosophy.

But it’s a question of what you have control over. Do you want others to make arbitrary decisions over your application, only because you’ve used AI?

My fellow recruiter, and an excellent one at that, Simon Monaghan recently shared his experience of a candidate using AI to answer standard interview questions.

These are issues we will increasingly face in recruitment.

What do I mean by arms race?

Let’s look at using AI to write a CV.

In one sense it’s no different to paying someone to write your CV for you, such as a CV Writer. And it’s free.

So, no problem, right?

Yet, many applicants who are wholly unsuitable can use the same AI to write a customised CV that paints them as someone worth assessing at interview. A waste of time for the employer, or worse which could lead to a misshire, and also taking attention away from suitable candidates such as you.

This creates suspicion over the veracity of AI written CVs.

Therefore it makes sense to use AI to check if CVs are written by AI.

You can see many of these tools already available for free - just google “AI checker.”

For each development in job seeker AI, you’ll see an opposing one come up at the hiring end. And because these are all based on the same principles, they are relatively simple to develop.

Besides, at the moment, AI written content stands out for the wrong reasons - you can generally tell when it’s used, with practise.

If you’ve used AI, with good intent, it can still backfire, should a hiring process consider it cheating.

There’s a wider discussion to be had, outside of the purview of this article, which is that of reasonable adjustments for disability and neurodiversity. What about for non-English speakers, when fluent written English isn’t necessary?

How about someone with limited time that happens to be the perfect candidate?

Shouldn’t we enable candidates to put forwards the best version of themselves straightforwardly?

At the moment, though, what matters is how hiring processes *might* view the use of AI. Which is what should inform your use of it.

Does that mean you shouldn’t use it at all?

No, it’s situation dependent, you just need to consider the consequences.

If I were looking for an early career job that paid the bills, and was aware of the huge competition for a wide number of vacancies - I’d look at something like LazyApply to automate.

While, if I were simply receptive to a very unusual opportunity, it wouldn’t be relevant.

A more straightforward discussion is the uses where AI augments your own intelligence, rather than automates manual process.

Here, I wholeheartedly recommend looking into options and being creative:

  • Tools to check spelling & grammar, used judiciously (I ignore most of grammarly’s advice on how to improve my writing style, for example)

  • Using Gemini or ChatGPT to compare your CV against a job description. Check for gaps, synonyms, how you might articulate your experience.

  • Asking for examples of achievements you can use as collateral to support your documentation and interviews, then replacing these examples with the facts of your experience:

  • Building a key word thesaurus.

  • Use for ideation and sense checking. I’ll paste this article into Gemini and ChatGPT and ask for its ‘thoughts’. Some of its feedback is helpful, especially as I’m self-employed and don’t have someone to check for me.

  • Asking questions around your career path - job titles, industries to look at; qualifications to underpin your experience.

  • Using it as a buddy to ask questions of, help with research and interview preparations (e.g. what questions might I be asked in an interview for a CTO; the company is a venture funded started with 30 employees, operating in SaaS).

  • Purpose specific tools that have been error checked. Such as those that share market insights in your domain - prospects for speculative approaches, networking opportunities, knowledge sharing etc

None of these will be perceived as ‘cheating’, given it’s behind the scenes work that support your candidacy.

In this way, AI can effectively support your job search.

Of course, there’s an argument that you might do whatever it takes to get a job. And that it’s only a problem if you are caught cheating.

That’s not something I’d advise, but it’s your choice if you want to automate as much as you can.

Just be wary then of the quality of its output.

If you are someone with hiring authority reading this, out of curiousity, let me add this.

AI in itself isn’t a cheat, especially if what is represented is factual or inherently true.

If you catch someone out in process for using AI, I’d recommend investigating why they’ve used it, rather than assuming.

The process of securing a new role is a skill that everyone has a different level of, much of which can be learnt over a long-term job search.

In some situations, people can afford CV Writers, LinkedIn profile upgrades, career & interview coaching. However all these do is allow them to provide a better version of themselves.

AI is no different, albeit less effective on an individual basis. If you see use of AI as problematic, this biases people with less means to pay for support, the same people who likely need the most help.

By all means, question why someone has used a tool to support their application. Just don’t be too quick to judge, especially if you use tools in your role, to enable your work.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg

Why five? Innovation from Iteration, pt 1

By Greg Wyatt • February 26, 2026
So here were are, the start of a new series. This series may be around 10 editions, looking at the things other industries do that we can implement into recruitment. These were written 3 years ago, right at the start of the AI zazzle, and in some ways have dated quite a bit. In others, the way in which they haven't dated at all, because the principles of how we live our business lives can be universal. So, I'm not sure yet, how much editing I'll do, whether there will be any inclusions, or whether I'll leave articles intact, as a moment in time. I've learnt all of these notions from candidates and clients, as I came to understand the function of their vacancies. Hearing about the daily practice from people doing jobs, I couldn't help but notice the same relevance in recruitment. So while these articles are hardly comprehensive, perhaps they'll make you look at your candidates differently, in what we can learn from them, and how that might improve our recruitment. Why five? December 2022 Ask anyone involved in active recruitment what their key problems are, and they’ll likely talk about skills shortages and candidate behaviour. On the face of it, problems which are out of our control, worthy of complaint with little opportunity to find improvement. But what if these were issues that weren’t entirely out of our control? What if we could apply a replicable process to understand what’s really going on, and how we can make a difference? Fortunately, we needn’t invent the wheel, as other industries have already done this for us. One such is 5Y, or Five Whys, a problem-solving technique that was developed by Toyota in the 1930s. It's part of the Toyota Management System that has inspired much of my work. Five is the general number of “Why?”s needed to get to the root of a problem. Often you can get to the heart of the issue sooner, sometimes later. Often there are multiple root causes. More than just solving problems, it’s about establishing practical countermeasures to prevent these problems from coming up in future. 5Y is an example of Toyota’s philosophy of “go and see”: working on the shop floor to find out how things work in practice to find ways for iterative improvement. This isn’t a theoretical idea to try out on a whim – it’s based on grounded reality and almost always works. There are two costs – time and accountability. Here’s a practical example, then a recruitment one. (Names have been removed to protect my identity) Problem 1 : The children were late for school. Why? Traffic held us up. Why? We left the house late. Why? The children weren’t ready on time. Why? Their school uniforms weren’t prepared. Why? We hadn’t set them out the night before. Here the countermeasure is to get everything ready the night before, rather than blame traffic for being late. Perhaps we might have gotten to school on time without heavy traffic, but that is an element out of our control. Of course, here there is another root cause – very naughty children – but better to focus on the simple changes. And sometimes traffic is the root cause after all, once you’ve ruled out other elements in your control. (2026 note: my eldest now often drives my youngest to school. A time laden solution I hadn't considered three years ago. Now I don't care if they're late 😆) Problem 2: Candidates keep ghosting us. Why? They weren’t committed to responding. Why? They didn’t accept my requirement for a response. Why? They saw no value in my requirement. Why? I didn’t create an environment where this requirement has value ( root cause 1 ). Or because they are very naughty candidates, with a bad attitude. Why have we allowed someone with a bad attitude in our recruitment process? Because we didn’t prequalify them well enough ( root cause 2 ) The first root cause is something we can work on by giving candidates what they need, building trust, and working to mutual obligations. There are many ways to do this – I’ve already talked about examples in previous newsletters. It comes down to good candidate experience and reciprocity. The second root cause requires us to work harder at understanding candidate needs, aspirations, behaviours and attitudes at the outset of a recruitment process. There’s a reason for their behaviour. We can be accountable for finding it. That’s no mean skill to develop, yet an essential one for anyone whose core responsibility is recruitment. And it’s hard to do in a transactional volume process, so the question then becomes, does your process help more than it hinders? You can apply 5Y to any issue you come across, as long as you are prepared to be accountable. At worst you may find that the things that were out of your control are at fault. In this case, you are at least armed with good information to report to your stakeholders, by ruling out other possibilities. What’s the point of doing all this? For me it’s continually improving how I recruit, with the consequence, in the example above, that I am rarely ghosted at all. And you can 5Y any issue you come across. Are poor agency CV submissions their fault, or in part down to your briefing and process? Are skills genuinely scarce, or is your requirement unrealistic? Is it true that your agency hasn’t listened to you, or do you engage the right partners in the right way? 5Y has the answers. Regards, Greg

Map the Market. Jobseeker Basics XVIII

By Greg Wyatt • February 23, 2026
What follows is Chapter 21 in A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . It's a good example of how a job search is an inverted recruitment exercise, but also how the same principles from recruitment can be applied in a job search. Market mapping is one of the first steps of a search process in what is often called headhunting. Here though, instead of an exercise that helps find a person for a job, you help find a job for you. This can be in one chunk, at the outset, and iteratively, as you learn more information. It's a great example of how LinkedIn can be used as a data repository, given the vast majority of professionals are present here. And if they are present here, the insight that is their careers is too, allowing you to identify potential viable employers, who works there, and therefore where else they may have worked, with further potential hiring managers. The snake that eats its own tail. Try doing the iterative work above, every time you come across someone new, whether in an application or in networking . You can use this to build out your network, identify companies to contact proactively. Simon Ward and I will talk more on this in our LinkedIn Live on Tuesday February 24th at 1pm GMT. You can join us, and view the full recording afterwards, here: Is The Nature Of Networking Changing for Job Hunters? If you happen to read this as a hiring authority, market mapping is one of the invisible processes in a structured search. It can often take me 80 to 100 hours to fully map a role for potential viable candidates, given I try to find non-traditional candidates as well as those that are easier to find through sourcing. 21 - Map the market Market mapping is a common activity in executive search. Why wouldn’t you adopt the same approach in your inverse of a recruitment exercise? The idea is to fully understand your market, so that you are better able to navigate it. This is a summary chapter because market mapping is both a strategic and a tactical exercise. I’ll cover some of the How of mapping in Part Three. There are three ways in which to map the market. The vacancies you are qualified for This is about determining which vacancies you should focus your attention on. In which domains does your capability directly apply? This could be context related, if your expertise is in start-ups, growth, downsizing or other contexts. It could be industry related - your process manufacturing expertise might directly apply in food, plastics or pharmaceuticals. It could be job related, with the right applicable skills. Establish where there is a market for you, and if what you offer is needed by that market. Advice on the transferable skills trap (p55) and whether you are qualified (p178) to apply will help. The geography of your job search Where are all the employers and vacancies that you can sustainably commute to? A geographical map can help you target opportunities by region. What resources are available to help you with this map? Searching online for local business parks, even driving around them, can give a list of viable companies to contact. Directories and membership hubs. Local newspapers, social media stories. If you see a company you like the look of, say from an advert, search on their local post code. Who else might be there? The chapter on doorknocking (p241) has more ideas. The people of your network Every time you come across someone you might build a relationship with, connect with them on LinkedIn. Then check out their career history. Who else have they worked with? Where else have they worked? This works for peers, hiring managers, and recruiters - a headhunter in one company may well have worked in a similar domain in a previous one. Is there anyone at these previous companies you should introduce yourself to? What about their listed vacancies? Building out a map of relevant recruiters to develop relationships with (if they answer the phone) can lead to vacancies. Treat it as an iterative exercise. Check out the chapter on networking (p236). This map isn’t just about potential opportunity. It’s also about information that might be helpful now and in future. This might be for job leads. It might be industry insight you can share through content. It may even be topics for conversation in interviews or with peers. Make sure you track it in the right way, whether through Notion, Excel or other resources you have available. With any information, check it is accurate, then prune appropriately. Prioritise on degrees of separation (closest first) and context fit (where what you need is most closely aligned with what you offer).