McKinsey’s Unique Approach to Hiring With AI

What does it really mean to be human? This age-old question has puzzled philosophers for ages. Now, it seems McKinsey is trying to tackle it too.

Saleem Zafar, a partner at McKinsey’s Dallas office, is curious about the essence of potential hires. What’s the core of who they are? According to The Wall Street Journal, they’ve devised an interesting method to explore this. Candidates applying for entry-level positions are prompted to engage in a 10-minute conversation with an AI posing as a client.

To be fair, the AI isn’t the one making judgments—human interviewers oversee the interaction and assess how the applicants navigate it. This adds a layer of irony: McKinsey is running a “humanity” test using technology, while actual people decide if candidates can effectively showcase their humanity.

Consulting, let’s face it, is often seen as a somewhat contrived field. It mainly serves to attract graduates from top universities, offering them enviable salaries to produce endless presentations and reports. Meanwhile, there’s the looming concern that AI could easily take over the tasks these firms handle for hefty fees.

What’s unsettling is the fact that companies are now leveraging AI to evaluate whether their new hires possess the qualities that set them apart from automated systems.

As it stands, platforms like Grok, Claude, and ChatGPT can design websites, breach servers, and even orchestrate blackmail against developers. I mean, how hard can it really be for them to create a presentation?

So, why don’t these consulting firms simply delegate their workloads to AI?

In a nutshell, it all comes down to the human element.

Recognizing this, McKinsey pondered: how do you identify individuals with genuine humanity? Their conclusion? Have candidates converse with a machine.

Recently, people were polarized over another hot topic: Should an iced coffee be part of your job interview? One recruiter suggested that it said something about Gen Z’s attitude toward professionalism, turning a simple cup into a debate on a whole generation’s work ethic.

So, while some argue over the implications of a plastic cup, McKinsey delves into whether a chatbot can reveal someone’s deeper self—definitely a reflection of our current state.

But why stop there? If the objective is to reduce human bias, as Zafar implied, the next logical step would be to let an AI evaluate the initial interaction and score how convincingly the candidate demonstrated human traits. Then, yet another AI could assess those scores and finalize the hiring decision.

Congratulations, we’ve managed to turn even the essence of humanity into a problem for AI to solve with optimal efficiency.

The irony is palpable when considering that the firms crafting these complex systems to identify irreplaceable human attributes are simultaneously facing a technology that might soon replicate much of the work they currently pay humans to perform.

The threat isn’t just external anymore; it’s now right in their offices, convincing executives of the benefits of replacing their own workforce.

McKinsey is aware that clients don’t hire them to engage with a robot. Yet, they apparently believe that a bot is ideal for identifying the “core” qualities they seek in their employees.

If AI can generate those presentations, analyze data, and mimic client discussions, the real question shifts from whether a candidate embodies heart to whether McKinsey will still appreciate human contributions when removing them proves more lucrative.

I think we all know the answer: they probably won’t.