Alright, let's talk about HireVue—the AI video interview platform that's either the future of recruiting or a Black Mirror episode, depending on who you ask. I've used it, I've talked to candidates who've been through it, and I've got opinions. Some good, some... not so much.

What HireVue Actually Does

HireVue started as a basic video interviewing tool but has evolved into a full AI-powered hiring platform. Candidates record video responses to pre-set questions, and the AI analyzes everything from their word choice to facial expressions to voice tone. The system then scores candidates and ranks them based on predicted job performance.

Sounds efficient, right? Record interviews on their schedule, let AI do the initial screening, and only spend time with the top candidates. In theory, it's supposed to save time and reduce bias.

Used by massive companies like Lowe's, Lionsgate, Samsung, and the UN, so clearly some smart people think it works.

Where It Actually Works

I'll be fair—there are legitimate use cases where HireVue makes sense:

High-volume hiring. If you're screening 500 candidates for retail or call center positions, having AI do the initial filter saves massive amounts of time. You cannot manually interview 500 people. Something has to narrow that pool, and HireVue can do it faster than resume screening alone.

Asynchronous convenience. Candidates can complete interviews on their own schedule rather than coordinating live calls across time zones. For global hiring or candidates who are currently employed and can't easily take calls during work hours, this is genuinely helpful.

Structured evaluation. Every candidate gets asked the same questions in the same order, which does reduce some forms of bias compared to freewheeling conversations where different candidates get different questions.

Data-driven insights. The analytics can identify which questions actually predict success and which are useless, helping you refine your interview process over time.

Where It Completely Falls Apart

Now let's talk about the problems, because there are real ones:

Candidates hate it. Like, really hate it. Talking to a camera and being judged by an algorithm feels dehumanizing. You're not building relationships or gauging cultural fit—you're making people perform for a robot. Multiple studies show this negatively impacts candidate experience and employer brand.

The AI accuracy is questionable. HireVue claims their algorithms predict job performance, but independent research has been skeptical. How exactly does facial expression analysis translate to job success? The company has actually stopped using facial analysis after criticism, which... kind of makes you wonder what else in their AI might be snake oil.

Bias concerns are real. AI systems can perpetuate bias based on speech patterns, accents, or communication styles. If your historical "successful" employees were predominantly from certain backgrounds, the AI learns to prefer candidates who match those patterns. That's not reducing bias—that's automating it.

It filters out unconventional candidates. People with speech differences, neurodivergent candidates, or anyone who doesn't perform well talking to a camera might get filtered out—even if they'd be great at the actual job. If the job isn't "perform confidently on camera," why are you screening for that?

The cost is hefty. HireVue isn't cheap, especially for the full AI-powered version. For smaller companies, you're paying thousands for technology that might be alienating candidates.

When You Should (and Shouldn't) Use It

Use HireVue if:

• You're doing true high-volume hiring (hundreds of candidates for similar roles)
• You need asynchronous interviewing across time zones
• You'll use it as ONE data point, not the sole screening mechanism
• You're hiring for roles where video presentation skills actually matter

Don't use HireVue if:

• You're hiring for specialized or senior roles where relationship-building matters
• Your candidate experience is already suffering
• You're hiring roles where camera presence isn't relevant to job performance
• You don't have the volume to justify the cost and implementation effort

The Better Approach

Here's what actually works: Use basic video interviewing for convenience, but skip the AI analysis bullshit. Tools like Spark Hire or Jobma let candidates record responses on their schedule, but then actual humans watch and evaluate them.

You get the asynchronous convenience without the creepy AI scoring. Candidates feel like they're talking to future colleagues, not feeding data into a black box algorithm.

For high-volume screening, combine recorded video with actual predictive assessments—work samples, cognitive tests, or skills-based challenges that measure job-relevant abilities rather than how someone looks and sounds on camera.

The Bottom Line

HireVue has legitimate use cases for specific high-volume hiring scenarios. But the AI analysis features are oversold, potentially biased, and definitely unpopular with candidates.

If you're going to use video interviewing (which can be helpful), keep the human evaluation piece. The efficiency gains from AI screening aren't worth the hit to candidate experience and the bias risks.

Technology should make recruiting better, not just faster. HireVue makes it faster, but whether it makes it better is an open question. Use it with extreme caution, or better yet, find alternatives that respect candidates as humans rather than data points for an algorithm to process.

Nobody ever said "I loved that job interview where I talked to a robot." Just something to think about.