Alexander M.
1/5
Just attempted to complete an interview for a State Human Services position with VidCruiter, the irony of using this platform to screen candidates is till humorous to me. This is the epitome of Dehumanization in Hiring. Imagine pouring hours into crafting the perfect rĂ©sumĂ© and cover letter, carefully highlighting your experience and dedication to a field you genuinely care about. You research the organization, tailor your application to their mission, and prepare yourself mentally for a meaningful conversation about how you can contribute to their work. And then, instead of being met with an actual personâsomeone who represents the organization and is willing to engage in dialogueâyouâre greeted with a cold, impersonal screen, on a platform that is riddled with bugs and errors that result in forfeiture of attempts.
This is the modern hiring process at its most dystopian: the recorded interview. A one-sided, robotic exercise in which candidates must perform for an unblinking machine, speaking into the void with no way to gauge reactions, no opportunity to clarify their thoughts, and no chance for genuine human interaction. In return, the employer gets to evaluate them at their leisure, at their convenience, with minimal effort on their part. The imbalance of respect here is staggering.
A Profound Disrespect for Candidatesâ Time
The recorded interview epitomizes the worst kind of corporate lazinessâan employer refusing to invest even the bare minimum of effort into getting to know a candidate while demanding that the candidate invest maximum effort into presenting themselves. This format strips away the fundamental human element of an interview: the back-and-forth exchange, the ability to respond to body language and tone, and the chance to build rapport. It reduces job seekers to content providers, their answers merely another piece of data to be sifted through at the employerâs convenience.
This approach sends a clear message: "Your time is not valuable. Your effort is not worthy of our immediate attention. We will decide when, where, and how you get to speak to us." Meanwhile, the employer is under no obligation to even watch the full recordings, let alone provide feedback or closure.
And letâs talk about accessibility. Recorded interviews blatantly favor those with the financial means to own a computer, have a high-quality camera and microphone, and maintain stable internet access. For individuals from lower-income backgrounds, rural areas, or those relying on public resources, the expectation that they will have the necessary technology just to be considered for a job is not only unrealistic but fundamentally inequitable.
Consider someone who has all the qualifications but no private space to record their answersâare they supposed to film themselves in a public library? From their car? What about someone whose internet drops mid-answer? Do they just get discarded? Employers love to talk about equity, inclusion, and diversity, yet they embrace a hiring practice that disproportionately disadvantages those who are already struggling against systemic barriers.
The False Pretense of "Efficiency"
Defenders of recorded interviews argue that they âstreamlineâ the hiring process. But for whom? Certainly not for the candidate, who is robbed of the ability to ask clarifying questions or adjust their approach based on employer feedback. A real interview is a conversation; a recorded interview is a test with invisible graders.
Even for the employer, this efficiency is a facade. If they truly cared about hiring the right people, they would invest in real human interactions rather than reducing candidates to digital audition tapes. What is the cost of a 20-minute phone call or a virtual meeting where both parties can actually engage? If a company canât even dedicate that small amount of time to hiring, what does that say about their workplace culture?
I withdrew my application after my terrible experience, I am a qualified person and I will avoid companies that use this service to recruit in the future.
