AI, Pre-Employment Personality Tests & The Neurodiversity Dilemma in Hiring
In a job market flooded with AI-generated résumés, many employers are turning to personality assessments to vet candidates. But could this shift be solving one problem and creating another? On the one hand, recruiters face an avalanche of polished, AI-written CVs that all look the same – so much so that some say they’re “ceasing to trust them.” On the other hand, replacing CV reviews with one-size-fits-all personality tests might unintentionally sideline neurodivergent talent who don’t fit the expected mold.
Personality Tests vs. Neurodiversity: Who Gets Left Out in?
Personality and psychometric tests are supposed to make hiring fair and unbiased. Still, for many neurodivergent candidates (autistic, ADHD, dyslexic, dyspraxic etc.), these tests can feel like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Only 3 in 10 working-age autistic adults are employed today – and experts warn that widespread use of personality filters in recruitment is contributing to the problem. The issue is that these tests often measure how closely someone matches a “standard” profile rather than recognising different cognitive styles. If your brain works differently – say, you excel at pattern-spotting but struggle to answer abstract questions under timed pressure – a generic test might completely miss your strengths. As one autism advocacy leader put it, “Psychometric tests can be an enormous barrier… Many highly qualified autistic people have been unable to find work due to the prevalence of these types of tests. This has to change.” The result? Qualified candidates get screened out, and employers miss out on great talent without realising it.
The irony is thick – tools meant to reduce bias may introduce new bias against those who think differently. Rather than promoting diversity, rigid personality assessments can end up favouring a narrow definition of “ideal” personality. Neurodivergent job seekers often report that these tests feel like a game where there’s “no right answer” and any choice can be held against you. Little quirks (needing extra time, interpreting questions very literally, etc.) can translate into lower scores, knocking out candidates who could excel in the actual role. It’s a lose-lose: candidates feel discouraged (sometimes so overwhelmed that they stop applying altogether and companies potentially lose out on innovators, creative problem-solvers, and dedicated workers simply because they don’t fit the test’s template.
The CV in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Devalued or Democratised?
Meanwhile, the traditional CV itself is under scrutiny. With generative AI tools (like ChatGPT, with its accessible voice mode) helping people craft résumés and cover letters, recruiters are now inundated with slick, “oven-ready” applications at the click of a button. This has led some to claim the CV is being “devalued” as a reliable hiring tool. After all, if hundreds of applicants submit documents in the same polished style, how can anyone tell who has the skills versus who just had the best AI assistance? It’s a valid concern – to a point. Yes, AI makes it easier than ever to apply en masse, and hiring managers worry about differentiating “hundreds of clones”. No one wants to be fooled by flowery prose that overhypes a mediocre candidate.
But here’s the flip side: Should we fault candidates for using available and inclusive AI tools to present themselves well? If an AI-optimized CV accurately highlights a person’s qualifications and fit for the job, is that so wrong? For years, people have hired résumé coaches, used templates, or gotten friends to help polish their applications. AI is just the latest helper – one that’s more accessible to those who might not have professional networks or writing skills. AI can be a great equaliser. Not everyone is a born writer or marketer of their skills, and that’s especially true for some neurodivergent folks, which can be one of many barriers in recruitment for neurodivergent people. A candidate with dyslexia or social anxiety, for example, might struggle with organising a traditional CV or writing a confident cover letter. If a generative AI tool helps them articulate their experience in a clear, compelling way, it’s enabling them to compete on a more level playing field. Rather than “cheating,” an AI-written CV can reveal a candidate’s proper fit by removing barriers like awkward phrasing or typos that have no bearing on job performance. AI-driven platforms are even being used to help neurodivergent applicants by streamlining onerous application steps – even cutting out the dreaded cover letter altogether – to encourage more talent to apply.
Perhaps the focus should be less on how a résumé was written and more on what it tells us about the candidate. If AI can help a qualified person get noticed where they otherwise might’ve been overlooked, that’s a win for meritocracy. The goal is to find the best person for the job, not the best résumé-writer, right? This raises an intriguing question for debate: In the push to counter AI-generated applications, are we fixing a problem or just trading it for a new one? Should an applicant who thoughtfully uses AI to present their skills be viewed differently than one who had a human mentor do the same?
Future of Hiring: Finding a More Inclusive Way
So, how can we make hiring more inclusive without throwing out useful tools or inadvertently biasing the process? A few ideas are gaining traction:
Focus on Skills, Not Traits – Evaluate candidates with work samples or job simulations whenever possible instead of filtering by personality quiz scores. Let people show you what they can do in a real-world task. This directly measures ability and reduces reliance on abstract “fit” metrics that might exclude out-of-the-box thinkers. (As a bonus, work samples are hard to fake – AI can’t complete a live coding test or sales role-play for you!).
Adapt Interviews to make them more neurodiversity-friendly. For example, structured interviews with standardised questions should be used for fairness, but consider sharing those questions with candidates in advance. This isn’t “giving away answers” – it’s allowing people who need more processing time to come prepared and shine. Also, think beyond the typical rapid-fire Q&A: some candidates (neurotypical or not) communicate better in writing or a calm setting. You might offer alternatives like a phone or email-based interview segment or let candidates demonstrate their skills in a short take-home exercise, not just oral answers. The goal is to let each person show their strengths in the best light.
Rethink Testing – If you use personality or psychometric tests, ensure they’re fair and flexible. Consider shorter or adaptive tests that adjust to the test-taker, and never treat any single test as a pass/fail gate. Use them as one data point, not the sole decider. Better yet, offer opt-outs or alternate assessments for those who may be at a disadvantage. For instance, some companies allow neurodivergent applicants to skip the personality test if they prefer and instead submit a work portfolio – achieving the same goal of assessing fit but more personalised.
Train Your Team – Invest in neurodiversity training for recruiters and hiring managers. Often, bias in hiring isn’t ill-intentioned – it comes from misinterpreting behaviors. Learn from neurodiversity experts about communication differences. Is a candidate avoiding eye contact because they’re uninterested, or just autistic and concentrating? Does a slow response mean a lack of knowledge or simply that the person is thoughtfully processing (which could make them an excellent, careful worker)? Educating your team builds empathy and stops them from filtering out great candidates due to unconscious bias or ignorance.
Leverage AI for Good – The same AI technology that causes employers to hand-wring over CVs can be used by employers to reduce bias. For example, AI tools can help write clear and literal job descriptions (free of unnecessary jargon) so that neurodivergent candidates aren’t deterred by confusing language. AI can also assist in screening applications more objectively by focusing on skills and keywords that matter rather than on quirks of formatting or writing style. And as mentioned, AI-driven hiring platforms can simplify the application process (fewer steps, more guidance), encouraging a wider range of people to apply.
Creating a genuinely inclusive hiring process isn’t about pitting AI against humans or CVs against personality tests—it’s about being thoughtful about what we measure and how we measure it. The goal should be to give every qualified candidate a fair chance to demonstrate their potential, whether their strengths shine through in a written application, a conversation, or a hands-on task.
Your turn: What do you think about the rise of personality tests and AI-written CVs? Have you seen these trends in your own hiring or job-hunting experience? Are AI-optimized resumes a clever equaliser or a cause for concern?
Most importantly, how else can we improve recruitment to be more inclusive for everyone, neurodivergent or not?