Why talent acquisition shouldn’t ‘AI out the human’ in hiring

In conversation with HRD, Lendlease’s head of talent acquisition and inclusion, Claire Merriman, spoked on the growing use of artificial intelligence in recruitment.

Merriman said candidate sentiment has already shifted, and many jobseekers are openly questioning whether a human is involved at all when they apply.

“We get emails from candidates saying, ‘Did AI reject me?’ So we know that people are thinking about it,” she said.

“There’s a lot of noise around people’s resumes going into the ether and people thinking they’re getting rejected by a bot.”

While she describes Lendlease as “definitely not anti‑AI”, Merriman believes the industry is heading into a period of “tempered AI sentiment” as candidates push back against fully automated processes and demand more meaningful human contact.

 “I don’t think people want to just be in a streamlined recruitment process. They want to feel a human touchpoint.”

For Merriman, the issue is not whether AI belongs in recruitment – she freely concedes “there are some fabulous AI systems out there” and says Lendlease has used AI tools for sourcing and candidate identification for years – but how far organisations allow technology to displace genuine human interaction.

“With the advent of AI, I think it’s even more important that people understand that there is a human helping throughout the process whenever you’re going for roles,” she said. “People still want to talk to people.”

Lendlease currently takes what Merriman calls an “AI light” approach. The company uses technology to support basic recruitment tasks but deliberately avoids removing people from core candidate interactions.

“We’re just using AI to help us with sourcing and candidate identification and things like that. Nothing mind‑blowing or groundbreaking at all, it’s just we were doing that six years ago,” she said.

“We don’t have chatbots that are talking to our candidates. If you email our careers email address, someone from my team’s responding to you.”

That choice is closely tied to Lendlease’s business model and workforce. Much of its talent pool – particularly in construction and development – is site‑based and not necessarily active on digital platforms where AI‑heavy recruitment tends to operate best.

“You can’t AI out the human,” she said. “How you convince someone to take a job that might pay less, or they might have to uproot their family and move somewhere else – you need a human connection with somebody, whether that be your recruiter or HR person or the manager. To get someone to really want to make that move, you need that connection.”

Merriman believes employers that lean too heavily on automation risk losing out in the ongoing “war for talent” if they fail to build that connection.

“Organisations need to be a lot better at talking to their value proposition and speaking to values, what the organisation means and building a human connection,” she said.

“If you want that person, you’ve got to make sure that they feel they fully buy into your culture and that it’s the right fit for both sides. You can’t get that by streamlining your recruitment process.”

Merriman has watched the AI wave build over several years. Lendlease implemented AI in its recruitment system five or six years ago, well before the current hype cycle. That early exposure, she says, has made the company more pragmatic.

“We started on the journey earlier on, and so there was a little bit more of a tempered approach because it wasn’t as well developed as it is now,” she said.

She expects the market to keep iterating rather than snapping back. While there has been some high‑profile “wind back” of AI in other parts of the economy, she sees the future of recruitment tech as more about refinement than retreat.

Industry, role type and candidate expectations will all shape how far companies can and should push automation. Merriman noted that while construction workers may prefer calls to chatbots, software engineers and tech professionals often welcome AI‑enabled hiring as a signal of digital maturity.

Bulk recruitment for seasonal or high‑volume roles is another area where AI‑driven screening and scheduling can deliver clear value without eroding the candidate relationship.

The critical question is whether the technology fits the kind of interactions an organisation wants to have with its talent.

“People need to look at it and see: does it fit for the types of interactions that you’re having with candidates or how you’re doing recruitment as well?” she said. “It’s about just being more thoughtful [with] AI implementations.”

Despite her reservations about over‑automation, Merriman does not dismiss the need for experimentation. She pointed to recent examples in other sectors, such as customer service, where major employers have rolled out AI at scale and then adjusted.

What she resists is AI as a replacement for recruiters rather than a tool alongside them. Predictions from several years ago that technology would “AI out” recruiters have simply not materialised in the way many expected.

For now, Merriman is betting that candidates will increasingly choose employers who can offer both efficiency and empathy. As AI becomes embedded in more hiring systems, she expects jobseekers to pay closer attention to whether there is a real person on the other side.

“When you’re dealing with people, people still want to talk to people. We use AI, we have it here, and it’s fabulous. But just a balanced approach – take it for all the positives and meet it where it’s at,” she concluded.