The hiring process is broken. Thousands of resumes flood in for every position, many enhanced or entirely generated by AI. Meanwhile, qualified candidates receive automated rejections without their applications ever being seen by human eyes. Recruitment technology promised efficiency, but instead created a paradox: more disconnection at the very moment when human connection matters most.
This tension between automation and authenticity sits at the heart of a fascinating conversation with Traci Austin, Founder and CEO of Elevated Talent Consulting and host of The People Strategy Podcast. With over two decades specializing in human resources for trades organizations, Austin brings a refreshingly practical perspective to one of business’s most pressing challenges.
The Resume Renaissance Question
Perhaps the most provocative question Austin tackles: Do we even need resumes anymore? When applications are increasingly AI-enhanced and hiring managers are overwhelmed by volume, the traditional resume may have outlived its usefulness. Austin suggests a more nuanced approach that prioritizes what she calls the “head, heart, and briefcase” framework.
The head represents behavioral and cognitive alignment with the role itself. The heart examines cultural fit and values alignment. The briefcase holds the skills and experience. While resumes can show career breadth, they rarely reveal the outcomes someone has actually produced. That requires conversation, which brings us back to the fundamental challenge: How do you get that conversation in the first place?
Persistence as Strategy
Austin shares a telling story about her college freshman son securing a competitive lifeguard position. After submitting his application electronically, he didn’t wait for a response. He visited the pool in person, spoke with guards, requested meetings with managers. The hiring email he eventually received said it all: “Your persistence got you the job.”
This approach flies in the face of modern job hunting convention, where applicants dutifully submit applications through automated portals and wait for responses that often never come. Austin advocates for a different strategy: Research the company, identify mutual connections on LinkedIn, reach out directly to recruiters, ask meaningful questions that demonstrate genuine interest rather than desperation.
The distinction matters. Desperation says “I need any job.” Interest says “I want to understand if we’re a good mutual fit.” One gets lost in the pile. The other builds relationships that transcend the resume database.
The AI Double-Edged Sword
Austin acknowledges AI’s legitimate utility in recruitment. It can process high volumes efficiently. It can help candidates refine their messaging. Used thoughtfully, it serves as a valuable tool for both employers and applicants. But she identifies a critical integrity issue: AI tends to make people appear bigger and better than they actually are, without pushback or correction.
Her recommendation? Write your materials first, then use AI for refinement rather than creation. Ask it to provide feedback on what you’ve written rather than generating content from scratch. This preserves authenticity while leveraging AI’s analytical capabilities.
For employers, the challenge is different but equally important. At a recent HR conference, Austin noted that most organizations haven’t fully deployed AI-powered hiring tools because they don’t yet trust the data quality. AI wants to please its users, which can mean providing answers that feel good rather than answers that are true. Human judgment remains essential.
The Want Match Principle
Perhaps Austin’s most valuable framework is what she calls the “want match.” Both parties must articulate clearly what they want and determine whether alignment exists. This requires honest negotiation before any agreement is signed.
She offers the example of an employer expecting 60-hour work weeks while a candidate wants to work 40 hours. Rather than pretending this gap doesn’t exist, Austin suggests examining the underlying outcomes. If the work genuinely requires 60 hours to achieve the desired results, but the employee will only work 40, how can compensation or expectations be adjusted to create a win-win situation?
This kind of negotiation has become a lost art. Too often, misalignment is discovered weeks or months after hiring, when both parties feel frustrated and trapped. Addressing expectations upfront prevents these painful mismatches.
The Generational Shift
Austin observes that younger workers increasingly prioritize work-life balance in ways previous generations did not. They’ll work intensely, but they also want boundaries. This isn’t laziness or entitlement; it’s a different values framework that organizations must acknowledge and adapt to.
Interestingly, she notes that trades organizations—construction, plumbing, electrical work—offer compelling opportunities for this generation precisely because they can’t be automated. AI won’t redo the plumbing in your house. Physical, skilled trades require human expertise and always will.
The Jobs Evolution
When discussing AI’s impact on employment, Austin rejects both naive optimism and dystopian pessimism. Yes, some jobs will disappear or transform dramatically. Manufacturing went from four workers per job to one worker with robotic assistance. Similar efficiency gains will occur across knowledge work.
But jobs have always evolved. The industrial revolution disrupted agricultural work. Computing disrupted clerical work. Each transition created anxiety and required adaptation. The current AI transition is another evolution, not an ending.
The key is strategic workforce planning. Where are jobs shifting? Where is demand growing? How can training and mentoring programs be developed to move people toward emerging opportunities? Trades organizations face massive hiring needs precisely because their work resists automation.
Rather than one-for-one replacement ratios or heavy-handed regulation, Austin advocates for smart oversight focused on data quality and outcome verification. AI requires human supervision, but that supervision should be thoughtfully designed rather than arbitrarily mandated.
Practical Applications
For job seekers, Austin’s advice is clear: Get specific about what you want. Not “any job,” but precise parameters around company size, role type, leadership opportunities, salary range, and cultural values. This clarity enables better targeting, more authentic networking, and stronger interview performance.
Use AI as a research and refinement tool. Put in company profiles alongside your resume and ask for questions you should ask during interviews. This helps assess genuine alignment rather than just trying to get hired.
For employers, the imperative is equally straightforward: Define the outcomes you need, not just the warm body you need. What results must this person produce? What behavioral and cognitive traits will enable success? What cultural values are non-negotiable?
Then structure conversations to explore these dimensions. Resumes remain useful for showing career trajectory, but they shouldn’t be the primary screening mechanism. Assessments, structured interviews, and genuine dialogue reveal far more about potential fit.
The Human Imperative
Throughout the conversation, Austin returns repeatedly to a fundamental truth: despite all the technology, all the automation, all the efficiency tools, hiring remains an inherently human process. It’s about relationships, alignment, mutual understanding, and shared values.
The organizations and individuals who thrive in the AI era won’t be those who resist technology or those who blindly embrace it. They’ll be those who use technology thoughtfully while prioritizing the human connections that technology can facilitate but never replace.
As Austin demonstrates through both her framework and her stories, the future of hiring isn’t about choosing between AI and humanity. It’s about leveraging AI’s strengths while doubling down on the distinctly human capabilities that create genuine alignment, lasting relationships, and mutual success.