Contact Us
Questions, comments, ideas for future content? Contact us below.
If you knew which candidates showed the most interest behind the scenes: Would it matter?
Would it change how you ranked them?
Or alert you that you dropped the ball with the ones who didn’t?
When it comes to measuring intent, marketing runs laps around recruiting. I’m not sure recruitment even started the race.
The technology exists to know exactly which candidates were re-reading your job descriptions. Reviewing your benefits. Looking up your team’s profile. Scoured your job seeker FAQ. (If you haven’t created that last one yet, c’mon now…)
For marketers, these are the basics. They know exactly who’s coming to their site. Who clicked what link in their newsletter. Who left what in their shopping cart.
Look at which companies follow you around social media pumping out ads of the products you just looked at.
👉I’m not talking about clicks (which are arguably vanity metrics.) I also mean time.
What if you knew exactly which software developers watched a 10 minute interview with your CTO? Or which account executives spent 20 minutes reviewing your team’s profiles and job seeker FAQ?
Would having an idea of who’s more interested change your decision process in offer time?
Would knowing who isn’t reviewing anything at all be helpful in knowing where you haven’t done your job?
Would it help you gauge which recruiting enablement assets (read: follow up items) resonate vs fall flat?
My answers to those last 3 questions: I don’t know, yes, and hell yeah it would.
I don’t know anyone actually doing this. I yet don’t know how useful measuring intent would be, or if it’s even possible.
But I do have a pretty good idea that knowing where you’re falling flat – either with a specific candidate or with your follow up items – would be invaluable.
The real question is: why isn’t recruitment doing this?
(Hit me up if you are, I’m dying to know how this plays out in the real world.)
Full episode of The Employer Content Show, ep 27, “What The Hell Is Recruiting Enablement?” with Nate Guggia, here.
Partner at Hirewell. #3 Ranked Sarcastic Commenter on LinkedIn.
Plenty has been written about AI over the past two years. For much of that time, AI has been more hype than reality. I THINK 2026 is when that starts to change.
Here’s the first in a three part series of where we see AI going in the recruiting world.
———-
For the last few years, most companies treated AI like a recruiting assistant. It helped draft job descriptions, summarize resumes, and speed up outreach. Useful, sure. But it didn’t fundamentally change how hiring worked. And oftentimes, things needed to be double checked before hitting send.
I think that’s going to change.
In 2026, we’re seeing the rise of agentic HR. These are systems that don’t just support recruiters. They can execute work autonomously inside defined guardrails.
That shift is forcing talent leaders to rethink what recruiting teams are actually responsible for and what still requires a human.
Traditional recruiting AI waited for humans to click “next.”
Agentic systems don’t.
They can interpret real-time funnel data, align to hiring goals, and take multi-step action. That includes adjusting sourcing spend, coordinating interview schedules, and triggering workflow changes without manual oversight.
This isn’t automation layered onto old processes. It’s the early version of a self-driving recruiting function.
Time-to-fill and cost-per-hire still matter. They just don’t fully capture what’s changing.
A concept showing up more in 2026 is Return on Autonomy. It measures the value created when humans and autonomous systems are paired intentionally.
In plain terms, the question is simple.
Are we using technology to eliminate busywork, or are we just doing the same work faster?
Because speed doesn’t help if it leads to worse decisions, a weaker candidate experience, or more noise in the funnel.
As agentic systems absorb transactional work like screening, scheduling, and coordination, the role of recruiting leadership shifts.
The best TA leaders are spending less time managing process and more time doing what actually drives hiring outcomes. That includes aligning hiring to business priorities, building trust with candidates, and improving decision quality.
The real opportunity of 2026 isn’t more AI. It’s that recruiters finally get to focus on the work that requires being human.
Here’s the trap.
Companies adopt advanced recruiting technology but keep the same habits. Long approval chains. Inconsistent communication. Unclear evaluation criteria.
When that happens, speed increases, but trust collapses.
Candidates don’t experience innovation. They experience silence, confusion, and a process that feels even more impersonal than before.
In 2026, the human experience of hiring is becoming a differentiator again because so many companies are getting it wrong.
You don’t need a total rebuild tomorrow. But you do need clarity.
The companies winning in 2026 are asking the right questions.
What parts of our hiring process truly require human judgment?
Where are we slowing things down out of habit?
Are recruiters trained for strategic work, or just process management?
Do our systems increase transparency, or just efficiency?
These aren’t technology questions. They’re leadership questions.
Agentic HR is changing how recruiting works. It’s also creating a new challenge.
As employers deploy autonomous systems, candidates are doing the same. The result is an emerging AI-on-AI hiring arms race that’s flooding pipelines with highly optimized but low-trust applications.
Next in this series: The AI-on-AI Hiring Arms Race and How to Protect Hiring Quality Without Breaking Trust
A lot of companies are going to try to AI their way into faster hiring this year and still end up with worse results. If you want to build a recruiting model that actually works in 2026, one that balances speed, quality, and credibility, we can help. Reach out if you want a second set of eyes on your hiring approach.