Diving into the evolving landscape of recruitment, I’m thrilled to sit down with Ling-Yi Tsai, a seasoned HRTech expert with decades of experience transforming organizations through innovative technology. With a sharp focus on HR analytics and the seamless integration of tech into recruitment, onboarding, and talent management, Ling-Yi offers a unique perspective on how modern tools and human connection intersect in hiring. Today, we’ll explore themes like the role of honesty in building trust, the power of empathy in offering second chances, the importance of flexibility in scheduling, and the delicate balance between leveraging AI tools and showcasing authentic skills in the hiring process.
How does a candidate’s transparency, like admitting to using AI tools for a project, influence the trust dynamic between them and recruiters, and can you share a personal experience where such honesty made a difference in an interview?
I believe transparency is a cornerstone of trust in any professional relationship, especially in recruitment. When a candidate openly admits to using tools like ChatGPT, it signals a willingness to be vulnerable, which can foster mutual respect if handled well by the recruiter. It’s not just about the admission; it’s about creating a space where honesty isn’t penalized but seen as an opportunity for growth. I remember a time early in my career when a candidate disclosed during an interview that they had relied on a mentor’s guidance for a significant portion of their portfolio. I could see the nervousness in their eyes, their hands fidgeting as they waited for my reaction. Instead of dismissing them, I thanked them for their candor and shifted the conversation to what they learned from the experience. We ended up diving deep into their thought process, and I could sense their relief as they realized I valued their integrity over perfection. That moment not only built a bridge of trust but also led to hiring someone who turned out to be a dedicated team player. Honesty, when met with understanding, can transform a potentially negative situation into a foundation for a strong professional connection.
What are your thoughts on offering second chances in hiring, such as allowing a candidate to resubmit work, and could you walk us through a specific instance where this approach played out?
Offering second chances can be incredibly powerful in recruitment because it shows candidates that the process isn’t just about judgment—it’s about potential. It’s a way to recognize that everyone has off days or makes choices under pressure, and giving them a chance to correct course can reveal their true capabilities. I recall a situation where a candidate submitted a project that clearly wasn’t entirely their own work; it was polished in a way that didn’t align with their resume or initial discussions. Rather than rejecting them outright, I invited them for a follow-up conversation and offered the opportunity to redo a portion of the task independently. I could feel the weight lift off their shoulders during our call—their voice brightened, and they expressed genuine gratitude for not being written off. Over the next few days, they submitted a revised piece that, while not perfect, showed their authentic effort and problem-solving skills. We hired them, and they became one of the most coachable and hardworking members of the team. The process taught me that second chances aren’t just about fairness; they’re about uncovering hidden potential and building loyalty from the very start.
How do you view the idea of granting extra time for candidates to revise submissions under unique circumstances, and can you share a time when scheduling flexibility impacted a hiring outcome?
Granting extra time is often a practical and empathetic way to level the playing field, especially when candidates face unexpected challenges or need space to showcase their best work. It communicates that the process values quality over arbitrary deadlines, which can ease stress and encourage better performance. I recall a hiring scenario a few years back where a promising candidate requested a short extension due to personal circumstances—they were dealing with a family emergency but didn’t want to withdraw. I could hear the strain in their voice over the phone, and it was clear they were torn between competing priorities. I agreed to push their final submission and interview by a few days, ensuring they had breathing room. When the revised timeline came around, their work was thoughtful and detailed, reflecting a level of care they couldn’t have managed under pressure. They later shared how that small act of flexibility gave them the confidence to fully engage in the process. We hired them, and their gratitude translated into a deep commitment to the role. Flexibility, when feasible, can turn a stressful situation into a win for both sides.
What’s your perspective on striking a balance between using AI tools like ChatGPT and ensuring candidates demonstrate their core skills, and can you describe a case where you navigated this challenge?
Balancing AI tool usage with authentic skill demonstration is one of the biggest challenges in modern recruitment. AI can be a fantastic aid for brainstorming or streamlining tasks, but it shouldn’t replace a candidate’s fundamental abilities or critical thinking. The key is to design assessments that test understanding over output—asking candidates to explain their process or solve problems live can reveal what’s truly theirs. I once worked with a tech team hiring for a developer role where a candidate submitted a flawless project, but during the interview, they struggled to walk through their code. It was evident they’d leaned heavily on an AI tool. Instead of disqualifying them, I shifted focus to a collaborative exercise, asking them to modify a small section of code on the spot while explaining their logic. The room was tense at first—you could almost feel their anxiety—but as we worked through it together, I saw glimpses of their raw problem-solving ability. We ended up providing targeted feedback and a follow-up task to assess their baseline skills. They didn’t get the role immediately, but the experience taught us how to refine our process to prioritize live problem-solving over polished submissions. It’s about creating opportunities for candidates to prove their worth beyond the tools they use.
When a candidate struggles with confidence, perhaps due to relying on complex AI-generated work they can’t fully explain, how do you weigh that against their technical ability, and can you share an example of handling this in an interview?
Evaluating confidence versus technical ability is a delicate dance because both matter, but they don’t always align. Confidence can be situational—nervousness doesn’t always equate to incompetence—while technical ability is the bedrock of performance. I focus on creating a supportive environment where candidates feel safe to falter, allowing me to assess their skills through practical exercises rather than polished delivery. I remember interviewing a young candidate for a data analyst position who froze when asked to explain a complex model in their submission. Their hands were practically trembling, and I could sense they felt out of their depth, likely because they’d over-relied on a tool for the output. Instead of pressing harder, I pivoted to a simpler, real-time task, asking them to walk me through a basic dataset analysis. As we worked through it, their hesitation melted away, and I saw they had a solid grasp of fundamentals, even if their presentation lacked polish. I gave them feedback afterward, encouraging them to focus on mastering the ‘why’ behind their work, not just the ‘what.’ They didn’t get the role due to the specific experience needed, but they left with actionable insights and a renewed sense of possibility. It reminded me that separating confidence from capability takes patience and a willingness to look beyond first impressions.
Do you have any advice for our readers who are navigating the complexities of modern recruitment, whether as candidates or hiring professionals?
Absolutely, I’d love to share some thoughts. For candidates, embrace tools like AI as a support system, not a crutch—always ensure you can explain and defend your work because authenticity builds trust. Don’t be afraid to admit when you’ve leaned on technology; honesty can open doors if you show a willingness to learn. For hiring professionals, prioritize empathy and flexibility in your process—understand that candidates are human, with pressures and imperfections, and giving them space to grow can uncover incredible talent. Above all, focus on dialogue over judgment; whether you’re hiring or applying, building a genuine connection through open communication is the key to navigating today’s complex recruitment landscape. I’ve seen time and again that when both sides approach the process with mutual respect, the outcomes are not just successful hires but lasting professional relationships.