If AI flattens the playing field, how do you choose your winner?

AI is starting to have a noticeable impact on how candidates approach the job market. Applications are quicker to submit, resumes are more polished, and more candidates are applying to more roles at the same time. On paper, this should make hiring easier, with a larger pool of candidates to choose from and more visibility of available talent. 

In practice, it is creating a different challenge.

Across supply chain, procurement, logistics and sales, we are seeing a clear increase in application volumes. However, this increase is not necessarily leading to stronger shortlists. Instead, it is creating more work for hiring and recruitment managers, who now face greater pressure when assessing and shortlisting candidates.

When volume increases, differentiation becomes harder

We have always seen high volumes for certain roles. However, AI is accelerating this.  

Candidates can now tailor resumes quickly, align their experience to job descriptions, and apply to multiple roles in a short space of time. The result is a higher number of applications that appear relevant on paper, even when the depth of experience varies significantly. 

We are seeing this firsthand. Our consultant teams are reviewing more resumes per role than ever, with higher application volumes adding pressure to shortlisting and decision-making. A certain level of filtering has always existed, but the difference now is that more candidates look suitable at first glance, which makes it harder to identify who actually is.

Suddenly everyone looks good on paper

Resumes are more structured, better written, and more closely aligned to job descriptions. In many cases, candidates are using similar tools, similar language, and similar formats, which reduces the natural variation you would typically see across applications. 

The result is a pool of candidates who appear equally strong on paper. 

However, “well presented” and “well suited” are not the same thing. Two candidates may look similar on a resume but differ significantly in terms of practical experience, problem-solving ability, or how they operate in a real working environment. That difference is not always visible at the initial screening stage.

Shortlisting is increasingly challenging

As more candidates appear to meet the criteria on paper, shortlisting becomes less about filtering and more about judgment. 

Traditional screening methods, such as keyword matching or quick resume reviews, become less effective when a large proportion of applicants check the same boxes. This can lead to too many candidates progressing into interviews, or strong candidates being missed because they do not present themselves in exactly the same way. 

We are also seeing more “perfect” resumes, profiles that appear to match every requirement in a job description. In reality, genuinely perfect candidates are rare. When multiple candidates look identical on paper, it creates a real challenge for hiring managers.

Why this increases the risk of poor hiring decisions

When differentiation becomes less clear, the risk of making the wrong decision increases.  

Candidates who present strongly on paper may not always have the depth of experience expected once you move into interview stages. At the same time, candidates with strong underlying capability can be overlooked if their resume does not align as closely with the job description. This creates more work throughout the process. More interviews, more comparisons, and more time spent validating information that would previously have been clearer at the screening stage.

What needs to change

As application volumes increase and resumes become more consistent in quality, the focus needs to shift away from relying too heavily on the resume itself.  

In our experience, this means placing more emphasis on how candidates demonstrate their experience, rather than how they present it. Early-stage conversations become more important, as they allow hiring managers to test understanding, explore decision-making, and assess how candidates think in real-life scenarios.  

Structured screening criteria can also help bring consistency to the process, particularly when dealing with high volumes. Defining what actually matters in a role, beyond keywords and experience, allows for more objective and effective shortlisting.  

It is also important to recognize that not every strong candidate will stand out on paper, particularly in a market where AI is shaping every application.

Final thought 

AI is not reducing the complexity of hiring. If anything, it is shifting where that complexity sits. More applications, more polished resumes, and less obvious differentiation mean that the real challenge is no longer attracting candidates, but identifying which ones you should genuinely interview. It is a shift hiring managers need to recognize.  

Because when everyone looks good on paper, how you shortlist and assess candidates matters more than ever. 

If your organization is struggling with large numbers of seemingly perfect applicants, we can help. Get in touch here