Skip to main content

The Impact of Advanced Technology on Employment (by Christopher Martinez)

As our world has evolved, so has companies' hiring process across the workforce. Advancements in technology, including artificial intelligence or AI, have changed how employers review applications. 

Many employers have become reliant on technology and AI to identify quality candidates, and such a practice has negatively impacted applicants, as the usage of AI technology to review applications has significantly decreased individuals’ chances for employment. With algorithms and AI being used to review submitted applications and evaluate applicant responses in online assessments, qualified individuals who apply for open positions can be rejected. In addition, companies have incorporated advanced technology into their application review process in the form of resume screeners, a tool that can wrongly evaluate applicants’ resumes using biased criteria. In short, employers’ use and reliance upon algorithms, AI, and resume screeners have presented challenges that many were not prepared to encounter.

The algorithms and AI technology used by employers can reject applicants, even if these individuals meet the requirements established in the job posting. As Hilke Schellmann explains in her piece, “Finding it hard to get a new job? Robot recruiters might be to blame,” employers have made digital assessments part of the process of applying for available positions. Schellmann recounts the experience of Martin Burch, who applied for a data analyst position for Bloomberg and felt he was unfairly evaluated and rejected, as upon submission of his application, Burch was asked to complete a digital assessment. Burch’s performance on this online assessment, which asked him to solve a pattern of shapes, proved to be the reason for his rejection. Soon after completion of this assessment, Burch learned he would not be considered for the position he had applied for. Disappointed, confused, and in search of an explanation for his rejection, Burch contacted a Bloomberg recruiter who, as Schellmann shares, confirmed his rejection, responding, “‘...your application was rejected due to not meeting our benchmark in the Plum assessment that you completed. Unfortunately on that basis we are not able to take your application any further.’” (2022). Unfortunately, experiences similar to those Burch had have become more common as an increasing number of employers implement the usage of technology to evaluate applicants. Employers’ reliance upon technology to identify quality candidates has presented challenges for individuals nationwide, as it has become more difficult to become employed. Burch chose to apply for a marketing analyst position for Bloomberg because he believed he would be a qualified applicant for the role. However, as he later learned, even a qualified applicant can be removed from consideration for a role before their application is viewed by a human recruiter.

Furthermore, employers have further utilized technology to identify quality applicants through the use of resume screeners, tools that can biasedly evaluate talent. Today, resumes are a component of applications, as online applications will generally offer an individual the opportunity to upload their resume. Accordingly, as the use of resume screeners to review resumes and identify quality talent has grown, so has the possibility for such tools to evaluate talent using biased criteria. Schellmann documents the existence of the danger of biased evaluation of applicants by resume screeners, articulating, “A few years back, Amazon discovered that its resume screener tool was biased against women” (2022). With Amazon’s resume screening tool favoring males, female applicants experienced greater difficulty becoming employed with Amazon. Additional examples of resume screeners operating with bias have been found. In her article, Schellman shares the findings of John Scott, an industry professional who determined resume screeners used by companies operated with “biased criteria unrelated to work, such as the name Thomas and the keyword church, to ‘predict’ success in a job” (2022). Evidently, tools that are used to determine whether applicants will be considered for an open role have incorrectly evaluated talent in a manner human recruiters simply would not. A human recruiter would likely not identify an applicant as a quality candidate simply because their resume contains a specific name and unrelated term. However, with employers’ growing reliance upon technology, if an individual’s resume does not contain the keywords the system prefers, that applicant is not only at an immediate, unfair disadvantage but is also less likely to be considered for their desired positions. 

In closing, while employers support the use of technology to review employment applications because it can expedite the hiring process, applicants encounter multiple challenges, including those that previous generations did not face. To be considered for their desired position, individuals must compose their resumes with the belief that a resume screener, and not a human recruiter, will be the first to review their submissions. In addition, individuals must be prepared to take an online assessment as part of the application or shortly following its submission, knowing their performance will determine whether they will be considered for their desired role. Human resource practices continue to change as employers become increasingly reliant upon tools such as algorithms, AI, and resume screeners to review, evaluate, and identify quality applicants. Therefore, individuals must be aware that to be considered for their desired job, their applications will likely need to get past technology before reaching a human recruiter.

How can individuals adapt to employers’ increased use of technology and improve their chances of being considered for their desired jobs? What measures can employers take to ensure their technology, such as resume screeners, operates without bias?


Schellmann, H. (2022, May 11). Finding it hard to get a new job? Robot recruiters might be to blame. Guardian. Available via  

The picture on the top was downloaded from

About the Author

Christopher Martinez is a second-year student at the Collins College of Hospitality Management, Cal Poly Pomona. Christopher is passionate about the hospitality industry and has a sincere interest in spending his career in the hospitality industry, as it is an industry that influences the lives of individuals worldwide each day. Eager to learn more about the many aspects of the hospitality industry, Christopher has the desire to serve guests and make a positive difference in the realm of hospitality. Furthermore, Christopher aspires to hold a senior management position for a hotel company in the future and foresees himself as a part of the future of hospitality.


Popular posts from this blog

Luxury vs. Millennials and Their Technology: The Ritz-Carlton (By Julia Shorr)

Embodying the finest luxury experience, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC has been established since 1983. In 1998, Marriott International purchased the brand offering it more opportunity for growth while being independently owned and operated. They are known for their enhanced service level as the motto states, “Ladies and Gentlemen serving Ladies and Gentlemen”. The luxury brand now carries 97 hotels and resorts internationally and is attempting to keep the aspects of luxury while keeping up with the trends of the technologically improving generations. The Varying Demographics of the Target Market The Ritz-Carlton’s typical target market includes: business executives, corporate, leisure travelers, typically middle-aged persons and elders, and families from the upper and upper-middle class section of society .   This infers a large range of types of travelers in which all are similar in that they are not opposed to spending extra for the luxurious ambiance. However, with

Is It OK for Hotel Staff to Wear Piercings and Tattoos?

Time has changed. I see more and more college students wearing piercings and tattoos nowadays, but is it OK for hotel staff to wear piercings and tattoos? The answer is “no, no, no.” According a report at, customers across the board do not want to see any hotel workers with pierced eyebrow, pierced tongue, tattooed arm, or nose ring. Some may argue that tattooed and pierced workers may seem more acceptable in edgy boutique hotels as compared to the big franchised hotels, but the survey results did not find any differences among a variety of lodging products. Many respondents believe people who wear visible tattoos and piercings are taking a high risk of their professional lives. If you stay in a hotel, do you mind being served by tattooed and/or pierced staff? What if you are the one who makes the hiring decision? References: Picture was downloaded from

In what ways will AI affect restaurant operations?

A new wave of industrial revolution is here --- AI (artificial intelligence) will change everything we do. Undoubtedly, AI can improve restaurant operations.     Menu Engineering and Quality Control    AI can provide insights into a restaurant’s menu offerings and pricing strategies based on consumer data and market trends. Restaurant owners can adjust the recipes/menu and price accordingly.     AI can help restaurants monitor food temperature, cleanliness, and safety procedures, ensuring they comply with health and safety regulations. For example, AI can remind a sushi chef to replace a sushi plate that has been “sitting” on the conveyor belt for too long with a more popular item.     Consumer Experience   AI can help restaurants create location-based, personalized marketing campaigns to reach specific and targeted customers at the right time. Then, AI-empowered chatbots, reservation, and table management systems can help restaurants answer customer inquiries, manage reservations, and