Does AI Perpetuate Biases in Evaluations or Hiring, Unfairly Impacting Me?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an inseparable part of modern recruitment and workplace evaluations. From automated resume screening to video interview analytics and performance scoring, companies increasingly trust AI to deliver efficiency, objectivity, and fairness. But behind the shiny tech veneer lurks a complex reality: AI systems can — and often do — perpetuate biases, sometimes unintentionally, unfairly impacting real people’s careers. 

In this post, we unpack the research evidence, employee experiences, expert viewpoints, and thoughtful recommendations so you understand both the promise and pitfalls of AI in hiring. 

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an essential component of modern recruitment and workplace evaluations. From automated resume screening to video interview analytics and performance assessment, businesses are increasingly relying on AI to bring efficiency, objectivity, and justice. But underneath the bright tech surface lies a difficult reality: AI systems may — and frequently do — perpetuate biases, sometimes unknowingly and unfairly affecting actual people's careers. 

In this post, we will analyze the research findings, employee experiences, expert perspectives, and deliberate advice to help you grasp both the promise and drawbacks of AI in hiring. 

AI: Promise vs. Pitfall in Hiring and Evaluation:

Proponents of AI in HR management frequently stress two significant benefits: 

• AI has the ability to quickly process massive amounts of data. 

• AI maintains objectivity and does not experience fatigue or emotions like humans. 

Indeed, several industry surveys demonstrate that AI systems outperform people on fairness parameters, such as treating women and racial minorities more equitably than human recruiters in controlled situations. 

However, the real world is rarely under control. 

Many academic studies have discovered that, without proper design and oversight, AI systems mirror the social prejudices buried in their training data. Humans create the majority of the data AI learns from, including ancient prejudices, systematic injustices, and cultural preconceptions, which AI can unintentionally learn and exacerbate.  

Recent Research: Strong Evidence of Bias: 

Here’s what cutting-edge research tells us: 

1. Cultural and Linguistic Bias: 

A 2025 study examining how large language models (LLMs) rate job interview transcripts discovered that Indian candidates consistently obtained lower evaluation scores than their UK counterparts, even after anonymizing names. The bias was caused by linguistic characteristics such as sentence complexity, rather than qualifications. Implication: AI may disfavor candidates based on language patterns rather than merit, particularly those from varied cultures and who do not speak English natively. 

2. Race and Gender Bias: 

Audits of prominent AI models have revealed that race and gender indicators can influence employment decisions. Models can create stereotyped messages, such as placing women in less experienced roles, even without explicit instructions. 

3. Intersectional Bias: 

Against Disabled Candidates Frontier research on disability demonstrates that AI models can cause distinct consequences for candidates with impairments, particularly when gender, caste, or nationality overlap with disability identification. These hazards frequently elude conventional safety assessments. 

Bottom line: Bias is more than just one dimension; it can compound for people with several identities. 

4. Human–AI Interaction Can Amplify Bias: 

A controlled resume screening experiment discovered that when humans collaborate with biased AI, they tend to follow the AI's preferences, even if they do not trust the AI's suggestions. 

Meaning: AI not only makes biased conclusions, but it can also negatively influence human decision-making. 

Employee Voices: Real Experiences of AI in Hiring: 

Beyond academic evidence, countless job seekers share real stories illustrating how AI feels to the person on the receiving end: 

• One applicant noticed generic rejection emails long before a human ever reviewed their resume — and later learned the company used AI screening that prioritized certain keywords and formats. 

• People from smaller cities and “non-traditional” professional backgrounds reported that AI systems ignored them because their digital footprints didn’t match the system’s learned patterns.  

Beyond academic proof, several job seekers give real-life stories that demonstrate how AI feels to the person on the receiving end: 

• One candidate discovered the organization used AI screening to prioritize specific keywords and formats, resulting in generic rejection emails prior to human review. 

• AI algorithms neglected individuals from smaller cities and "non-traditional" professional backgrounds due to differences in digital footprints. 

These stories frequently revolve around a common theme: a lack of transparency. Most applicants have no idea why the AI made a certain decision—only that it did. This "black box" dilemma makes candidates feel helpless, unfairly assessed, and skeptical of AI choices.  

What Experts Are Saying: 

Efficiency Isn’t Enough 

Sara Gutierrez, Chief Science Officer of SHL, underlines that efficiency gains are meaningless without fairness. High-speed recruiting that results in biased decisions can affect both candidates and companies by excluding talent and undermining trust. 

Bias Doesn’t Live in a Vacuum 

Professor Ifeoma Ajunwa, a major academic on AI in HR, warns that firms are rushing to deploy AI "without fully understanding the data or unintended consequences." Efficiency should never trump fairness or human dignity. 

Human Supervision Isn’t a Magic Shield 

The University of Washington study showed that human reviewers often adopt AI’s biased suggestions rather than correcting them — undermining the assumption that human oversight alone can fix AI bias.

 

The University of Washington study found that human reviewers frequently adopt AI's biased proposals rather than correcting them, contradicting the notion that human monitoring alone can correct AI bias.

 

Why Bias Persists in AI 

To truly grasp why AI can be unfair, it helps to understand the root causes: 

🔹 Biased Historical Data 

Artificial intelligence systems learn from data generated by people. If past hiring decisions impacted by prejudice or inequality are fed into the AI, the system will learn the same tendencies. 

 🔹 Opaque Algorithms 

Most AI systems do not provide clear reasons for their decisions, making it difficult for candidates to contest or comprehend why they were rejected. 

 🔹 Lack of Localized Context 

AI algorithms based exclusively on Western data may misrepresent or misinterpret applicants from other cultures or languages, resulting in unfair grading. 

Expert Recommendations for Fairer AI Hiring 

To ensure AI helps rather than hurts equity and fairness — and to protect you — experts recommend the following: 

Bias Audits and Transparency: 
Regular, independent bias audits should become standard practice. Tools need explainability so candidates understand decisions. 

Human-in-the-Loop Oversight: 
Rather than AI alone making decisions, a collaborative model where trained humans critically evaluate AI suggestions improves fairness. 

Diverse Training Data: 
AI systems must be trained on inclusive data that represents diverse languages, cultures, genders, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds. 

Clear Candidate Rights: 
Organizations should disclose when AI is used and how decisions are made, giving candidates avenues to appeal or seek human review. 

Regulatory Safeguards: 
Emerging policies — like the EU’s AI Act or New York City’s local AI bias laws — are setting precedents for ethical use of AI in hiring.

Powerful Takeaways 

AI can amplify bias — but it doesn’t have to. Intelligent design and oversight are critical. Your experience matters. If you feel unfairly judged by an AI system, that perception has psychological and real-world consequences. Lack of transparency is a bigger issue than bias alone. Applicants deserve explanations. Human judgment still matters. AI should assist — not replace — human insight. Fairness requires deliberate effort. Without safeguards, AI risks repeating old injustices in new ways. 

Final Thought 

AI in recruiting and evaluation is neither necessarily fair or unfair; rather, it is influenced by how we design, train, and govern these systems. The technology itself has no moral values; rather, the data, design choices, and oversight do. As AI becomes more important in global employment decisions, the key question isn't "Does AI perpetuate bias?" but "How are we ensuring it doesn't?" 

Your future career should not be the unexpected consequence of an algorithm. We can use AI to promote justice rather than discrimination by raising awareness, advocating for it, and implementing sensible policies.

____________________________________________________________________________